82,883
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}}.}} | ||
Ostensibly, {{Br|Finite and Infinite Games}} is a piece of cod philosophy from an obscure religious studies professor in the mid 1980s. It might well have silted into the geological record as nothing more than that, but having 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> it is having a fertile third age, and when minds as luminous as {{author|Stewart Brand}}’s speak reverently of it, it seems there is life above the daisies for a little while yet. Hope so. | |||
Carse’s central idea was to divide | Carse’s central idea was to divide the world 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 ''continuing the play''. | ||
Now this is to use the word “game” in conflicting senses. | |||
A finite game is a game in the narrow sense of a ''contest:'' fixed rules, fixed boundaries in time and space, an agreed objective and usually a winner and a loser. For example, a football or boxing match, a [[OODA loop|dog-fight]] or a game of chess or go. | |||
An infinite game is a game in the sense of a “language game”: no fixed rules, boundaries, or teams; participants can agree change rules or roles as they see fit to help play to continue. For example, a market, a community, a business, a team or 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. | |||
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 into business and politics and play an infinite game to win — that is, as if it were a finite game — we make a [[category error]]. We may find ourselves excluded from the game while others carry on. We may find our objectives hard to pin down, let alone achieve. | |||
That said, the distinction between the two is less tractable than it at first appears. A football ''match'' is finite; a football ''team'' or ''league'' is infinite. Each team plays each match to defeat its opponent utterly; in the league, each team needs its opponents to survive, so it can continue to play finite games against them. While a team never wishes to lose any ''particular'' match, in the long run it must lose some matches in general, lest the spectators and participants get bored. No-one wants to be beaten every time. No-one wants to win every time. No-one wants to watch a foregone conclusion. Carse notes: we play finite games ''in the context of a broader infinite game''. | |||
Now this is important, but the book would | Carse, who died last year, is wilfully aphoristic in his literary style. This is off-putting.<ref>Notably, Carse’s speaking style is much ''less'' cryptic and talks he gave 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|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.}}Now this is important, but the book would have been better — or, at least, more fathomable — had Carse explained what he means by this. That said, this passage assigns as much credit for successful communication to the listener as to the speaker, so perhaps this is the very point. Maybe Carse was wilfully leaving room for listeners to make what they will of his mystic runes. | ||
There’s an irony: making head or tail of Carse’s cryptic aphorisms is a kind of infinite game of its own — one that Mr. Sinek is playing pretty well. So, let us join in. | |||
Carse is a glass-half-full chap — from Adam Smith’s camp, rather than Thomas Hobbes’ — and he asks us to reframe activities not as existential struggles, but opportunities to build. To do this he sets up a number of dualities: | |||
===“Training” versus “education”=== | ===“Training” versus “education”=== | ||