The "range of options" approach

What is the best approach to analysis? That's a fundamental question for just about any career field, but the answer is different depending upon the line of work.

There are some fields of study in which variables are limited, conditions are controlled, and problem sets are bounded. Those fields present circumstances which are suitable for laboratory experimentation and contribute to the reasons why the 'scientific method' is so tried and true.

But there are many other fields in which variables are numerous, conditions are ever-changing, and problem sets overlap. Further, time constraints may not allow for deliberate experimentation, instead demanding immediate attention and action. International relations is the example with which I am most familiar, but any field that hinges on human decision-making seems to fit this category where things can often feel more chaotic than ordered. How then, is one supposed to conduct analysis under such dynamic circumstances?

For years, I've kept a deck of playing cards on my desk as a reminder of the answer to that question. That small token tells me that I must approach my analysis more like a gambler at a poker table than a scientist in a lab.

Why is that?

While one is a game and the other is governance, the reality is that many practitioners deal with the same problems that poker players do, particularly those involved in international relations. Poker players always have imperfect information. All they have to go off of are the number of chips on the table, the cards that are dealt, and whatever they can glean from the behavior of the other players around them. Each of the players have disparate power, which at the poker table comes in the form of their chip counts. When power is distributed unevenly among the lot, it affects decision-making and approaches to the game.

Further, every card dealt and action taken fundamentally alters outcomes, a condition exacerbated by the fact that there are typically multiple players in the game. What this means is that what may have been true at the beginning of a hand could have fundamentally changed by the end.

Finally, decision-making in poker must come quickly. Gamblers aren’t afforded the luxury of time in assessing the situation and making their decisions.

So, how do the best poker players conduct their analysis? Importantly, they don’t try to guess the exact hands that the other players are holding; rather, they look at the range of options that they could be holding. In other words, they don’t say, “She has a pair of queens.” Instead, they might say, “She could be holding a pair of queens, a flush draw, or a straight draw.” Then, as more information comes available, they can narrow that range of options down further. That informs their own decision-making as well as the things they must watch from the other players that helps them refine their analysis even further.

Some may be wondering why this works for practical analysis. After all, it might seem that the machinations of big governments transcend those of a simple card game, but the conditions are largely aligned: imperfect information, human decision-makers, disparate power, multiple players, unknown factors, and time constraints are all the same. It also works because big organizations like governments or militaries are not monolithic, so sometimes it will not just be one explanation that applies. As such, I have found that the “range of options” approach has been the best for guiding my analysis, whether I am looking at the actions of an adversarial government, trying to understand an ally’s decision-making, or examining conflicts across the globe.

This approach is straightforward. The first step is to consider all the viable options as to why something happened or why something might happen in a given scenario. It is important not to bias this list or eliminate anything without at least some consideration, even if it seems somewhat ridiculous. Essentially, if it is something someone else in your field might argue, you should at least give it some thought. If nothing else, you avoid the inevitable question, "Did you consider this?"

The next step is to examine all the key pieces of information available and start eliminating options from that list. The options that remain are the ones you focus on as you make your own decisions related to the situation and as you continue your examination with each new development.

This approach works whether you’re assessing something that has already happened or trying to understand actions another party may take in the future. The flexibility in its application is one of the reasons it so useful.

While it can be challenging to master, the "range of options" approach is an easy method to practice. Here's how you do it: when you look at the news, don’t just consider the explanation that the article or the pundit puts forward—start listing out the other potential explanations. Gather supporting information and start chipping away at the list until you land on your own curated range of options that seem to make the most sense.?For example, you might apply this to an examination of the reasons why Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 or why Japan is pursuing a summit with China in early 2025.

This approach may feel cumbersome at first, but over time you'll start to see which information is more worthwhile and how certain players act and react. The more you apply it, the faster and more effective you'll be at using it. In the end, you will find that this approach affords you a deeper understanding of situations while enabling more agility in your decision-making. Ultimately, in a world where so much can feel up to chance, having the right approach enables you to apply skillful analysis where others are applying guesswork.