82,510
edits
Finite and Infinite Games: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
They have strong resonances with some of the JC’s other favourite big, odd ideas. | They have strong resonances with some of the JC’s other favourite big, odd ideas. | ||
=== | ===“Historic” versus “prospective”=== | ||
The criteria for a finite game — agreed rules, formal boundaries and a limited | The criteria for a finite game — agreed rules, formal boundaries and a limited period for one side to prevail over the other — means they are “historic” in nature. Even as you play them, you proceed by reference to ''risk'' — calculable probabilities for a known set of possible outcomes — and not ''uncertainty'' — unknown, or unknowable outcomes.<ref>“In a world of risk (“small world”), all alternatives, consequences, and probabilities are known. In uncertain (“large”) worlds, some of this information is unknown or unknowable.” — [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2012.00105/full Kirsten Volz and Gerd Gigerenzer]</ref> | ||
The result of a football game is only certain at the end, and is a function of ''what | The result of a football game is only certain at the end, and is a function of ''what happened''. What ''could'' have happened but did not, and what ''might'' happen in the future, if things were only ''different'', is of no concern to anyone playing a finite game. | ||
Side-bar for legal eagles: the common law — based as it is on the doctrine of precedent; you know, “what has been decided before” — is dispositionally historic. ''Until it isn’t.'' For what are the great cases, the law reports and textbooks if they are not a catalogue of all the times the courts ''made something new''? | Side-bar for legal eagles: the common law — based as it is on the doctrine of precedent; you know, “what has been decided before” — is dispositionally historic. ''Until it isn’t.'' For what are the great cases, the law reports and textbooks if they are not a catalogue of all the times the courts ''made something new''? | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
By contrast, infinite games, where the object is to find a way to carry on, care little about what has already happened, other to learn from the experience do more of what worked and less of what didn’t. What’s done is done. The challenge is figuring out ''what’s coming next''. This is necessarily prospective. Infinite games harness knowledge and experience to look ''forward''. | By contrast, infinite games, where the object is to find a way to carry on, care little about what has already happened, other to learn from the experience do more of what worked and less of what didn’t. What’s done is done. The challenge is figuring out ''what’s coming next''. This is necessarily prospective. Infinite games harness knowledge and experience to look ''forward''. | ||
=== | === Theatrical and dramatic === | ||
Carse describes historical, close-ended games as “theatrical,” in the sense that they run on pre-laid rails and can only have results from a range of outcomes that have been determined in advance. This he contrasts with real “drama”, where by avoiding outcomes, players must improvise | Carse describes historical, close-ended games as “theatrical,” in the sense that they run on pre-laid rails and can only have results from a range of outcomes that have been determined in advance. This, he contrasts with real “drama”, where by avoiding outcomes, players must improvise to keep the future open. There may be ''some'' drama in a finite game — we may not know ''who'' will win the World Cup — but that drama is only provisional, since it will ultimately be resolved in an expected, probabilistic way: we do know that one team will win, and 31 will not. | ||
Now, historically-focused finite games are fine'','' if that’s what floats your boat: there is no harm and much reward to be had from football, as long as | Now, historically-focused finite games are fine'','' if that’s what floats your boat: there is no harm and much reward to be had from football, as long as everyone understands the “theatricality” of what’s going on. But to use backward-looking techniques to resolve forward-looking, indeterminate scenarios — to treat the future as a calculable risk rather than an unknowable uncertainty — is to make a [[category error]]. | ||
This is what business [[Thought leader|thought-leaders]] who use sports [[Metaphor|metaphors]] do. | This is what business [[Thought leader|thought-leaders]] who use sports [[Metaphor|metaphors]] do. | ||
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
In “ordinary market conditions”, commerce does seem to operate according to an established order, existing conventions and what is already known. Rules feel fixed. Competition is apparent. Institutions are profitable, market titans are powerful — if not necessarily “strong” — the crowd is wise and everything runs as if impelled by an invisible hand. ''Until it doesn’t''. | In “ordinary market conditions”, commerce does seem to operate according to an established order, existing conventions and what is already known. Rules feel fixed. Competition is apparent. Institutions are profitable, market titans are powerful — if not necessarily “strong” — the crowd is wise and everything runs as if impelled by an invisible hand. ''Until it doesn’t''. | ||
Why do we prefer finite, historical, backward looking techniques over forms of infinite play? ''Because they are cheaper to implement and easier to manage''. As long as the environment is predictable, a “historic” approach delivers ''efficiency, consistency'' and ''certainty''. Executives can exercise central control ''as if they were playing a finite game''. They can manage by algorithm. They can use dependable machines, and dispense with unreliable meatware. They can [[Scale|''scale'']], and their risks and returns scale proportionately. This is why they are so fond of sporting metaphors. | Why do we prefer finite, historical, backward-looking techniques over forms of infinite play? ''Because they are cheaper to implement and easier to manage''. As long as the environment is predictable, a “historic” approach delivers ''efficiency, consistency'' and ''certainty''. Executives can exercise central control ''as if they were playing a finite game''. They can manage by algorithm. They can use dependable machines, and dispense with unreliable meatware. They can [[Scale|''scale'']], and their risks and returns scale proportionately. This is why they are so fond of sporting metaphors. | ||
When the assumption of finitude breaks down — when normal and fat-tailed distributions diverge — [[scale]] becomes a monster. Just ask David Viniar, or [[Black-Scholes option pricing model|Myron Scholes]], or [[Long-Term Capital Management|John Meriwether]], or [[Lehman|Dick Fuld]], or the prime brokers to [[Archegos]]. | When the assumption of finitude breaks down — when normal and fat-tailed distributions diverge — [[scale]] becomes a monster. Just ask David Viniar, or [[Black-Scholes option pricing model|Myron Scholes]], or [[Long-Term Capital Management|John Meriwether]], or [[Lehman|Dick Fuld]], or the prime brokers to [[Archegos]]. | ||
Suddenly, probability metaphors fail. ''One'' twenty-five standard-deviation move is ''preposterous''. You would not expect one in several trillion trillion lives of the universe, let alone “several days in a row”.<ref>You would expect a “25-sigma move” on one in 1.3 billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion days, which is several trillion trillion trillion trillion times as long as the life (to date) of the known universe. More on this fascinating topic | Suddenly, probability metaphors fail. ''One'' twenty-five standard-deviation move is ''preposterous''. You would not expect one in several trillion, trillion lives of the universe, let alone “several days in a row”.<ref>You would expect a “25-sigma move” on one in 1.3 billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion days, which is several trillion trillion trillion trillion times as long as the life (to date) of the known universe. More on this fascinating topic in our [[normal distribution]] article.</ref> | ||
[[File:Normal vs fat-tailed distribution.png|center|thumb|600x600px|The green bit: normal, but dull. Most events happen here, whether in a finite or infinite game. The orange bit: normal but entertaining. Most non-dull events happen here (if an infinite game); almost all of them (if a finite game). The red bit: terrifying/thrilling. Almost no such events happen in a finite game; a small but significant number will happen in an infinite game.]] | [[File:Normal vs fat-tailed distribution.png|center|thumb|600x600px|The green bit: normal, but dull. Most events happen here, whether in a finite or infinite game. The orange bit: normal but entertaining. Most non-dull events happen here (if an infinite game); almost all of them (if a finite game). The red bit: terrifying/thrilling. Almost no such events happen in a finite game; a small but significant number will happen in an infinite game.]] | ||
| Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
''Society'' is finite, bounded, and patriotic: it functions ''in order to'' establish a hierarchy, bestowing status, titles, honorifics and awards based on what has already happened. These emblems of past victories and achievements grant certain participants [[formal]] status. They are markers of acquired power (and not potential strength). Those with such status are impelled to defend and reinforce the hierarchy because they are have done well in it. One desires the permanence of society because it vouches safe the permanence of one’s titles and prizes. | ''Society'' is finite, bounded, and patriotic: it functions ''in order to'' establish a hierarchy, bestowing status, titles, honorifics and awards based on what has already happened. These emblems of past victories and achievements grant certain participants [[formal]] status. They are markers of acquired power (and not potential strength). Those with such status are impelled to defend and reinforce the hierarchy because they are have done well in it. One desires the permanence of society because it vouches safe the permanence of one’s titles and prizes. | ||
''Culture'' is infinite, unbounded, endlessly creative and sees its history not as destiny, but tradition: a narrative that has been started but is yet to be completed and that may be adjusted as required. That said, culture is a deep layer: it has mass and momentum, and will not change quickly, but it ''does'' change over time.<ref>Stewart Brand’s idea of | ''Culture'' is infinite, unbounded, endlessly creative and sees its history not as destiny, but tradition: a narrative that has been started but is yet to be completed and that may be adjusted as required. That said, culture is a deep layer: it has mass and momentum, and will not change quickly, but it ''does'' change over time.<ref>Stewart Brand’s idea of “[[pace layering]]” is another one of the JC’s favourite big, odd ideas. Stay tuned.</ref> | ||
== Top-down versus bottom-up == | == Top-down versus bottom-up == | ||
In the same way finite games are backward looking and not prospective, they imply centralised over distributed decision-making. The ingenuity is in the middle — or, in a hierarchy, at the top — and those at the edges are just there to carry out instructions. | In the same way finite games are backward-looking and not prospective, they imply centralised over distributed decision-making. The ingenuity is in the middle — or, in a hierarchy, at the top — and those at the edges are just there to carry out instructions. | ||
Thus, football managers formulate strategy and recruit players best able to execute it, drilling them with pre-formulated tactics, plays and set-pieces. Indeed, managers are so important that they are not ''allowed'' to intervene during the match and must delegate that role to an on-field captain who directs operations as the game unfolds. Under these circumstances, a well-coached team of ordinary players may prevail over a disorganised assembly of better athletes. This is the lesson of Michael Lewis’ | Thus, football managers formulate strategy and recruit players best able to execute it, drilling them with pre-formulated tactics, plays and set-pieces. Indeed, managers are so important that they are not ''allowed'' to intervene during the match and must delegate that role to an on-field captain who directs operations as the game unfolds. Under these circumstances, a well-coached team of ordinary players may prevail over a disorganised assembly of better athletes. This is the lesson of Michael Lewis’ {{br|Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game}}, and the [[falsification]] of the “Galácticos” strategy of buying the best players money can buy, and expecting their virtuosity to prevail.<ref>There are [https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/09/the-many-problems-with-moneyball/245769/ those who doubt the Moneyball story], and [[Blockbusters: Why Big Hits and Big Risks are the Future of the Entertainment Business|those who think the Galácticos largely had it right]].</ref> | ||
Elite coaching works because rules are fixed, variables known, and there are tight parameters around what players can do, where they can do it. | Elite coaching works because rules are fixed, variables known, and there are tight parameters around what players can do, where they can do it. | ||