Game Theory and Relationships: The Win Null Strategy
#Game-theory #Relationships #Psychology
Introduction to Game Theory
Game theory is the study of strategic decision-making, analyzing how individuals or groups interact to achieve optimal outcomes.
In typical game theory, the option with the highest possible reward usually requires higher risk. Take the famous Prisoner's Dilemma as an example. You and your partner are charged with a crime. At this point, you cannot communicate with each other. In the interrogation room, you are given an offer: confess to the crime, send your partner to jail for 5 years, and walk free. If both confess, you each get 3 years. If neither confesses, both serve only 1 year. What would you do?
| B: Confess | B: Silent | |
|---|---|---|
| A: Confess | Both 3 years | A: freeB: 5 years |
| A: Silent | A: 5 yearsB: free | Both 1 year |
The most optimal resolution is for both parties to stay silent—this results in a combined total of only 2 years in prison. However, since neither can trust the other, both often end up confessing, leading to a worse total outcome of 6 years combined. The fundamental issue—lack of trust—leads to a suboptimal result. Trust is risky, but trust yields the best outcome.
Game theory applies to nearly every field, including relationships. Relationships often operate as a push-and-pull: If they do this, I'll do that. This hesitation and lack of trust lead to suboptimal relationships.
I used to find it difficult to form close, genuine relationships. Moving frequently meant I never had enough time. Just as I started getting close to someone, I would move away. Yet, over the past few years, I've formed lasting relationships within just days or weeks. At each summer program, I bonded deeply with 1-3 people—friends who still call me years later. How? The short time frame eliminated risk. Because I knew I would never see these people again, the worst-case scenario—awkwardness—was insignificant. With the risk minimized, I had the confidence to speak my mind, act freely, and share my story. The result? Some of the closest friends I've met.
What created those strong bonds? Trust—the trust that the other person would listen, not judge. To establish trust, there must be a test—something at stake. In most cases, that test is vulnerability. Showing vulnerability and having it empathized with or reciprocated builds trust.
At summer camps, I became vulnerable. I shared my struggles, insecurities, and fears, and in return, others did the same. This mutual exchange of trust built real connections.
However, in long-term environments like school or work, the risk of vulnerability feels much greater. Rumors and reputations can last for years. Because of this, relationships form cautiously—small steps, a slow back-and-forth dance of push-and-pull.
What if we could remove the risk of trust? What if meaningful relationships could form quickly, even in long-term settings?
The Win-Null Game: A Risk-Free Strategy
Before continuing, I want to provide a disclaimer. There is a time and place for everything. Vulnerability does not constitute of trauma dumping onto a stranger. It means sharing when basic rapport has been established and when vulnerability is appropriate. What "basic rapport" or "appropriate" means will differ for everyone. The goal of this essay is to provide the means for people to take the leap of faith and become vulnerable when the moment is right.
The Win-Null Game is a game theory solution that requires no trust, carries no risk, and offers only potential gain. The best-case scenario is the formation of a deep relationship; the worst-case scenario is nothing changing. This model does not require trust—only absolute confidence in oneself.
Absolute confidence means fully understanding, acknowledging, and appreciating oneself. In this state, external judgment is irrelevant, eliminating the fear of risk.
Applied to social interactions, the Win-Null Game optimizes relationship formation. The absolutely confident person initiates vulnerability without needing to trust the other party’s response. Since their confidence makes them indifferent to ridicule or rejection, trust is unnecessary. They don't need to trust that the other party will reciprocate. The game plays out in one of two ways:
a) You open up about your story → they mock you/don’t reciprocate → Null (nothing changes).
b) You open up about your story → they empathize and reciprocate → Win (new deep relationship).
The worst-case scenario? No change. You start at a surface-level relationship and end at surface level. The best-case scenario? A meaningful relationship.
Because the absolutely confident person does not care about the response, there is no real risk. They are unaffected by potential ridicule, gossip, or rejection. The cost of vulnerability becomes zero.
Admittedly, "absolute confidence" is a hypothetical state that is difficult to fully achieve. As such, a true "Win-Null" situation cannot be created. However, risk can be reduced in proportion to one's confidence and their nearing of "absolute confidence."
Conclusion
Relationships built on trust and vulnerability often take time. But absolute confidence can bypass this slow push-and-pull, allowing deeper connections to form faster. If you knew vulnerability carried no real risk, wouldn't you take the leap?