The 1983 movie “War Games” stared Matthew Broderick as a hacker who stumbled into NORAD’s strategic command computers. He triggers an artificial intelligence set on “winning” a simulation, or game, called “Global Thermonuclear War.”

The artificial intelligence is named after its inventer’s son, Joshua, who died as a child. “Joshua” runs through various scenarios, trying to determine what strategy will win a war against the USSR.

Joshua experiments with every possible scenario for a nuclear war and movie viewers see a different set of cities wiped out with each iteration. After trying out each option and running through each world-destroying situation, Joshua arrives at an enlightened solution.

At the end of the film, the characters rejoice in their avoidance of a nuclear holocaust, and, in a very real way, Joshua’s learning when to give up playing: “A strange game.  The only winning move is not to play.

Joshua has discovered a principle that many might emulate. Sometimes when you are forced onto the horns of a decision, the best way to deal with it is to step back and recuse yourself. When the game can’t be won, don’t play.

The movie deals with this principle by equating an unwinnable situation with futility:

Stephen Falken: Except, that I never could get Joshua to learn the most important lesson.
David Lightman: What’s that?
Stephen Falken: Futility. That there’s a time when you should just give up.
Jennifer: What kind of a lesson is that?
Stephen Falken: Did you ever play tic-tac-toe?
Jennifer: Yeah, of course.
Stephen Falken: But you don’t anymore.
Jennifer: No.
Stephen Falken: Why?
Jennifer: Because it’s a boring game. It’s always a tie.
Stephen Falken: Exactly. There’s no way to win. The game itself is pointless!

Games keep their players’ interest by sustaining a competition while concealing the victor; only upon the end of competition will the victor be revealed (the “winner”) and the game ends.  When no victor is to be had, the game becomes “pointless”.  Making the decision to do nothing, stepping back from the choices presented, that can sometimes be the most empowering decision.  In a case where competition is coupled without a winner, the only way to win is not to play.

Some games are futile because there can be no true winners, even if there are players. Understanding what is futile can be a true power, one that often eludes us.

There are plenty of opportunities to apply the “Joshua Principle” in everyday life. The first, and easiest, is to use it when you are presented with decision between binary options: would you like chocolate or vanilla? Well, maybe you don’t care for either! An expert salesman’s oldest trick: present the buyer with two options, buy X or buy Y. It frames the decision in a way that can only benefit the seller. The Joshua Principle takes you out of this forced decision making and brings you back to your own terms.

But it’s even more important when deciding whether to engage an enemy or get involved with a difficult situation. The Joshua Principle mandates that you should consider all possible outcomes and compare them against the status quo. If no one can claim the winner’s mantle, then the game is futile. What happens if I choose X? What happens if I choose Y? If I choose neither X nor Y, am I better off? If you choose either one yet not come out the winner, then it would be best not to choose.

1 Comment »

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed