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 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|book review|{{br|Finite and Infinite Games: A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility}} by {{author|James P. Carse}}}}There is so much in this book. Ostensibly, it is an obscure piece of cod philosophy from a religious studies professor in the mid nineteen-eighties. It might well have silted into the geological record as nothing more than that, but it is having a fertile third age: it has been picked up by [[Life coach|life-coach]] to the [[LinkedIn]] generation, {{author|Simon Sinek}}, and when minds as luminous as {{author|Stewart Brand}}’s speak reverently of it, it may have life above the daisies for a little while yet. Hope so. | {{a|book review|{{br|Finite and Infinite Games: A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility}} by {{author|James P. Carse}}}}There is so much in this book. Ostensibly, it is an obscure piece of cod philosophy from a religious studies professor in the mid nineteen-eighties. It might well have silted into the geological record as nothing more than that, but it is having a fertile third age: it has been picked up by [[Life coach|life-coach]] to the [[LinkedIn]] generation, {{author|Simon Sinek}}, and when minds as luminous as {{author|Stewart Brand}}’s speak reverently of it, it may have life above the daisies for a little while yet. Hope so. | ||
The central idea is to divide life into two types of games: finite ones, which are zero-sum competitions played with the intention of winning, and infinite ones, played with the intention of continuing to play. | |||
Finite games have fixed rules, fixed boundaries in time and space and an agreed objective — usually to beat the other players. Infinite games have no fixed rules, no fixed boundaries, no fixed teams, and players are free to change the rules if that will help play to continue. | |||
It is important, in life, not to confuse the two. The thrust of Sinek’s book is to insist that much of modern life does: that when we carry over [[metaphor]]<nowiki/>s from sport and war — the quintessential finite games — and apply them to business and politics we make a profound error. This observation is appealing, and intuitively right, but there is much more to Carse’s original thesis than that. | |||
Carse, who died last year, is wilfully aphoristic in his literary style, and this is off-putting.<ref>Notably, Carse’s speaking style is much ''less'' cryptic and talks he gavve 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 often says things like: | Carse, who died last year, is wilfully aphoristic in his literary style, and this is off-putting.<ref>Notably, Carse’s speaking style is much ''less'' cryptic and talks he gavve 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 often says things like: | ||
{{quote|Of infinite players we can also say that if they play they play freely; if they ''must'' play, they cannot ''play''.}} | {{quote|Of infinite players we can also say that if they play they play freely; if they ''must'' play, they cannot ''play''.}} | ||
Now this is important, but the book would be better — and more scrutable — had Carse taken more time to explain what he means by this. On the other hand, Carse’s theory is fundamentally [[Relativism|relativist]]; he assigns as much credit for successful communication to the | Now this is important, but the book would be better — and more scrutable — had Carse taken more time to explain what he means by this. On the other hand, Carse’s theory is fundamentally [[Relativism|relativist]]; he assigns as much of the credit for successful communication to the listener’s imagination as the speaker’s intention, and freely asserts that the two may be different: | ||
{{Quote| | {{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.}} | ||
This being the case, Carse may have been intentionally gnomic, wilfully leaving room for listeners to make what they will of his mystic runes. This may not be to everyone’s taste — perhaps why Mr. Sinek has been able to make such hay elucidating it.<ref>{{br|The Infinite Game}} by {{author|Simon Sinek}} (2019) ([https://g.co/kgs/J4Mg35 see here]).</ref> But, irony: the job of imaginatively construing Mr. Carse may have meant by this cryptic aphorisms is a kind of infinite game of its own — one that Mr. Sinek is playing pretty well. | |||
So let us join in. | So let us join in. | ||
Carse presents the “finite” versus “infinite” dichotomy through the prism of other dualities, which are interesting in themselves: | |||
===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''.”}} | {{Quote|“To be prepared against surprise is to be ''trained''. To be prepared for surprise is to be ''educated''.”}}We train for finite games, work out moves, have playbooks, solve equations. All being well, players are expected to execute a pre-existing plan, not make up a plan as they go. 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 strategy works where all parameters are fixed and all possible outcomes at least knowable in theory — [[zero-sum game]]<nowiki/>s, [[simple system]]<nowiki/>s — but does not ''always'' work in the dancing landscapes of [[Complex system|complex adaptive system]]<nowiki/>s. If you prepared for chess, your work will be for naught if the game morphs into draughts — or, more likely in an infinite game, cookery, or music. Here instead of eliminating surprise, you equip yourself to deal with it: you need not answers but tools, [[heuristic]]<nowiki/>s and a facility with [[:Category:Metaphor|metaphor]]. | ||
===Power versus strength=== | ===Power versus strength=== | ||
{{power versus strength quote}} | {{power versus strength quote}}We speak often about power | ||
===Society versus culture=== | ===Society versus culture=== | ||
===The theatrical versus the dramatic=== | ===The theatrical versus the dramatic=== | ||
| Line 40: | Line 49: | ||
A finite game can be part of an infinite game but not vice versa. One could regard a sports franchise an an organisation playing an infinite game through the medium of finite games: here its immediate interests in each distinct match — to comprehensively, theatrically, thrash the opposition — is tempered by its wider interest to keep the infinite game going by creating a compelling sporting contest in which there is the drama that one might not, at any time, win. To carry on that wider, infinite game, one’s opponents must not only survive, but ''flourish'' to the point where they can and will beat you in a finite game, thus supplying theatre if not really drama: an unbeatable team is unsatisfying for winners, losers and spectators alike. | A finite game can be part of an infinite game but not vice versa. One could regard a sports franchise an an organisation playing an infinite game through the medium of finite games: here its immediate interests in each distinct match — to comprehensively, theatrically, thrash the opposition — is tempered by its wider interest to keep the infinite game going by creating a compelling sporting contest in which there is the drama that one might not, at any time, win. To carry on that wider, infinite game, one’s opponents must not only survive, but ''flourish'' to the point where they can and will beat you in a finite game, thus supplying theatre if not really drama: an unbeatable team is unsatisfying for winners, losers and spectators alike. | ||
And here we wonder a little about the commutability of infinite games into finite ones: sporting matches are like single round prisoner’s dilemmas: zero-sum in a way that | And here we wonder a little about the commutability of infinite games into finite ones: sporting matches are like single round prisoner’s dilemmas: zero-sum in a way that recommends only outright domination. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||