Finite and Infinite Games: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
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.  
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.
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: when we take on infinite players in what we take to be a finite game, we bog ourselves down in intractable quagmires: Vladamir Putin, take note. 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:
Line 14: Line 14:
{{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.}}
{{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.  
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 what Mr. Carse meant by his 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:
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''.”}}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]].
{{Quote|“To be prepared against surprise is to be ''trained''. To be prepared for surprise is to be ''educated''.”}}When we play finite games, we ''train'', but do not need ''education''. A tactician works out moves, devises playbooks, and solves equations, 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 most effectively. Players do not make up a plan as they go: their judgment is limited to selecting which part of the 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 them out, and where computing all possible outcomes is not possible, to have computed more possible outcomes than your opponent.  
 
This is the modernist, computerised model of operation: fast, perfect calculation. One does not want variability. The last thing you want is a player using her initiative: that can ruin everything.
 
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, football matches — 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, just as likely, cookery, music, or electronics. 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===

Navigation menu