What game theory teaches us about war | Simon Sinek
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 ноя 2016
- What would happen if ‘win’ and ‘lose’ are no longer the only options when fighting a war? What if a third, more abstract ideal becomes the goal? And -- what if not all the players are aware of the new rules? Simon Sinek uses game theory to explain some of the strategies and outcomes behind past and present wars.
TEDArchive presents previously unpublished talks from TED conferences.
Enjoy this unedited talk by Simon Sinek.
Filmed at TEDTalksLive in 2015
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.
The present culture in the US approaches addiction levels of dependency on immediate and perpetual gratification. Coveting small victories has become an obsession. The perspective of those who have some distance on these issues seems lost on those who would benefit most from it. This video and your former professor's insight have given me some real food for thought. Thank you.
@@byronfickett The reason being The USA truly is a small child in age compared to some of the other players in "The Game" Russia or China for instance I know for a fact they can trace back somewhere between four and Six Thousand years. The US barely has 200 under their belt, so like small children, we tend to want it Now and consequences be damned.
Sadly, I have not come up with a solution that doesn't involve at least five to seven hundred years more growth towards maturity. I personally doubt we have that much time left to us at our current rate of "Progress". Thoughts?
@alvi syahri England, France and Germany all lost their colonial assets as a direct result of being either weakened or defeated in the first or the second war. In terms of power lost, England, ironically as one of the 'victors', was probably the real loser by the time the Berlin wall fell. If you were to look at it in terms of human suffering instead of power, Russia, by declaring war on Germany and Austria-Hungary, set in motion a chain of events and political reform that would eventually lead to some of the most in-humane conditions seen anywhere in the world and at a scale that dwarfs anything before it.
the bankers who funded both sides, won
@@licentiouslust5318 comparing the lifespan of a state with that of a human child and drawing parallels between them is retarded
I must say his infinite symbol is a very well drawn Pringle.
Holy shit
O my gosh! I thought the same thing. 😝
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed. I was starting to think my unhealthy eating was affecting more than physical health.
Now I can't unsee it.
I'm a high functioning autist and I thought the same
"A quote loosely relates to this TED Talk" ---- The comment section
I felt that
This is probably the best comment here.
just like teenagers random caption in their random photo post 😂😂
"It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations." - Winston Churchill
@@AdmiralBonetoPick one of my favorite quotes, I include it in all of my quote books
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.
Creating the most value to the most stakeholders and making sure the scores are most clear. If you are failing, you’re surveillance could be excessive, too little, or lacking refinement (in the middle).
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!
Trenchant observation. I'm in my late forties and I see our country motioning towards the form of the desperate, declining empire that Gore Vidal described. Our drones bring death from above. Our troops terrorize civilians. Our intelligence agencies torture prisoners and detain them indefinitely. We have become that which we despise. It is no wonder that the younger generation has no confidence in our political system.
@indoctus41 Im Roman, it happens. Actually, it happened. But decadence has its own splendour. After all, Christianity raised from the Roman Empire's decadence.
@indoctus41 Not true. You have just been brainwashed into believing that is true.
@indoctus41 At least I know what a logical Fallacy is when I see one. In this case, you are using Argumentum Ad Hominem. Which tells me you have no argument and trying to hide the fact by bringing up something that is irrelevant.
That's not really true. People on the street talk about values ALL the time. The MEDIA, however, only polarizes every single issue and causes chaos.
That's why they're ultimately failing and going out of business - they no longer reflect the values of the American people.
They're simply pushing a communist/fascist agenda, posing as liberalism and tolerance.
Plato once said: "Only the dead have seen the end of war."
There's no evidence he ever said that
@@marsoz_ Doesn't matter
@Neil McRobert How do you decide?
and 'only the winners will tale their tale'-unknown.
What an arse he was then as a good education would do the job
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
And how nothing for the interests in peoples lives, all greed. Don’t worry bro the masses are waking up we won’t be controlled any longer
Umm... Yeah, the Former beacon of democracy with no lobbying ...
Have you("assumptions make an ass out of you and me" and all that) read your history however short it may be(10-11 gen.). Slavery, women not allowed to vote, the monopoly, gerrymandering, the Hoover dam incident(?, May not be related), The drug war,the prohibition(moonshine), and currently bordering on police state(in the better version, and with "flag on every street corner"/"pineapple academia factory", the "ultimate evil" you tried to defeat in the second world war(which would be some awesome irony, even if that turns out bad), in the worst one). Way too high on patriotism to see reality, yeah you tried to stabilise the middle east, but i would say that is kinda your own fault the result of the cold war and both sides trying to distabilise(for their own gains) the region helping religious extremists from the "other side" after the european colonisation made some border gore, which would have stabilised it self in a decade or so as it did in the pre-colonial era(with some bloodshed and time, which kinda happened anyway). I would like some counter-exmples of times some lobby group didn't try to exploit lobbyism for personal reasons(the nearest(in accuracy, not time) example would be the hippie revolution(And please don't argue about the green revolution which is a tangled mess of interests, not worth touching with a yard stick), but that is it and still people could argue saving ones life("Peace")(and the freedom to drug yourself(or profit from them)) is a personal reason) Would have put it on "top 40 least democratic democracies on average in their history" near (current)Russia and (PR)China, but to each their own, on the polar opposite side i would have put medieval Vennece(also near the middle), yes it was pay to win, but at least it was not that hidden, the title most democratic democracy is for Switzerland for democratically changing their constitution, all laws must change appropriately to the population(a statement), but they do have some of the same "liberty of peoples mind" and "validity of the vote" issues seen everywhere else(thanks model USA(corruption corrupts cross borders, and you did put yourself on the hot chair as the center of attention) and the internet(for the fake news)), but i am not an expert(and didn't do any additional research). (Ok have ww2 and fighting "the great evil which shall not be named V1.0 ", for like a year or two, but for the rest of history that "most democratic" title is mostly unjustified. For what the lecturer said you can't wage a (Proper(as opposed to civil( a second different you in that case tho))) war by yourself you always need an enemy, so you either have to stop warring(ex:"the Christmas truce") or make an imaginary enemy(read 911,pearl harbor (":an inside job" themed) conspiracies or J.O. "1984" or the history of USSR even pre cold war( -out of pretty much anything and mostly your neighbors, God and alcoholism* (*from day one, but not alcohol)) for more details))
Realising nationalism is BS is one of the hardest lessons
@@ScabbyMcKniel well it helps your "tribe" not get burned by a night raid, so there are some uses ,but not many. Use within reason.
@@user-zn4pw5nk2v lol dude no one gonna read that long ass post of yours 😂
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.
I was literally searching for tgis comment
Both parties concerning Afganistan won the game the Taliban got their power and the military industrial complex got their money.
@@ragnardanneskjold7675 ...and only the people suffered but who cares...power and money, god and america
US pretends to be righteous, but really acts in the interest of its military industry. The world is no longer fooled by Anerican lies.
To confuse, distract, create and prolong strife, to divert attention away from the worthless indebted US currency. This is the only true US interest since ww2 and this is what the world no longer wants to endure. If the US has no military nor brainless jarheads to fight for them, the world would have annexed the US long ago for spreading its debt to the entire world.
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.
Your dopamine spike was much higher during anticipation of the reward than during realization of the reward. So you have to keep on anticipating rewards.
Reminds me of experiences professional athletes shared after winning a gold medal or some tournament. Many just go into a phase of depression, having "lost" a reason to keep going (shared by athletes like Allison Schmitt, Mark Spitz, ...)
You are describing the basis of Buddhism. Being "attached" to a desire causes pain. Getting free of attachments enables you to have peace.
"All our enemies have a singular 'not that'. And it's us." - Fact.
@CanadianLoki76 If you think that "globalism" is the enemy then you are really trying to erase underlying trends that were there through all of almost 10 000 years of the recorded history of the human species. I mean seriously, if you study history just a bit then you will see that it is pretty much based around ever increasing globalization, migration, and exchange of ideas. Every major civilization that tried to isolate itself from those trends has failed with disastrous consequences, fallen behind others, and had to change the ways, be it Sakoku Japan, the Soviet Union, the Qing China, even Sparta. On the other hand every civilization that embraced those trends has prospered throughout the history.
The US has not become the "Soviet Russia". Not even close. If you ever think like that then apply a quite simple test - compare the number of people who want to get in with the number of people who want to get out. The US is home to almost 50 million international migrants (almost 20% of all global migrants) and it is origin of very low number of migrants. That pretty much proves that the US is a very attractive place and not some sort of "Soviet Russia". The Soviet Union had to build walls and place armed guards to actually keep people in and literally no one ever wanted to voluntarily move to the Soviet Union. People are usually quite smart when they decide to vote with their feet.
@CanadianLoki76 To adopt a pizza in your localized market you need some kind of introduction to it. Developing a new market from scratch is extremely costly and hard endeavor. When you have migrants they usually play a role of creating a bootstrap market, consumption, demand for their familiar product while locals eventually get curious and adapt. That actually works in both ways and eventually you get some interesting crossovers. Humans are quite good at copying one another and learning from one another.
Of course there is also a way to develop a market by sheer amount of capital through huge international corporate investment, but I have a feel you hate that too.
And where does that rhetoric actually stop? Knowledge, for example, will change your local culture just as happily as migrants will. Are you going to limit flow of knowledge and information too? Doesn't that sound an awful lot like an erosion of various fundamental rights and freedoms to you?
Your ideology reminds me an awful lot of soviet ideologues. They too thought that contacts with external world will corrupt their precious soviet cultural distopia. They too thought that the only things they need are materials and know-how, which they could steal, buy, or reverse-engineer. In the end at the time of the collapse the Soviet Union was still producing vacuum tubes, trucks based on Studebaker design from the Lend-Lease program, cars licensed from some Fiat design in the 60s, industrial machinery based on the 1930s designs bought or captured from Germany, etc.
When you don't take part in the global cultural, economical, and inevitably exchange of people, your civilization stagnate and fall obsolete. That's inevitable.
Isolationist policies won't help you with the elite problem too. All throughout the history the elite always had superior ability to travel and access knowledge without limits. Elites in every time and place usually have allegiance to a set of values, not to a geography. If you understand that and if you will think like that it will actually make it much easier for you to make sense of the world. If you start to think in terms of sets of values and your preferences in values then it might even make it much easier for you to think about migration to a place that appeals to you the most in terms of values. It might get to be a quite interesting experience.
@CanadianLoki76 globalism has worked fine for the wealthy and the managerial classes who serve them - it is by definition not linked to any nation but to the class system (old money, nobility, new money and celebrity) perhaps what he is perpetuating (mistakenly or deliberately) is the old nationalist cant which always likes to cloak itself in "values" but what we see is expanding hedonism: bread and circuses. Not the first time entertainment and debauchery have been mistaken for liberty.
@@hauuau Well said!
@@hauuau Well Said. BRAVO! The Canadian is confused.
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.
Hi might understand of game theory, but he spits some utter ideological, blindly patriotic garbage that ruins his presentation
@@PlayerJV7 Make yourself useful and go topple a statue then...
But isnt the "right to act on your best interest" the sole principle that US is fighting for?
I can't remember the last time (if ever) I said this about a TED speaker, but I'll say it now: Brilliant.
Not only did this guy stole ideas, he talked about "bad guys", that in the definition is just perspective. He was trying to be logical yet threw in tons of horrible one sided bias and emotions. We're not the "good guys" and they're not the "bad" guys in any definition, just his perspective and what he was told growing up. Who murders innocent people in developing countries for resources? Has over 300 military bases all over the world under threat, plays bully through trade? Who has colonized almost every single country on this planet through war and racism? Yup, not "good guys" in any definition. Then says we "risk" our lives to save theirs, this guy is delusional and has never been on a battlefield. Drone strikes alone killed thousands of innocent people a year, we allow them to be treated if they are captured. That is all. Its a show of face through psychological means to portray us as the good guys, while we help some people survive and be treated, we murder much more and that is not shown on the news every night
@@JH-dl6vu Don't dismiss the validity and utility of his argument on a singular faulty vocabulary choice. By "bad guys" he is referring to opponents of of the United States of America. This is quite obvious. No one is always good all the time if you use a standard definition of good.
@@danielbergquist Exactly so don't use the word "good". No need to get upset. America is not "good" by ANY definition. Colonialists that pillage, murder and steal from people of color around the world under the guise of "good" guys or "police" the world, or "democracy" when we aren't even a democracy but a constitutional republic spreading lies is not considered "good" by any definition. You should know this then. There is almost no validity in most of his statements, just him spewing his imperialistic ideas based on his ideal of who he thought americans were because he was told so growing up then applying it to a "THEORY". Damn Bergquist, you're on every channel comment section spewing away trying to defend colonialism and white supremacy aren't you?
His logic leads to the destruction of any nation. If a country always addresses it's interests and never address its values, it will exist forever. But if a county always addresses its values but never addresses its interests, it will cease to exist! I understand that there should be a balance between the two. But that balance should ALWAYS favor a nations interests if it wants to exist for any significant period of time!
this is the worst one lol wtf
One of the most important and valuable TED talks I've seen in a while. The idea of comparing our possible choices with our values should be instilled in our middle and high school kids.
Why is this important? TED talks are presented to seem profound and important, but let us consider purely the content of the arguments presented. The speaker claims that there is a difference between a finite and an infinite game: a finite game has discrete outcomes, players and rules. An infinite game constitutes everything else. This seems a reasonable classification.
The speaker then proceeds to claim that having an opponent in a game effectively unifies allied agents against the opponent (the analogy of the infighting between US federal agencies). Again this seems reasonable, but is it a profound insight? It would seem apparent to most people, that in any contest, similar agents work together to oppose dissimilar agents.
Paradoxically, the speaker then states that in the absence of a clear opponent, agents in an infinite game should rely on a persistent set of values to navigate choices, claiming that this is an outcome in and of itself: the adherence to a value set. How is the value set determined? What happens if it changes over time? The agent in the speakers' example is an entire nation, the US. How does an entire nation interpret it's own values at any given point in time? This is an incredibly complex question. Americans as individuals have an incredibly diverse set of values. How do these coalesce into a set of unwavering national values with which to navigate global politics? One apparent answer is that they do not, except when being contrasted by a clear alternative set of values. Thus when the speaker pointed out that Americans had a clear 'not that' opponent in the USSR, he is correct. But to suggest that without a clear 'not that', policy can easily be decided by referencing some immutable set of universal national values is just rhetoric. Or more bluntly, bullshit, but presented as insight on a well lit TED stage.
Finally, to address your point about how young people should learn to navigate by their values, I would suggest that as individual agents, they navigate by no other means than their individual values. Perhaps what's more important is that young people are aware of how and from whom they acquire their values, and learn to introspect on the merit of their current values in enabling them lead happy and fulfilling lives.
Your kind of falling for attacking in your third paragraph. You seem to want to make values finite. You also seem to miss the over arching purpose of this and many other ted talks to act as springboards for further discussion and thought.
This is an exert from Obama's letter to Trump:
"Second, American leadership in this world really is indispensable. It’s up to us, through action and example, to sustain the international order that’s expanded steadily since the end of the Cold War, and upon which our own wealth and safety depend.
Third, we are just temporary occupants of this office. That makes us guardians of those democratic institutions and traditions - like rule of law, separation of powers, equal protection and civil liberties - that our forebears fought and bled for. Regardless of the push and pull of daily politics, it’s up to us to leave those instruments of our democracy at least as strong as we found them."
It quite clearly starts a general strategy for foreign policy and the values which guide them. It also shows how aware the last President and therefore the American government was of the shifting geopolitical situation when the cold war ended and shows they had clear, definite objectives. In other words, it shows that every single last thing this fool of a man uttered in this vague, meaningless, self aggrandizing presentation was total horseshit.
unfortunately, our values r in conflict
Damn, this was a good read to hear the opposite opinion. But in the end both focus too much on the U.S which is an incredibly complex nation. Perhaps these rules could work fine in an area like north Korea or even Saudi Arabia.
"The art of war is subduing the enemy without fighting" Sun Tzu.
"It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations." - Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill, “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it”
"The real enemy is within." Confucius.
😒
Game Theory 101: The Complete Textbook
amzn.to/3Bpiy3z
"Nobody wins a war , one side loses more slowly than the other" - The wire
kells nk that’s not a quote from the wire? It’s lasted way longer than that
@@theanarkiddie4569 Maybe, but the first time i heard it was on the wire
Maybe we should ask the ancient Carthiginians their opinion on that statement. lol
But some people die before they see the consequences of their postponed defeat after they have "won" and thus had a pretty damn good time in the meanwhile.
Game Theory 101: The Complete Textbook
amzn.to/3Bpiy3z
BUT HEY, THAT’S JUST A THEORY, A GAME THEORY
And...... cut!
A Game Theory theory.
@@Sydney_Angelyt Thanks for watching!
a scientific theory
Actually i was searching for 'TED talks Matpat" and i found this video lmao
this could have been another 45min longer, would have stayed tuned for sure
Instead we just got this very broad and general concept
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.
You had me until the freight train analogy -- using the speed and mass of the train against itself is quite simple.
Abandoning your Kurdish allies so swiftly is a perfect example of acting through particular interests rather than values and virtues
TheNightangel77 hear, hear
@How Did you know Temperature is a function of economic policy, heard of global warming?
@How Did you know Well sorry guess i'm just stupid, thanks and have a nice day
@@ZoapOfDoom it's okay I still love you
@How Did you know
This is just such a fucking defeatist attitude. I like how you say that we can stop global warming but apparently we can do nothing to help people resolve their differences and reverse the political decisions that have doomed an entire region to bloodshed and crisis. Much of the violence of the middle east would subside if we were to destroy Islamic fundamentalism and redraw the boundaries of the middle east along ethnic lines. It would sure help a hell of a lot if the Kurds were given their own state, and because of our intervention in Syria and Iraq, they almost were, but because God Emperor Trump is a fucking coward and willing to let strongman dictators step all over the US, the region's going to be plunged into years more of bloodshed. We didn't stick to our values of life and liberty, and look what's happening?
"War doesn't define who is right, but who is left."
- COD2
Can someone please explain what this means
@@l1mbo69 By "who is left" the quote means who survived the conflict. Whoever was on the "right side" is meaningless. A "just cause" from one perspective is really irrelevant.
@@joshh4760 ah, so it's like the old saying of history is written by the victors. Clever play of words
@@l1mbo69 Um, you can interpret it that way. Although I do agree that it is a clever play on words.
Well, it’s Bertrand Russell’s quote, but it is great that video games reiterate such profundity.
This makes perfect sense. It explains why we still have all of the same problems, even though the USSR is gone.
Life is war, death is peace
Americans were/are so gullible that they believed their issue was "communism", ignoring that Russia was a plain old dictatorship, just like China (but nobody really cares now, right? Because 90% of what we buy, food aside, is produced there), and without having probably a single teacher explain you what Marx was actually about.
In the USSR if you were young, thrusting & ambitious you only had one choice.The party.So you had thousands that were more than breathing , same again that were more than functional & many that were thrusting individuals.The blackmarket satisfied the "haves" etc. Classic case of what Simon Sinek suggests, with death by torture the indignity of failure.
it doesn't make any sense. It's total jew nonsense.
@@jhk6558 Really. Well thought through conclusion stoopid!. Jews were persecuted for 100's of years in Eastern Europe & the entirety of Russia.Thanks for your contribution, flabby testicle.
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.
Not soldiers. Firepower. You can have lots of soldiers and firepower nonexistent in comparison to enemy.
You have Ukraine now using long range middles with electronics and Ruskies with unlimited conventional rockets. And you end up with equal conditions WWI like. Tripple army on russian side wouldn't change much. And now it's to late to try.
But you pointed out well that your goal is to end enemy, push him to limit, break him. Not let him live and recover after learning from mistakes. Pressure is the best teacher. Rising Rome was example
and still walmart cant compete in countries in eu ,but you are right
The problem comes when the people who make the decisions (in either economics or politics) _can_ indeed "win" a finite game, and thus _play_ according to those rules. When all they care about is what _they_ can personally "get out of it" until next year/election/whatever, and don't give a damn about what'll happen in 10, 20, 50, ... years - well, then _they_ can indeed "win" their goal, but the overall company (or country) will be significantly worse off because the "player" in control played according to finite rules in an infinite game.
Who else is here from MatPat?
This speech has aged like fine wine
"Maybe Iran"
"We don't fear nuclear war with China [we fear economic war]"
Truly prophetic
Kwesi Levy it’s actually formally known as - good journalism. Truth is not prophetic.. it’s no fashion statement.. make a change
Nothing really changes. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game
It was in 2016 not at all prophetic.
You should have at least known about the build up to an Iran war in 2016. As for economic rivalry with China.....
Prophetic? Do you live under a rock?
Cold War 2: Even Colder
Cold War 3: Ice Age
sounds like the sequel for a cheesy 80s or 90s movie
Cold War 2: Nuclear Boogaloo
Cold War 4: Who Let The Fridge Open?
Starring Jean Claude Van Damme
Came here from MatPat's Final Theory!
This is excellent - and really brings to point the short sightedness of alot of western governments. However, staying predictable is also to the advantage of your opponents, so it really depends on what do you value more in terms of your aims.
I would argue always acting in your immediate interests is also predicable
@@nathanwilson4521 different actors within the same system will have a different idea of their own interests, and of the system as a whole. and even if they have a prior agreement about those interests and stick to them (they won't), the system itself needs to grow up mentally to the new level: one when it's realized that the only way to improve someone else is by treating them well and teaching them by example. USA is instead known for ignoring values of countries if they're different than their country's values. which is then seen as PREDICTABLY BAD.
Staying predictable so your opponents know what you will do can also be an advantage because it can restrict their actions. They know how much they can push before they cross a line that takes it up a level, and they may have no interest in getting to that level. That in turn makes _them_ predictable, which is to your benefit.
If it’s so excellent why don’t u marry it! Lol
No one is actually listening to what this person is saying, judging from the comments. They're either too quick to judge or too quick to hate for this guy disagreeing with the USA policies. What he is saying is that we should conserve our resources as much as possible because this war will go on longer than one thinks. You disagree? Look at the amount of military spending and debt the United States is in before commenting. It lies a sinkhole ready to collapse sooner or later that'll endanger the world's economy if they continue acting like this is a finite war of ideology and power. Moral values are infinite and universal. Interest are short term and adaptable. But he believes in constant probability in morality rather than interest because it is CONSTANT. It is predictable, safe, reliable. I'd lend my money to a trusted individual who can guarantee a 2% return annually over a person who I don't trust can 'guarantee' a 7% annually. We are not risk takers, this is proven time and time again by multiple social experiments. Our Civilisations is built on trust and morality and ideologies.
Anon Anon junk
Nah I'm disagreeing because he makes catch-all statements that simply aren't true. Companies focused on the finite being beaten by companies focused on the infinite? Waging a finite war when you should be waging an infinite one? Those both don't make sense. History shows that happening just as much as the opposite.
This is the perfect example of a TED talk that's all about the speakers charisma and using fancy statements that sound awesome.
*Anon* no doubt not many people understand. It's hard and complicate the topic for those who didn't even have an idea of what is a value Simon talking about. It's also hard to explain a lot of details in the short time given by Ted. Even watch his hour long talk still leave some uneasy questions to some people. However, when I'm watching a lot of Simon talks, I'm starting to feel that it's rhythm together and only start to understand his concept when I'm put it to practice in real life. After that I finally understand that Simon really runs his ideas through his own value before gave a speech. That's why it's "rhythm" because it's going in the same direction, even if the detail or topic is different.
+EkEMaN91 - you didn't understand what the man said at all and his point went directly over your head. he did not say "companies focused on the finite being beaten by companies focused on the infinite". he said that the idea of "business" itself is infinite. it was here long before any company was created and it will be here long after the last company has gone under.
bartering was business. trade was business. slavery was business. the idea of business is infinite. companies however, like Apple or Google or Amazon, are all finite and mostly have finite goals; which are "being better than so and so" and maximizing profits. all companies are probably finite, because most companies most likely won't last forever and certainly have not always been in existence.
so when Amazon grows into a monopoly and decides to buy another business like one that has gone out of operation, like Borders, these are finite goals and entities. RedBox says "I have to do better than Blockbuster" and Blockbuster says "I have to do better than RedBox" rather than looking at the infinite picture and potentially bringing new ideas to the forefront. so in this struggle, one will win and the other will lose and most likely the loser will be consumed by the victor. most, if not all, companies are focused on the finite but the idea of business itself is infinite
with regard to war, you have to have goals for the war you are attempting to fight. there are finite goals and infinite goals. finite goals can be achieved and accomplished, infinite goals are more difficult to achieve and don't have a definite endgame that can always be achieved. so like he said when the US was fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, our finite goal was to expel the soviets from the country and drive out the communists/communism. that is something that can be achieved not necessarily easily, but it can be achieved in a more manageable way. all you have to do is overpower or have better strategy than your enemy. but Brzezinski also said "if we can't do that, then we will make it as expensive as possible for them to stay" as in draining the actual will for the soviets to stay. if we make it extremely expensive, then they will begin to see it as harming them more than being beneficial to them because the costs will rise, financially or the lives lost. but this is an infinite goal that relies on things that aren't in our control and depends on the soviets financial state and their desire to continue decreasing as well as their resources depleting.
I guess he should have just walked onstage, said 'think long term' and walked off. That would have saved everyone a lot of time and been just as helpful.
His point: Recognize the games we’re in (infinite or finite), act accordingly (long term if infinite and short term if finite), and plan our actions based on our values rather than our interests if we’re playing the long/infinite game.
Michael Ahn
Perfect summary.
Thx
This is Simon, at his best. Very well done.
Brilliant! Thank you for laying it out in such a clear and concise manner.
But...
So... a finite game is Checkers, and an infinite game is two ten year-old boys playing Checkers.
or Stock Ticker... with a pillow fight occasionally to reset the game
Or two ten year olds playing anything.
Game Theory 101: The Complete Textbook
amzn.to/3Bpiy3z
pretty accurate
The Chinese are the masters of the infinite game. 3600 years of written history and running.
This is why the US think the sino-vietnamese war was a Chinese loss. However, Deng Xiaoping achieved 3 goals at that time: getting rid of conservative generals who do not realize that modernization and opening up the economy was important, the removal of excess manpower which did not match economic growth yet at that point, and at the same time bogging down over a million Vietnamese in their northern border, allowing China to leapfrog Vietnam economically with a 30 Year advantage in economic development today as a result
Interesting way of looking at it, if oversimplified. The point on predictability and values is solid because those are the foundations on which you build greater systems.
Where there is no predictability, there's nothing to build on top of... And nobody likes people with no values.
What an incredibly succinct and elegant explanation.
6 years later, this is so much more relevant. Wow
A very short - and therefore (over)simplified - but insightfull presentation of how we can look at geopolitics today. Insightful, because it shows that values are being neglected more and more and politics tend to look more at 'interests' nowadays, forgetting that what is in our best interest, should be based upon what we values we hold.
The hallmark of a great GURU is inclusivity of thought; when WE are included in the idea itself we BECOME part of the IDEA and often feel the sensation of having already knowing the idea that was just taught to us.
I lost the game because I watched this.
You monster, I was going strong for about a few years.
Bro literally me too i was like ahhhhhhh
same, you bastard
I as well have lost. Such a sad occurrence.
What game?
A very interesting approach to what's been going on in the world.
6:00 Some of "us" know it's infinite. Halliburton, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin. They all know what they are doing. Keep the little wars going, and make the profit.
Not to mention the fear, so silly little voters keep thinking we need to spend moat of our money on defense. Then these voters quibble about the allocation of scraps left over lmao
The USA political economy can be described as a corporate plutocracy and oligarchy.
Not what I clicked on it for. Still extremely satisfied
Begin with values = Start with why. Great job Simon
I'm extremely distracted by the fact his infinite sign looks like a perfectly drawn pringle potato chip
you noticed too haha
I too, was scrolling to see if I wasn't the only one. I admit, it was a bit long at the top. But it was far better than anything I could draw if I was concentrating
Ha ha ha! YES!
And he ate the potato chip. (Guess the reference)
@@ByzantineCapitalManagement You've eased my boredom for quite a while. It's been quite fun!
Problem with one PART of this guys argument: we are always in the "cold war" by this guys definition, international tensions therefore are always Infinite. And we've never, in the USA been solely driven by our "values," nor has the USSR ever been solely driven by their "values." It would be hard to point out a time in recent US history wherein we were driven by our values alone, often our interests trump our values. Even in WW2, the most ideologic war in recent history (freedom vs facism) where the US is always looked back on as the hero of the situation, we were perfectly capable of abandoning our "values" by dropping not one, but TWO atomic bombs on civilians in Japan. To justify this, one must say "well it was in the best interest" but you would be hard pressed to say this follows our "values." If someone were to say "it does support our values" then it calls into question, what exactly ARE our values if we justify the killing of civilians? And who holds these values? It is the crux of his argument that in playing the infinite game we must first judge our actions through a filter of our values, always. And if we are being are honest about history we know that has never happened consistently in history for ANY country, and the same goes for the US. So who is he to say that this is a more effective strategy in dealing with international tensions? Im not saying this guy is full of shit, but his argument is much too simple minded, and I don't believe it represents reality.
This is a very general counter argument, but he also makes a lot of assumptions, one egregious one is that our inconstancy with foreign policy makes it easy for other groups to take advantage of us. Which is wrong, because it is much easier to take advantage of something, when its response is consistent each time. Im not even from this country, I immigrated here as a child, and maybe this is why I recognize this foolish argument. And the US is a great country, but it is, in the end just a country like the rest. And with that comes all the problems with history and present times that any other country has.
The US I stand up for, because it is great, but where it needs criticism it is our duty, intellectually, morally, and as citizens to criticize it.
Excellent short explanation of a complex never ending narrative.
It is in the interests of an army to treat the enemy well when captured - including medical treatment. This becomes known and the enemy is much more likely to surrender. Sinek gets this point wrong. Ultimately he also showed how it's in your long term interests to operate with a system of values rather than to pay attention to short-term interests. He is arguing for enlightened long-termism. I agree with him.
Many thanks, Simon, for another great talk and tha clarity of concepts. Chapeau ❤️❤️❤️
The Infinite game is like trying to run on a treadmill as long as possible (preferably infinitely)
You either keep running, get forced to stop running or decide for yourself to stop running.
When a “player” loses focus on the primary goal of continuing to run for as long as possible and focuses instead on a wide variety of smaller goals all dividing our focus and resources and spreading ourselves thin...we forget what goal was the most important
It’s using all of our energy in the first round of a fight, only to have no energy in the second or third and to get knocked out...
It’s using all of or energy to sprint for that pass in a soccer game that never comes...and now your position is open, your teams defence is vulnerable and you’ll be playing sub-optimally for the remainder of the match because you chose to waste your energy making a run for a pass that didn’t come....you thought (I’m in a perfect position for a pass, I’m wide open I’ll have a great opportunity on goal...but you bet it all on black and lost)
The game was 90 minutes and the player made the decision as if they only had 90 seconds left
It’s a marathon not a sprint
And we want to be running for as long as possible....if we wear ourselves down.....our time spent playing the Infinite game will be over a lot sooner than we would want
And when others want us to stop running on the treadmill they can do things like deny us access to water, increase the speed or incline of the treadmill, turn up the heat in the gym, etc to make running harder and harder until we can’t run anymore or choose to stop running...
If we try to do to much...we wear ourselves down...too focused on all the things we can get....and not realizing how much it will cost us!
If I have only 5 gallons of gas in my car, and I want to go to 5 stores all over town to purchase 5 different items...I don’t have enough gas to get them all...and if I try to get them all I will end up trying to do to much....I was blinded by my interests....I wanted that new laptop so badly that I didn’t check how much gas I had in the tank...I didn’t even think about not having enough gas...I just wanted the laptop! And due to my short-term thinking I got stuck far from home with no way back
Long comment
it's like when a sub comes in, spends all their pent-up energy on a couple of runs, and doesn't make much of an impact on the game
@@Shadow-147 short
A man becomes what he repeatedly does, so after seeing this presentation one can conclude that our "interest" is the only value we stand for.
“Is this chicken, what I have, or is this fish? I know it's tuna, but it says 'Chicken by the Sea.”
― Jessica Simpson
It's good that there's a lot of thinkers in USA too, you need them to tell stuff like this. It's common sense though, applies to both countries and people. It's basic sociopathy to act only based on your interests, not on your values. It distances you from others whether you're a person or a country, because who wants to be with someone who's there just to use you? Nobody but those who think they can use that person instead. You'll only attract abusers and distance friends that way.
Things like compassion and care help build bonds. In individual level it's emotional, in country level it's helping the other country with something important to them.
And besides, it's cheaper for you as a country to have friendly countries that go to war with you, not against you, than being all alone. Because even if you could take on the rest of the world alone, it'd cost you dearly. And the more powerful you are, the more powerful your enemies want to become, so knowing your military spendings they're not gonna cut on theirs until you do so. It's basic human nature to prepare for threats, but if you're already stronger than others, what's the point?
"It's all in the game, yo" - Omar Little
this guy really has some insight other would-be leader should learn from. learned a lot in just few mins than the many years of going to school.
I was 6 years old when the wall came down, but even I could tell over the next several years that we hadn't won the game. The Gulf War happened what felt like an eyeblink after that, and while it was exciting to see our military curbstomp the Iraqi forces, it was easy to see that we weren't living our values.
One simple problem is that we are becoming a nation split and torn by differing values. This makes the analysis of "best interest" vary considerably and makes it very hard to analyze any situation to come up with any action.
Isn't having differing views key to the human experience? If we all had one view we'd be drones, slaves. Why would you want a future without differing opinions?
@@realitytest7634 well, as I said, its differing values that are the issue. We can have different views, as like you said that is something that cultivates success and makes life better....but, when noone can agree on what we VALUE it makes for a mess and ultimately impedes any long term success.
@@dwightsbeats4274 differing values are the issue. Why is that the case? Why should everyone value the same exact things as well? Shouldn't people be free to value what they've grown up to learn to value instead of assimilating into everyone else's values?
@@realitytest7634 One way I heard to put values or how some would say truths, lets just say, drops a pen.
One person value may say that the pen dropped to the floor. Meanwhile someone else say that in their own value that pen did not in fact drop. While one is most definitely the more accurate one then the second says their value is equal to the first, even when the evidence is to the contrary. And trying to argue against that when the second believes with all their heart that the pen did not drop is borderline impossible if its that set in their value.
@@razortheonethelight7303 there's a major difference between complex ideological systems and the dropping of a pen. One is backed by millions of years of human history and development as well as complex functioning minds with complex moral systems trying to figure out what is right for them. Eventually developing a subjective truth. The other is a pen
"Nations must think one hundred years ahead" -- Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Fuck off
"It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations." - Winston Churchill
@@AdmiralBonetoPick fuck off
Tyrone Deckwad You’re like Bryan from family guy
considering the advances in technology, it's no longer something that can be planned for...
This is a mind blowing concept. Totally loved it! 😇
What a wonderful, wonderful talk!
I need to write this: WOW!
You have explain in a simple way something that I am trying to say since many years ago.
If you havent watched Simon's other material, do a quick search on the internet. This dude does some deep thinking about everything
Brad Young indeed he certainly does
Simon Sinek is s o
likeable
talented
and
intelligent.
( I am a fan )
Great presentation ! One of my favorites!
"War Is a Racket" - General Smedley Butler
Respect man 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 us establishment must watch it man.
Winning without a single fight is the epitome of war. Today’s glory is tomorrow’s past. One more ally is one less enemy. Let’s put down selfish interests and live together in harmony.
WoW, thank you for this. A very useful point of view.
"There isn't such thing as a winnable war
We don't believe in these lies anymore."
Sting.
Close. “There's no such thing as a winnable war
It's a lie we don't believe anymore”
Exactly.
The best outcome for a smart player is not to enter the game.
Look at switzerland back at ww2.
@Schnappi der Übermensch i dont know about those two but as an iranian. I can deffinetly tell that my country's dictator government was eager to enter the game.they are willing to stay in power even if they have to kill 1500 protestors in 3 days.i believe the US and Iranian government are shaking hands behind the curtain to keep eachother in power.im saying this for a few reasons.over all these are some dirty games and the only way to come out on top you simply should NOT be a marble.
Oh, there are winners: Those manufacturing the weapons.
Game Theory 101: The Complete Textbook
amzn.to/3Bpiy3z
You know, I'm probably pretty much against this guys world view, but he has some really good points. We need to focus on the long struggle, and we can only "win" that one by sticking to our ideals and testing our actions to them.
Really a brilliant presentation. Clear, concise and understandable. Thank you, Mr. Sinek.
Imagine having Simon as any one of your major college class professors. How much more would have learned, become, changed in the world. 🤯
TED thank you...better late than never. 🤓
I have college proffessors a lot like him. Im taking arevolutions in modern warfare class its very intriguing and similar to this.
This is one of the most coherent overviews of why current U.S. policy is in such a shambles.
It brings two illustrations for the second game style to mind:
1) Data's strategy in "Peak Performance" which is to "win" by seeking a stalemate. In other words, to play to keep the game going.
and
2) "Strange game. The only winning move is...not to play." - Wargames. Which is actually not true. Nuclear war cannot be won by playing to win. It can only be "won" by playing to keep the game going.
"But Hey, That's Just a Theory, A Game Theory!" -Simon Sinek
LOL. I'll pay that. Have a drink on me...🥃
The point is, in science, this sentence is paradoxic. A theory is proven. What you mean is a hypothesis.
404 game theory not found, what a click bait title
@@sorrowandsufferin924 can't be proven if its infinite
It's always about interests. Values are upheld for as long as they serve our interests.
That's how you loose an empire, ask the romans. :D. Don't get me wrong but, If you don't honor your own word and what you stand for, then who the fuck would ally with you? Every double stabber in history had a "Short term", hell, you don't even need to go as far as countries, can you have trust in anyone that betrays his own words?
This guy is a great speaker I don't even care about the topic he is talking about I just like hearing what he has to say
Great very insightful! Thank you Sir!
Wow, this is very perceptive
ah yes matpat
Very interesting! Thanks for explaining.
Excellent presentation! Very well explained!
An infinite problem spoken in finite word.
Actually the problem is finite too: greed.
This guy's pretty insightful. Good vid.
this is the definition of wisdom !
I would love to see an updated version of this for the 2020s
But that's just a theory...
A well thought out juxtaposition of finite vs infinite game philosophy in which the different strategies of everything from war to business are decided by how each side chooses to view the long term goals of the game they are playing... theory.
Also if you want to support my patreon go to the link in the dedcription and feel free to join our discord channel
Xtrapenguin Aaaaaaaannndd cuuuuutttt.....
:) It's just as in real life, the ones who are making specific, final goals are ending being forever stuck whilst the others are never stopping in their ascension.
Paul Petru Alexandru Cazacliu can relate
Game theory in cases like this fall under being a social science and as such one should be careful in how they apply game theory and to what. By the way you are using the term theory wrong.
You bring an injured bad guy back to base and nurse him because he'll provide valuable info when he's healthy.
he explained it so well
If only our leaders could view the world in this manner.
But that's just a theory. A game theory!
1:44
*Giggity.*
Anonymous Hahahahahahaha
goo
Not only did you get me to click but you got me to lol. Well played, well played.
I guess you could say he played a finite game
lmaoooo you're something else
Here we are in 2021. his speech is more relevant than ever.
Oh Damm. What a refreshing view ! That was something.
It sounds more like goal theory than game theory. Like he's saying don't set your goals to have finite outcomes, but set them in a way that you strive for it and don't stop ever.
Right? It has little to do with traditional game theory (by which I mean Nash, Morgenstern, Smith et al.). I only know Sinek from viral videos so I´m not really familiar with his academic work, but this particular theory seems to have quite a few holes imho.
Yup, no Game Theory here at all.
Amazing. Thoughtful, insightful, realistic and amazing.
BEST CLIP EVER SEEN VERY SHORT VERY ANALYTICAL THANK YOU TED
This is a brilliant analysis.
The war for resources and values, while wasting resources and creating mistrust, in a world with finite resources and endless evil...
Actually just want to play Stellaris now, damn it.
resources aren't finite
Ondřej Paul the most valuable ones are or might as well be because they take so long to recuperate (think oil)
@@ocima_ankapa nothing is infinite it's just that the amount can't be imagined by our brains.
@@keepermovin5906ye you're repeating some professor, who believed so strongly in what you say, that he accepted wager
and lost
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager
@@alchemist6819 time is.
As long as people exists, there will be resources - people's work.
This is an extremely simplistic way to look at the subject.
This sound so relevant in 2022 ...nice one Simon
Grate video. I newer had this perspective to game theory. Thank you.
Clausewitz summarized that you win by breaking either will or ability to compete / fight.
The Romans figured that out over 2000 years ago when they imposed sanctions on Carthage after the Second Punic War that were so damaging that Catharge would never again pose a threat to the Roman Republic.