How to Think Two Steps Ahead of Everyone

Summary

The video explains second-order thinking: before making a decision, consider not only its immediate result but also what people may do next—and what follows from that. Its central prompt is “What next?”, asked more than once.

The Hanoi rat-bounty example

In 1902, French authorities in Hanoi paid people for rat tails to reduce the rat population. The number of tails collected rose, but the rat problem did not go away: people cut off rats’ tails and released them so they could reproduce, and some reportedly bred rats for the bounty. The policy rewarded a measurable proxy—tails—rather than the actual goal of fewer rats. The example illustrates how incentives can produce unintended behavior.

The video applies the same idea to everyday choices. Saying yes to several plans can seem reasonable one decision at a time, yet leave no time for an important exam or another priority. People also tend to imagine they will have more free time later than they actually do.

Five rules for thinking ahead

1. Ask “What next?” twice.

   • After considering a decision, ask what happens as a direct result.
   • Then ask what people are likely to do in response.
   • For example, before agreeing to a Saturday plan, consider what else is due that week and whether the commitment will crowd it out.
   • Use this especially for decisions that are hard to reverse. Checking a calendar before answering can reveal consequences that are easy to miss in the moment.

2. Check what your incentives and systems really reward.

   • A policy or personal system may reward a convenient measurement rather than the outcome you actually want.
   • The video recounts a study in which parents who arrived late to kindergartens were fined. Lateness increased: the fine made arriving late feel like a paid service rather than a breach of social expectations, and the habit persisted after the fines ended.
   • Apply the same check to personal tools: a streak may reward opening an app, a to-do list may reward checking off easy tasks, and time at a desk may reward sitting rather than productive work.
   • Ask whether your system rewards the result you value—or merely an easy-to-count substitute.

3. Run a premortem.

   • Before a major project, week, exam, or trip, imagine it has already gone badly.
   • Spend two minutes writing down why it failed and identify the first few likely causes.
   • Fix the simplest preventable problem now, while there is still time.
   • The video presents this as a way to surface weaknesses in a plan before they become real failures.

4. Use the 10-10-10 rule.

   • Ask what you will think about the decision in 10 minutes, 10 months, and 10 years.
   • Compare the immediate reward with its longer-term consequences.
   • If the answers conflict, the video cautions that the 10-minute perspective may be misleading.

5. Make “if-then” plans in advance.

   • Identify situations in which you commonly make an unhelpful choice.
   • Write a specific response in advance: “If [situation] happens, then I will [action].”
   • Examples include checking the week’s schedule before accepting a distant invitation or deciding what to do when tempted by a late-night purchase or morning phone use.
   • The video describes advance plans as more effective than setting a goal without deciding how to act at the crucial moment.

Rescorla’s preparation and how far ahead to look

The video tells the story of Rick Rescorla, Morgan Stanley’s security chief, who continued preparing for a possible attack after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He held regular evacuation drills despite complaints. On September 11, 2001, he directed people in the South Tower to evacuate, contrary to an announcement telling them to remain at work. The video says Morgan Stanley credited him with helping 2,687 employees survive. Its lesson is that preparation made years earlier can reduce the need to improvise during a crisis.

The video advises looking a few moves ahead carefully, rather than trying to predict every possible future. Reversible choices—“two-way doors”—usually need less deliberation. Irreversible or consequential choices—“one-way doors”—deserve more. The video closes with an example of survivorship bias: the US Army examined bullet holes on returning aircraft, while a mathematician argued that armor was needed where returning planes had no holes, because planes hit in those places may not have made it back.

Speakers and sources featured

The subtitles present the video as narrated by one unnamed narrator; they do not identify any separate interview speakers. People, institutions, and sources mentioned include:

• Thomas Sowell, recalling a teacher who repeatedly asked students what would happen next.
• An unnamed scientist credited with reducing the idea to the question “What next?”
• The French authorities in Hanoi, in the rat-bounty story.
• Unnamed researchers behind the kindergarten-fine example and the study involving people seeing older versions of their faces.
• Gary Klein, described as a psychologist associated with the premortem method.
• An anonymous 4chan user, whose account of seven days without instant rewards is described.
• Rick Rescorla and Morgan Stanley, in the World Trade Center evacuation account.
• An unnamed collection of 94 studies cited in support of advance “if-then” plans.
• Magnus Carlsen, asked how far ahead he calculates in chess.
• The US Army and an unnamed mathematician, in the returning-bomber example.