What game theory teaches us about war | Simon Sinek

I saw a definition of "winning" a war at a lecture I attended at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey Ca. It went something like this: Winning is where the state of the PEACE is better after the war than it would have been if you had not fought at all. All other outcomes are to be considered losing. The professor went on to explain. "WW1 was a loss on ALL sides because the Versailles treaty left the other side with a reason to want to fight again." As a vet I can tell you the war is not a football game. Unless everyone has a stake in the peace then nobody won.

I must say his infinite symbol is a very well drawn Pringle.

Torturing captured combatants causes them to fight to the death. Providing humanitarian treatment for the enemy causes them to want to surrender to us, because we have better doctors. It has always been about what is in our interests. What we've lost sight of is making pragmatic choices under the pressure of harsh realities. Comfort has told us that our high ideals are more important.

You realize how true this is now that America's allies are increasingly saying "not that" when looking at American politics. It's so sad to see this former beacon of democracy deteriorate into partisan squabbles, and politicians being in the pockets of lobbyists

As someone who’s 51 , I’ve noticed that the US no longer talks about it’s values like it did when I was a child. I have been been concerned about this very fact for years. Glad to see such a straightforward context. Great video!

Plato once said: "Only the dead have seen the end of war."

"A quote loosely relates to this TED Talk" ---- The comment section

Watching this in 2021, it rings more true than ever. The Taliban was playing an infinite game. The NATO was in a different game, on a different planet and spent the whole time trying to figure out what the rules were.

One thing I have noticed about win/lose thinking is that when the process is over and you have either won or lost it leaves you feeling very empty inside. For instance, I saved my money for 5 long years to buy a good car and every day during those 5 years I was dreaming about finally “winning” and getting the car. Once I bought the machine I was almost depressed for two weeks because the game was over. In this context, I think it is much healthier to play an infinite game where the goals and challenges are always morphing into new things.

"All our enemies have a singular 'not that'. And it's us." - Fact.

Interesting guy. I'm currently reading one of his books, "The Infinite Game". I think he has some very important points. We should all step back from time to time and reevalue how we do things. One of the main sources for people's problems in life is that they don't have a long vision for what they are doing. We tend to think short term.

I can't remember the last time (if ever) I said this about a TED speaker, but I'll say it now: Brilliant.

this could have been another 45min longer, would have stayed tuned for sure

Well stated. I've always held a similar personal philosophy when it comes to politics: establish your principles, and whatever opinion you go to form on any given topic must first be reconciled with them. You might feel uncomfortable taking that stance in the debate, or you'll be really tempted to support the other side, but this way you're actually forming a powerful personal ideology, being meticulous in your actions, and exercising both independent thought and self-control (and may the best philosophy win, as we've quietly said throughout the history of ideological warfare). It might make you predictable, but so is a freight train--that doesn't make it easier to stop.

"The art of war is subduing the enemy without fighting" Sun Tzu.

"Nobody wins a war , one side loses more slowly than the other" - The wire

1:52 - this point is quite interesting. This phenomenon is what makes Casinos always win versus the gamblers, what makes Wal-Mart able to stomp out competition by artificially lowering their prices until the competition run out of money. This is really the basic principal of any form of warfare. The bigger army can win simply through attrition, if the other army runs out of soldiers before it does. This is an example of an asymmetry and identifying these is often critical in logic, math, and physics.

This makes perfect sense. It explains why we still have all of the same problems, even though the USSR is gone.

"War doesn't define who is right, but who is left." - COD2

This is Simon, at his best. Very well done.