82,469
edits
Finite and Infinite Games: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
Finite games are concerned with risk. Infinite ones are concerned with uncertainty. But risk and uncertainty are hard to tell apart in normal times. For the parts of a [[normal distribution]] that roughly resemble a “fat-tailed” distribution — most of it — historical approaches will work passably well for both, as long as the events fall within the middle, which for the most part they do. | Finite games are concerned with risk. Infinite ones are concerned with uncertainty. But risk and uncertainty are hard to tell apart in normal times. For the parts of a [[normal distribution]] that roughly resemble a “fat-tailed” distribution — most of it — historical approaches will work passably well for both, as long as the events fall within the middle, which for the most part they do. | ||
=== | ===Power and strength === | ||
{{quote|“A powerful person is one who brings the past to an outcome, settling all its unresolved issues. A strong person is one who carries the past into the future, showing that none of its issues is capable of resolution. Power is concerned with what has already happened; strength with what has yet to happen. Power is finite in amount, strength cannot be measured because it is an opening and not a closing act. Power refers to the freedom persons have ''within'' limits, strength to the freedoms persons have ''with'' limits.}} | |||
Power will always be restricted to a relatively small number of selected persons. Anyone can be strong.”</blockquote>It is [[Disdain fashionable things. Especially ideas.|fashionable]] in our time to speak loosely about “power” — much of [[critical theory]] resolves a manifesto against the violence [[Power structure|power structures]] do to the marginalised — and Carse’s distinction between “power” and “strength” is a good reminder to exercise care here. | Power will always be restricted to a relatively small number of selected persons. Anyone can be strong.”</blockquote>It is [[Disdain fashionable things. Especially ideas.|fashionable]] in our time to speak loosely about “power” — much of [[critical theory]] resolves a manifesto against the violence [[Power structure|power structures]] do to the marginalised — and Carse’s distinction between “power” and “strength” is a good reminder to exercise care here. | ||
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
Note the drift: for operational staff, it is towards ''efficiency''; for executive administrative staff, it is towards ''excellence''. | Note the drift: for operational staff, it is towards ''efficiency''; for executive administrative staff, it is towards ''excellence''. | ||
But if business is an ''infinite'' game, we have a different proposition. The rules aren’t fixed. We | But if business is an ''infinite'' game, we have a different proposition. The rules aren’t fixed. We can’t predict where the game will go or what other players will do or, for that matter, who’s even playing. There is no common end-goal. A super-coach with a pre-determined strategy is no good. Here you ''do'' want Galácticos — only ones with a talent not for closing out historical conflicts, but seeing new possibilities, creating new metaphors, building new narratives. | ||
Carse calls these players “''poietai''” — a Platonic concept meaning something like “poet” — an unfortunate label if you want to go across with sports-obsessed [[Master of Business Administration|MBA]]<nowiki/>s — which we might also render as “''creatives''”. | Carse calls these players “''poietai''” — a Platonic concept meaning something like “poet” — an unfortunate label if you want to go across with sports-obsessed [[Master of Business Administration|MBA]]<nowiki/>s — which we might also render as “''creatives''”. | ||