The Jolly Contrarian

Finite and Infinite Games: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Finite and Infinite Games (view source)

Revision as of 15:18, 3 April 2022

185 bytes added ,  3 April 2022
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 24: Line 24:


===Training versus education===
===Training versus education===
{{Quote|“To be prepared against surprise is to be ''trained''. To be prepared for surprise is to be ''educated''.”}}When we play finite games, we ''train'', but do not need ''education''. A tactician works out moves, devises playbooks, and solves equations, presenting all to the players for ingestion and later regurgitation. All being well, by clinical execution, players overcome their opposition. The team that wins is the one that executes most effectively. Players do not make up a plan as they go: their judgment is limited to selecting which part of the plan to execute when, and in response to what. Preparation is everything. The idea is to eliminate surprise by having, as far as possible, worked them out, and where computing all possible outcomes is not possible, to have computed more possible outcomes than your opponent.  
{{Quote|“To be prepared against surprise is to be ''trained''. To be prepared for surprise is to be ''educated''.”}}When we play finite games, we ''train'', but do not need ''education''. A tactician works out moves, devises playbooks, and solves equations, presenting all to the players for ingestion and later regurgitation. All being well, by clinical execution, players overcome their opposition. The team that wins is the one that executes most effectively. Players do not make up a plan as they go: their judgment is limited to selecting which part of the plan to execute when, and in response to what. Preparation is everything. The idea is to eliminate surprise by having, as far as possible, worked them out, and where computing all possible outcomes is not possible, to have computed more possible outcomes than your opponent.  


This is the modernist, computerised model of operation: fast, perfect calculation. One does not want variability. The last thing you want is a player using her initiative: that can ruin everything.
This is the modernist, computerised model of operation: fast, perfect calculation. One does not want variability. The last thing you want is a player using her initiative: that can ruin everything.
Line 32: Line 32:
===Power versus strength===
===Power versus strength===
{{power versus strength quote}}
{{power versus strength quote}}
We speak often about power
It is [[Disdain fashionable things. Especially ideas.|fashionable]] to speak about power in our time — much of [[critical theory]] is a manifesto against the violence power structures do to marginalised — and Carse


===Society versus culture===
===Society versus culture===
Line 39: Line 39:
{{Indent|Inasmuch as infinite players avoid any outcome whatsoever, keeping the future open, making all scripts useless, we shall refer to infinite play as ''dramatic''.}}
{{Indent|Inasmuch as infinite players avoid any outcome whatsoever, keeping the future open, making all scripts useless, we shall refer to infinite play as ''dramatic''.}}
{{Indent|Dramatically, one ''chooses to be'' a mother. Theatrically one ''takes on the role'' of mother.<ref>Section 15.</ref>}}}}
{{Indent|Dramatically, one ''chooses to be'' a mother. Theatrically one ''takes on the role'' of mother.<ref>Section 15.</ref>}}}}
This is a harder distinction to glom, especially since Carse concedes that during a finite game the action is “provisionally” dramatic, since the players write the script as they go along. But the object of the game is to ''kill'' the drama by making the outcome inevitable. So provisional, and hostile, to drama.
This is a harder distinction to glom, especially since Carse concedes that during a finite game the action is “provisionally” dramatic, since the players write the script as they go along. But the object of the game is to ''kill'' the drama by making the outcome inevitable. So provisional, and hostile, to drama.
===Poeitas===
===Poeitas===


Line 65: Line 65:
We have argued elsewhere that the great curse of [[Modernism|modernity]] is the primacy of [[Substance and form|form over substance]]. In [[Finite game|finite games]] the distinction between the two can be trivial; in an infinite game it is not.
We have argued elsewhere that the great curse of [[Modernism|modernity]] is the primacy of [[Substance and form|form over substance]]. In [[Finite game|finite games]] the distinction between the two can be trivial; in an infinite game it is not.


In a backward-looking, proven, data-complete universe, ''substance is simply a specific articulation of form''. The universe is solved; there is an exclusive optimal move and it can be derived from first principle. Substance follows from — is dependent on — form. Form is an axiom; substance is its articulation with numbers. If you have right equation — that is to say, if you follow the right form — you will get the right answer. Indeed, without the right form you have almost no chance of getting the right answer, and none at all of knowing that you have it. This depends on the universe being bounded, all rules determined, all [[Unknowns|knowns known.]] It depends, therefore, on ''the conditions existing for a [[finite game]]''.
In a backward-looking, proven, data-complete universe, ''substance is simply a specific articulation of form''. The universe is solved; there is an exclusive optimal move and it can be derived from first principle. Substance follows from — is dependent on — form. Form is an axiom; substance is its articulation with numbers. If you have right equation — that is to say, if you follow the right form — you will get the right answer. Indeed, without the right form you have almost no chance of getting the right answer, and none at all of knowing that you have it. This depends on the universe being bounded, all rules determined, all [[Unknowns|knowns known.]] It depends, therefore, on ''the conditions existing for a [[finite game]]''.


Where the universe is not bounded, where rules are unknown or changeable, where unknowns swamp knowns<ref>[[Signal-to-noise ratio|All data is from the past]]. Seeing as there is an infinite amount of data from the future, the portion of the available data we have is, effectively, nil. </ref> — where the [[Infinite game|game is ''infinite'']] — ''substance is not a function of form''. There are no equations, axioms or formulae to follow when interacting with [[Complex system|complex adaptive system]]<nowiki/>s. It will be tempting to rely on formulae that tend to work most of the time — the [[Black-Scholes option pricing model|Black Scholes option pricing model]] works most of the time, at least [[Long-Term Capital Management|until it does not]] — but this is a lazy and, at the limit, dangerous, economy. We need a different approach. Instead of the trained — those best equipped to carry out complicated instructions — we need the ''educated'': those best equipped to [[OODA loop|observe, orient, decide and act]]. These people are necessarily skilled, experienced and therefore ''expensive''.
Where the universe is not bounded, where rules are unknown or changeable, where unknowns swamp knowns<ref>[[Signal-to-noise ratio|All data is from the past]]. Seeing as there is an infinite amount of data from the future, the portion of the available data we have is, effectively, nil. </ref> — where the [[Infinite game|game is ''infinite'']] — ''substance is not a function of form''. There are no equations, axioms or formulae to follow when interacting with [[Complex system|complex adaptive system]]<nowiki/>s. It will be tempting to rely on formulae that tend to work most of the time — the [[Black-Scholes option pricing model|Black Scholes option pricing model]] works most of the time, at least [[Long-Term Capital Management|until it does not]] — but this is a lazy and, at the limit, dangerous, economy. We need a different approach. Instead of the trained — those best equipped to carry out complicated instructions — we need the ''educated'': those best equipped to [[OODA loop|observe, orient, decide and act]]. These people are necessarily skilled, experienced and therefore ''expensive''.


=== Top-down versus bottom-up ===
=== Top-down versus bottom-up ===
Line 80: Line 80:
Finite games tend to favour a top-down game management, with a coach and a captain. Infinite games are bottom up: every player must constantly assess her immediate environment and work out what to do based on the information she currently has.
Finite games tend to favour a top-down game management, with a coach and a captain. Infinite games are bottom up: every player must constantly assess her immediate environment and work out what to do based on the information she currently has.
   
   
Where [[form]] dominates, we should concentrate our resources at the centre, where we formulate rules, work out [[algorithm]]s and devise [[Playbook|playbooks]], since if we get this right, success is a matter of execution, and failure comes from failure to follow the form. This has a few implications. Firstly, it means the brilliant minds belong to those at the top of the organisation: they do the most inspired thinking. Secondly, there is no more sacred quest than the creation of excellent process. Our most talented personnel are those who can write and maintain formal rules. Thirdly, those at the edges of the organisation whose job is not to formulate policy but to follow it — those who must put the leadership’s plans and algorithms into practice must not think: they must, so far as possible: quickly, flawlessly, cheaply. If you are in a finite game environment, the ''last'' thing you want them to do is make things up as they go along, as that will upset the plan. ''They must act like machines''. The top-down model: God’s eye; the [[self-perpetuating autocracy]].  
Where [[form]] dominates, we should concentrate our resources at the centre, where we formulate rules, work out [[algorithm]]s and devise [[Playbook|playbooks]], since if we get this right, success is a matter of execution, and failure comes from failure to follow the form. This has a few implications. Firstly, it means the brilliant minds belong to those at the top of the organisation: they do the most inspired thinking. Secondly, there is no more sacred quest than the creation of excellent process. Our most talented personnel are those who can write and maintain formal rules. Thirdly, those at the edges of the organisation whose job is not to formulate policy but to follow it — those who must put the leadership’s plans and algorithms into practice must not think: they must, so far as possible: quickly, flawlessly, cheaply. If you are in a finite game environment, the ''last'' thing you want them to do is make things up as they go along, as that will upset the plan. ''They must act like machines''. The top-down model: God’s eye; the [[self-perpetuating autocracy]].  


[[Infinite game]]<nowiki/>s favour virtuoso performances in the field: in a [[wicked environment]] cheap, quick, accurate machines are no use, and the infrastructure they need to ensure they continue working may get in the way. Rather than being elaborate, internal infrastructure should be simple, robust and permissive — enabling communication, facilitating dynamic reallocation of resources, but fundamentally organising the architecture to empower quick and effective decision-making in the field. Seeing as the idea is not to win but to continue, conferring discretion upon those at the edge of the organisation who must engage with the complex adaptive system outside is not necessarily catastrophic as long as the individuals are experienced experts: they must ''not'' act like machines, and empowered — ''trusted'' to deal with unfolding situations as they perceive them. The ongoing prosperity of the organisation is an [[emergent]] property of the behaviour of these subject matter experts. This is quite the opposite model: here the greatest value is provided at the edges of the organisation. The bottom-up model: ''laissez-faire''; [[invisible hand]]; evolutionary.
[[Infinite game]]<nowiki/>s favour virtuoso performances in the field: in a [[wicked environment]] cheap, quick, accurate machines are no use, and the infrastructure they need to ensure they continue working may get in the way. Rather than being elaborate, internal infrastructure should be simple, robust and permissive — enabling communication, facilitating dynamic reallocation of resources, but fundamentally organising the architecture to empower quick and effective decision-making in the field. Seeing as the idea is not to win but to continue, conferring discretion upon those at the edge of the organisation who must engage with the complex adaptive system outside is not necessarily catastrophic as long as the individuals are experienced experts: they must ''not'' act like machines, and empowered — ''trusted'' to deal with unfolding situations as they perceive them. The ongoing prosperity of the organisation is an [[emergent]] property of the behaviour of these subject matter experts. This is quite the opposite model: here the greatest value is provided at the edges of the organisation. The bottom-up model: ''laissez-faire''; [[invisible hand]]; evolutionary.
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/62783"