A Spy's Guide to Thinking

by John Braddock

Whichever pilot goes through the process quickest is the one who usually wins.

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.

It’s impossible to think deeply about each game. There are too many. If we tried, we’d only think. Never take action. Which would be useless. Even for one person, there are too many interactions in a day to analyze each one.

Positive-sum games are different. They’re cooperative. They continue only as long as both sides are gaining, or expect to. Like any good marriage or alliance or business partnership, benefits to both sides is what keeps it together. When you add up the gains, the result is positive. A positive-sum game.

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

Winning isn’t just about being good at conflict. In fact, being good at conflict isn’t the best way to win a zero-sum game.

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

If they don’t do a good job collecting data, filtering it, prioritizing it and combining it with existing knowledge, they won’t make the right decision. If they don’t make the right decision, it doesn’t matter how much they spend on action. They’re doing the wrong thing.

This is a problem I need to work on.

If you’re not going through this chain smartly in your daily life, it’s not good. But when conflict comes and you don’t think smartly, it’s worse. If you’re still collecting or analyzing data while others are acting, you’re in trouble.