A Spy's Guide to Thinking

by John Braddock

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.

Zero-sum games dominate the history books. They’re conflicts. They’re when one player can only gain what another player gives up.

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

Positive-sum games are different. They’re cooperative. They continue only as long as both sides are gaining, or expect to.

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

Negative-sum games are rare. They’re wars of attrition. Verdun. Or a labor strike. Both sides are losing. Each side hopes it’s losing less than the other.

Best of all, the games shortcut gets us closer to the Holy Grail of thinking: predicting what others will do next.

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

Thinking is cheap. Action is expensive.

Costs go up as thinking moves closer to action:

In this discussion of games, I’m leaning on game theory terminology but not using it exactly the way a game theorist would. For example: the term “positive-sum” (rarely used by game theorists – they prefer “non-zero sum”). Strictly speaking, game theorists could use “positive-sum” to refer to an interaction where one side’s gain supersedes the other’s, even if the other side loses.