Finite and Infinite Games: Difference between revisions

Ostensibly, {{Br|Finite and Infinite Games}} is a 40-year-old tract of cod philosophy from an obscure religious studies professor. It might well have silted into the geological record — somewhere between Erich von Däniken and [[The End of History and the Last Man|Francis Fukuyama]] — i.e., destined never to be heard from again until it is recycled for peat but having been picked up by [[Life coach|life-coach]] to the [[LinkedIn]] generation, {{author|Simon Sinek}}<ref>{{br|The Infinite Game}} by {{author|Simon Sinek}} (2019) ([https://g.co/kgs/J4Mg35 see here]).</ref> it is having a fertile third age, and when minds as luminous as {{author|Stewart Brand}}’s speak reverently of it, it seems there is life above the daisies for a little while yet. Hope so.

The central idea is this: there are two types of “games” in the world: “finite” ones — [[Zero-sum game|zero-sum]] competitions played with the intention of ''winning'' — and “infinite” ones, played with the intention of ''continuing the play''. Finite games are from Mars, via [[Thomas Hobbes]]; infinite ones from Venus, via [[Adam Smith]].<ref>I am told, incidentally, that it will not to to be “guided by white men who died in the 17th and 18th centuries.” I don’t think it will do to be guided by people who say such inane things.</ref>

In any case to draw this distinction is to use the word “game” in conflicting senses.   

A finite game is, in the narrow sense, a ''contest:'' fixed rules, fixed boundaries in time and space, an agreed objective and, usually, a winner and a loser. For example, a football game, boxing match, a [[OODA loop|dog-fight]] or a board game: notably both [[chess]] and [[go]] are finite games.

An infinite game is more like a “language game”: no fixed rules, boundaries, or teams; participants can agree change rules or roles as they see fit to help play to continue. For example, a market, a community, a business, a team or a scientific [[paradigm]]. These are ([[Quod erat demonstrandum|Q.E.D.]]) nebulous arrangements, of course, but one thing they are definitely ''not'' is contests. There are no winners and losers in an infinite game, since the idea is to avoid a final result.  

You may play multiple, interlocking, nested finite games at any time, and you can even embed finite games into infinite ones — though, for obvious reasons, not vice versa — so it is important in life not to ''confuse'' one’s finite and one’s infinite games. The thrust of Sinek’s book is that much of modern life ''does'' confuse them: that when we carry over the [[metaphor]]s of sport and war into business and politics we are tempted to play infinite games to win — that is, as if they were finite games. This is a [[category error]]. We may find ourselves excluded from the game while others carry on. We may find our finite objectives hard to pin down, let alone achieve.

That said, the distinction between the two 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 drama (and not merely theatrics) on the field. While a 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. 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.}}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 Carse’s cryptic aphorisms is a kind of infinite game of its own — one that Mr. Sinek is playing pretty well. So, let us join in.  

{{Quote|“To be prepared against surprise is to be ''trained''. To be prepared for surprise is to be ''educated''.”}}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.