The White Lotus Illustrates Revenge and Spite In Game Theory Decisions
Shane and Armond Hate Each Other!
One of the most compelling aspects of HBO’s The White Lotus is how it dissects human behavior under pressure. In a world of wealth, privilege, and fragile egos, every interaction is a strategic move—whether the players realize it or not. But there’s one theme that stands out across seasons: revenge. And when you analyze it through the lens of game theory, it becomes even more fascinating.
There are some serious spoilers in this post, so please watch the show first if you don’t want to be spoiled!
The Payoff of Revenge
Game theory is all about decision-making in strategic situations. In an ideal world, rational actors should always make decisions that maximize their benefits and minimize their losses. But humans aren’t perfectly rational—we’re emotional, impulsive, and often driven by something beyond material payoff: vengeance and spite.
Revenge is one of those behaviors that often seems irrational on the surface. After all, why would someone expend time, effort, and risk to “get back” at another person? The cost can the material gain. But in The White Lotus, revenge isn’t just about the immediate payoff—it’s about deterrence, power, and self-image.
Shane and Armond’s Feud Gets Out of Hand
Shane and Armond’s feud in The White Lotus is a textbook case of how spite can escalate into mutual destruction. What begins as a simple booking mishap—Shane feeling entitled to the Pineapple Suite and Armond refusing to indulge him—quickly turns into a tit-for-tat game fueled by wounded pride. Shane, accustomed to getting his way, sees Armond’s passive-aggressive resistance as an unforgivable slight, while Armond, struggling to maintain his sobriety and authority, takes perverse pleasure in needling the entitled guest. Their escalating battle isn’t about the room anymore; it’s about ego, power, and proving a point. As each tries to one-up the other—Shane with entitled complaints, Armond with increasingly reckless sabotage—they become trapped in a zero-sum game where neither is willing to back down.
Revenge often blinds people to rational self-interest, and nowhere is that clearer than in how this rivalry ends. Armond, once a composed hotel manager, devolves into self-destruction, indulging in drugs and ultimately taking a final act of defiance by breaking into Shane’s room and defecating in his suitcase. Shane, whose grievances were never more than minor inconveniences, ends up unintentionally killing Armond in a moment of fear and panic.
Their spite-fueled war, which could have been defused at multiple points, instead reaches a tragic climax. The show presents their conflict as a warning: when revenge becomes the goal, everyone loses—even the supposed “winner.”
What The White Lotus Teaches Us About Real-World Strategy
While The White Lotus is fictional, the strategic behaviors it portrays are very real. In business, politics, and personal relationships, people constantly make choices that balance revenge, cooperation, and self-interest.
Game theory tells us that revenge isn’t always irrational—sometimes, it’s a necessary strategy to protect one’s status, deter future threats, or simply maintain psychological equilibrium. Whether in a luxury resort or real life, understanding the “games” people play can reveal a lot about human nature.
For more, watch the video!
I’m joined by Mike Enz from Virginia Tech as we watch the clips and discuss the economics behind Armond and Shane’s choices.
What do you think? Is revenge always irrational, or does it serve a strategic purpose? Drop your thoughts in the comments!