The idea
Predicting someone's actions depends partly on understanding their objectives. A strategy can be well executed yet ineffective because it responds to a goal or success criterion the other person does not share.
Worked example · illustrative
Choosing flights for a family holiday
Situation. You’re planning a holiday with your partner and two young children. You find cheaper flights with a connection, but your partner keeps coming back to a more expensive direct flight.
The tempting conclusion. Maybe if I find an even cheaper fare, they’ll see why the connection is worth it.
What changes the view. When you talk about it, your partner says they’re worried about getting two tired children through another airport and possibly missing the next flight. You’ve been looking for a good price; they’ve been thinking about how the journey will feel. A bigger saving might matter, but it doesn’t make the transfer any easier.
What this supports. The conversation can now include both the price and the journey. You might pay more to fly direct, or find a connection with enough time and a manageable departure hour. Neither choice has to win automatically. You have a better chance of finding a flight you’re both happy with once you understand what each of you is weighing up.
Useful when
Watch for
People may have several competing objectives, and their stated goals may be incomplete. Treat your explanation of their motives as a hypothesis to investigate.
Where this came from
Game theory, Multi-agent learning