82,891
edits
Finite and Infinite Games: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
That said, the distinction is less tractable than it at first appears. A football ''match'' is finite; a football ''team'' is infinite. A team plays each match to defeat its opponent utterly; in the wider league, it needs its opponents to survive and flourish, so it can continue to play against them, and so that there is the realistic prospect of what Carse calls “drama” (and not merely “theatrics”) on the field. While a football team never wishes to lose any ''particular'' match, in the long run it must lose ''some'' matches in general, lest there be no drama: spectators and players get bored. No-one wants to be beaten every time. No-one wants to win every time. No-one wants to watch a foregone conclusion. Ergo, we play finite games ''in the context of a broader infinite game''. | That said, the distinction is less tractable than it at first appears. A football ''match'' is finite; a football ''team'' is infinite. A team plays each match to defeat its opponent utterly; in the wider league, it needs its opponents to survive and flourish, so it can continue to play against them, and so that there is the realistic prospect of what Carse calls “drama” (and not merely “theatrics”) on the field. While a football team never wishes to lose any ''particular'' match, in the long run it must lose ''some'' matches in general, lest there be no drama: spectators and players get bored. No-one wants to be beaten every time. No-one wants to win every time. No-one wants to watch a foregone conclusion. Ergo, we play finite games ''in the context of a broader infinite game''. | ||
Carse, who died last year, was wilfully aphoristic in his literary style. This is off-putting.<ref>Notably, Carse’s speaking style is much ''less'' cryptic and talks he gave about the infinite game concept are worth checking out. See for example his talk to the Long Now Foundation: [https://longnow.org/seminars/02005/jan/14/religious-war-in-light-of-the-infinite-game/ Religious Wars in Light of the Infinite Game].</ref> He would often write things like:{{Quote|The paradox of genius exposes us directly to the dynamic of open reciprocity, for if you are the genius of what you say to me, I am the genius of what I hear you say. What you say originally I can hear only originally. As you surrender the sound on your lips, I surrender the sound in my ear.<ref> | Carse, who died last year, was wilfully aphoristic in his literary style. This is off-putting.<ref>Notably, Carse’s speaking style is much ''less'' cryptic and talks he gave about the infinite game concept are worth checking out. See for example his talk to the Long Now Foundation: [https://longnow.org/seminars/02005/jan/14/religious-war-in-light-of-the-infinite-game/ Religious Wars in Light of the Infinite Game].</ref> He would often write things like:{{Quote|The paradox of genius exposes us directly to the dynamic of open reciprocity, for if you are the genius of what you say to me, I am the genius of what I hear you say. What you say originally I can hear only originally. As you surrender the sound on your lips, I surrender the sound in my ear.<ref>{{carseref}}51.</ref>}} | ||
Now this is important, but it would have been better — or, at least, more fathomable — had he explained better what he means by this. That said, this passage assigns as much credit for successful communication to the listener as to the speaker, so perhaps this is the very point. Maybe Carse meant to leave room for listeners to make what they will of his mystic runes. In any case, making head or tail of these cryptic aphorisms is a kind of infinite game of its own — one that Mr. Sinek is playing pretty well. So, let us join in. | |||
Carse invites us to reframe activities we might see as existential struggles instead as opportunities to build a different future: all it requires is players who are skilled at the infinite game. To do this he sets up a number of dualities: | Carse invites us to reframe activities we might see as existential struggles instead as opportunities to build a different future: all it requires is players who are skilled at the infinite game. To do this he sets up a number of dualities: | ||
===“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''.”<ref> | {{Quote|“To be prepared against surprise is to be ''trained''. To be prepared for surprise is to be ''educated''.”<ref>{{carseref}}17.</ref>}} | ||
Players of finite games ''train'', but do not need ''education''. A master tactician works out moves, devises playbooks, and solves equations for them, 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 the master plan most effectively. Players should not improvise, for that risks upsetting the master plan. A player’s judgment is limited to selecting which part of the master 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 out all possible permutations in advance, and where computing all possible outcomes is not possible, to have computed more possible outcomes than your opponent. | All being well, by clinical execution, players overcome their opposition. The team that wins is the one that executes the master plan most effectively. Players should not improvise, for that risks upsetting the master plan. A player’s judgment is limited to selecting which part of the master 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 out all possible permutations in advance, and where computing all possible outcomes is not possible, to have computed more possible outcomes than your opponent. | ||
| Line 41: | Line 45: | ||
Sure, social hierarchies can be pernicious, where operated by those engaged in a fight to the death, but most people are not. [[Critical theory|Critical theories]] themselves are [[paradigm]]s — social hierarchies of just this kind. Those who who favour any form of communal organisation more developed that flapping around in primordial sludge will concede that social arrangements don’t ''have'' to be destructive: they can be ''con''structive, enabling, levers to prosperity and betterment for everyone who wants it. If we call such a centralised, curated, defended store of knowledge for sharing a “strength structure” it does not sound so ominous. | Sure, social hierarchies can be pernicious, where operated by those engaged in a fight to the death, but most people are not. [[Critical theory|Critical theories]] themselves are [[paradigm]]s — social hierarchies of just this kind. Those who who favour any form of communal organisation more developed that flapping around in primordial sludge will concede that social arrangements don’t ''have'' to be destructive: they can be ''con''structive, enabling, levers to prosperity and betterment for everyone who wants it. If we call such a centralised, curated, defended store of knowledge for sharing a “strength structure” it does not sound so ominous. | ||
{{quote|“Strength is paradoxical. I am not strong because I can force others to do what I wish ''as a result of my play with them'', but because I can allow them to do what they wish ''in the course of my play with them''.”<ref> | {{quote|“Strength is paradoxical. I am not strong because I can force others to do what I wish ''as a result of my play with them'', but because I can allow them to do what they wish ''in the course of my play with them''.”<ref>{{carseref}}29.</ref>}} | ||
===“Society” versus “culture”=== | ===“Society” versus “culture”=== | ||
{{quote|“Society they understand as the sum of those relations that are under some form of public constraint, culture as whatever we do with each other by undirected choice. If society is all that a people fells it must do, culture “is the realm of the variable, free, not necessarily universal, of all that cannot lay claim to compulsive authority”. | {{quote|“Society they understand as the sum of those relations that are under some form of public constraint, culture as whatever we do with each other by undirected choice. If society is all that a people fells it must do, culture “is the realm of the variable, free, not necessarily universal, of all that cannot lay claim to compulsive authority”.<ref>{{carseref}}33 (citing Carl Jacob Christoph Burckhardt).</ref>}} | ||
Perhaps Carse would describe a power structure as “society” and a strength structure “culture”. The historic, zero-sum nature of finite games contrasts with the prospective, permissive nature of infinite ones. | Perhaps Carse would describe a power structure as “society” and a strength structure “culture”. The historic, zero-sum nature of finite games contrasts with the prospective, permissive nature of infinite ones. | ||
| Line 54: | Line 59: | ||
Inasmuch as infinite players avoid any outcome whatsoever, keeping the future open, making all scripts useless, we shall refer to infinite play as ''dramatic''.<br> | Inasmuch as infinite players avoid any outcome whatsoever, keeping the future open, making all scripts useless, we shall refer to infinite play as ''dramatic''.<br> | ||
Dramatically, one ''chooses to be'' a mother. Theatrically one ''takes on the role'' of mother.<ref>{{carseref}}15.</ref>}} | Dramatically, one ''chooses to be'' a mother. Theatrically one ''takes on the role'' of mother.<ref>{{carseref}}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. | ||
===The value of artists=== | ===The value of artists=== | ||