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 4: | Line 4: | ||
{{quote|“{{infinity quote}}” | {{quote|“{{infinity quote}}” | ||
:—{{Author|Douglas Adams}}, {{hhgg}}.}} | :—{{Author|Douglas Adams}}, {{hhgg}}.}} | ||
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. | 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}},<ref>{{br|The Infinite Game}} by {{author|Simon Sinek}} (2019) ([https://g.co/kgs/J4Mg35 see here]).</ref> 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. | ||
Carse’s central idea was to divide life into two types of “games”: “finite” ones — [[Zero-sum game|zero-sum]] competitions played with the intention of winning — and “infinite” ones, played with the intention of keeping the game going. | |||
This is to use the expression “game” in conflicting senses; a finite game is a game in a narrow sense of a ''contest'', with fixed rules, fixed boundaries in time and space and an agreed objective — usually to beat the other players. A game of football or chess, a boxing match or a [[OODA loop|dog-fight]] ; an infinite game has no fixed rules, boundaries, or teams, and the players can change the rules to help play to continue — a market-place, a community, a business relationship, a collaboration, a scientific [[paradigm]]. These are ([[Quod erat demonstrandum|Q.E.D.]]) more nebulous arrangements, of course, but one thing they are definitely ''not'' is contests. There are no winners and losers in an infinite game. | |||
This being the case, it is important not to confuse finite and infinite games. The thrust of Sinek’s book is to insist that much of modern life does: that when we carry over the [[metaphor]]s of sport and war to business and politics we make a category error: the player who plays to win an infinite game may find herself excluded from a game while others carry on. | |||
On the other hand, the distinction between the two is less tractable than it at first appears. A football ''match'' is a finite game; a football ''team'' is an infinite one. On any occasion the team plays to defeat its opponent utterly; in the abstract, it needs its opponents to thrive, so it can continue to play finite games against them; while it never wishes to lose any particular match, in the long run it must lose some matches in general: spectators will come to see a team they know must win. | |||
And for an aggressor, war may be a finite game to be won or lost; for the invaded it represents a transient phase in the continued survival of a community. | |||
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 19: | Line 23: | ||
{{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 | This being the case, James P. Carse may wilfully have left room for listeners to make what they will of his mystic runes. 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. | ||
| Line 26: | Line 30: | ||
===“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''.”}}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. | ||
All being well, by clinical execution, players overcome their opposition. The team that wins is the one that executes the master plan most effectively. Players should not improvise, for that risks upsetting the master plan. A player’s judgment is limited to selecting which part of the master 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 out all possible permutations in advance, 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, | This is the [[High modernism|modernist]], computerised model of operation: fast, cheap, accurate calculation. The last thing you want is variability, or 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]]s, [[simple system]]s, football matches — but does not ''always'' work in the dancing landscapes of [[Complex system|complex adaptive system]]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]]s and a facility with [[:Category:Metaphor|metaphor]]. | This strategy works where all parameters are fixed and all possible outcomes at least knowable in theory — [[zero-sum game]]s, [[simple system]]s, football matches — but does not ''always'' work in the dancing landscapes of [[Complex system|complex adaptive system]]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]]s and a facility with [[:Category:Metaphor|metaphor]]. | ||