A Spy's Guide to Thinking

by John Braddock

the best things aren’t the new things. Used things are better. Worn things. Things that have worked in the field. For fifty, sixty years, if possible. Updated, sure. But tested. Proven.

If thinking doesn’t end with action, it’s useless. Taking action is why we think.

That’s the chain of thinking: D-A-D-A. Getting data leads to analysis. Analysis leads to a decision. A decision leads to an action. Simple. That’s how thinking works.

Analysis is filtering. Sifting wheat from chaff. And analysis does something else: it combines new data with what we already know.

Without good analysis, we can’t make good decisions. Without good analysis, we can’t even figure out what our options are.

You’ll notice something interesting about the way scientists think: they don’t start with data. They start with a hypothesis. Then they go to the data.

Intelligence agencies start with the decision. Like scientists start with the hypothesis. That’s how we know what we’re looking for.

Don’t lose the game. Because losing this game means you don’t play the next game. The next game is bigger.

Hurrying is the surest way to screw up. Screwing up slows you down. Hurrying makes the game you’re trying to get past take longer.

The first question should always be, “What kind of game do they think we’re playing?”

Every interaction is a kind of game. Some games have winners and losers. Some games have only winners. Some have only losers.

All our interactions are only three kinds of games: A. Zero-sum B. Positive-sum C. Negative-sum

Power politics are zero-sum games, no matter what politicians want us to believe.

Whatever the context, positive-sum games require exchange. They require voluntary action. Benefits to both sides.

The first step to winning a zero-sum game is to know it’s coming.

The best way to win a zero-sum game is to be good at positive-sum games.