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TEDArchive presents previously unpublished talks from TED conferences.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

source

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

43 COMMENTS

  11. This is a very bad telling of what game theory means, and actually serves against his point. Game theory using his definition essentially means the only way to win is to not play in the first place or keep going forever until the other guy gives up. This is the Monty python rendition of war. "You're arm's off!" " 'Tis but a scratch." No, there is such a thing as loosing when you're running this "infinite game".
    When america was in Vietnam we had essentially already won the war under Nixon, the Vietcong had been thoroughly crushed, but then america pulled out and didn't honor our agreement to keep Vietnam armed so the Vietcong came back. It wasn't a loss because of the Vietcong "fighting to survive" it was because of congress. Same for the more modern Iraq war. We'd already won the war under Bush, the surge had crushed Al'qaida but because Obama pulled out instead of helping the Iraqi people like Bush said we would ISIS was formed. That wasn't us "not following our values" that was a moronic military decision.
    There should be no excuse for america to ever lose a war as the larges and most powerful military on earth, but we do. It's not because of our values, it's because people are more focused on popularity than effectiveness. Staying in Iraq was unpopular, staying in Vietnam was unpopular, so politicians crippled our military effectiveness because it made them look good, the consequences can be someone else's problem. If they wanted to do the right thing (read as: following your values) they would have stayed and cleaned up the mess they made, honored their commitments, and not let the petulant children that are the public at large tell you to eat your soup with a fork.

  19. the amount of hubris you have is humbling you do realize the British starve countries by holding the trade routes and the united states did it in the revolutionary war we have been doing this for thousands of years your just really fucking stupid and think your a genius therefore you think the united states discovered that in your life time ahh come on man. your shiting on my intellect.

  20. your stupid and ignorant if you think win and lose are the only out comes in games or video games its a money churning machines its about useing the parts or power you have to serve an out come in this case keeping the wheel rolling.

  21. Guy needs to take a course in economics. Maybe even read Thomas Sowell.

    All wars are based on economics of resources. If you can make your enemy waste his resources. They will lose! As they not only waste their resources. But Time. Effort and Energy supplies. The more they do. The more time they lost on using them for more productive things. That cold have produced wealth!

  22. Funny how the best/most popular TED's are ones with very general, but polarizing views.
    Not saying the talk is good or but, I really do find it interesting how there is so much criticism of the video yet such a large view count. Probably because youtubes recommendation algorithms dont care if you liked or disliked the video, they only care that you watched the whole thing, commented, then watched something else as well. (clickthrough)

    You have to ask yourself, do you actually truly win by leaving a poorly thought out comment on the video about how "hes trying to sound so deep" when in reality you are helping the video gain more views and more popularity?

    Something to think about.

  24. I would suggest that it is based upon economic pressures before game theory. Much of US economy is based upon a vibrant war machine. The Romans did that too. Eventually it crumbles.

  27. This is not really his strong suit. In addition to the criticisms below, I'm not too sure that being predictable is always a good thing. Being totally predictable may allow allies to confidently trust you, but it also leaves you open to being exploited by enemies.

  34. Best to drop out of said game. American citizens don't benefit from this, no ordinary civilian from any country even benefits from this! The infinite game to try to be a military superpower is not a fun or even healthy game to play

  36. the problem is that the values that United State has are not good values.
    The ideology of this country is simply "to be the best", "to be on top", "to be always right". And this is done by any means necessary. You can see this in every kind of american product, such as tv, movies, political, social and even cultural propaganda. The American way is THE RIGHT WAY, and anyone who disagrees with it is wrong.

    American has an ideology where is acceptable to invade and disrupt other countries, as long as it is for the good cause of protecting America. You can see that in any American movie, where they don't have any problem on going to other countries to kill people, because they consider that those people are dangerous to this country, many times even breaking international laws and committing what can actually be consider as acts of Terrorism, but to Americans, those people are consider heroes.

    Americans organizations such as the CIA have been messing with the politics and economics of many countries, such as Operation Condor, and they are still free. Henry Kissinger was never prosecuted, on the contrary, HE RECEIVED AWARDS, after everything he did in South America. This comes from the article about Operation Condor:

    ""The editors of the New York Times defended Henry Kissinger, arguing that he should be given a pass for his role in Condor and other dirty works because "the world was polarized, and fighting communism involved hard choices and messy compromises"""

    Basically America defended and even praised Kissinger, because it was "for the greater good", even when his actions meant MILLIONS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE DEAD. Nobody cared. Why? BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T AMERICANS.

    This wars will keep happening, at least until one of this 3 things happen:
    1- America wins and controls the world with a tyrannical system.
    2- America is destroyed
    3- America realizes that they have to change their ideology, and actually tries to create peace with other countries.

    But honestly, who are we kidding, the third option is practically impossible.

  37. America is responsible for everything that it gets. It's not surprising that in a global survey the U.S. was deemed the greatest threat to world peace. Its foreign policy for the past 100 years has been truly appalling and every president the U.S. has had since then should have been thrown in jail. However the truly sad thing is that it is the average hard working U.S. citizens that suffer. They are the ones that are being brainwashed into fighting and dying in needless wars that were only started to line the pockets of corrupt politicians and the arms dealers. It is the average American man on the street who will have his house blown away in a hurricane because the politicians pretend that climate change is a hoax. They are aren't stupid, they know that climate change is real, however they have had their pockets filled by oil companies who are afraid of green energy (a quick look into who funded their campaign trail will tell you everything you need to know. Why would an oil company fund a politician? And surely it's a bit of a coincidence when said politician comes out as a climate change denier?). The politicians and the fossil fuel providers can't actually disprove anthropogenic climate change because 99% of science agree that it is happening. However just like the tobacco producers in the 1960s keen to protect their profits at the cost of human health through cancer, their job was to "manufacture doubt". A memo from a tobacco executive in 1969 said "doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the "body of fact" that exists in the mind of the public. It is also the best means of establishing a controversy"

  38. Imagine if there were a third enemy. An enemy not of the country. An enemy which was attempting to destroy the aspects of the country.
    Values are the underlying power of the USA. Why? Almost no other country has the same values enshrined in stone.
    How do you destroy a country in the long term? You destroy what it means to have values, and maybe even change those values to fit the rest of the world.
    In the end, ask yourself. If the there game were to destroy the values of the USA.
    Can you imagine the past twenty years being played any differently? If the enemy was attempting to destroy what the USA stands for as a Society. Can you predict how they might do that? An endless war? Endless different enemies?
    To understand who the enemy is, follow the results of the past. Find the patterns and then ask yourself.
    Did the USA forget the basic rules of war which every single country understands?
    Or is there an enemy trying to destroy the American way of life?

    You decide.

  40. Truly dumb. Believable guy, who probably never studied geopolitics, history, or military strategy. I wish someone would do a talk on "talkers vs doers" and the never ending battle, between those who are great performers and those that do real work. One of the worst statements he made was that everyone was united against the USA. A basic understanding of geography would completely annihilate that argument. As Napoleon said "Show me a country's geography and I'll show you their foreign policy."
    Also, this guy goes on to talk about how US imposed it's Will on the rest of the world after the fall of the Soviet Union. What? The USA was already imposing it's Will on the world before, during and after the Cold War. It's the only power in human history to control every strategic pivot point in the world. Simon probably doesn't even know what the term "pivot point" means in the realm of geopolitics, intelligence or military nomenclature.

  42. The part about the Soviet Union isnt exactly accurate. The US may have had an influence with respect to the Soviet Unions' ejection from Afghanistan, but a large contributing factor was the change in domestic politics of the Soviet Union following the "institution" of Mikail Gorbachev as Premier. He was an idealist and a realist, and realized that the Soviet Union was unsustainable, which is why he implemented economic reforms whereof included but is not limited to, the ejection and cessastion of all Soviet troops and activity, as appropriate, in Afghanistan.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here