82,891
edits
Finite and Infinite Games: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
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 | Ostensibly, {{Br|Finite and Infinite Games}} is a 40-year-old tract of cod philosophy from an obscure religious studies professor. It might well have silted into the geological record — somewhere between Erich von Däniken and [[The End of History and the Last Man|Francis Fukuyama]] — i.e., destined never to be heard from again until it is recycled for peat 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. | ||
The central idea is this: there are two types of “games” in the world: “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''. Finite games are from Mars, via [[Thomas Hobbes]]; infinite ones from Venus, via [[Adam Smith]].<ref>I am told, incidentally, that it will not to to be “guided by white men who died in the 17th and 18th centuries.” I don’t think it will do to be guided by people who say such inane things.</ref> | |||
In any case to draw this distinction is to use the word “game” in conflicting senses. | |||
A finite game is | A finite game is, in the narrow sense, a ''contest:'' fixed rules, fixed boundaries in time and space, an agreed objective and, usually, a winner and a loser. For example, a football game, boxing match, a [[OODA loop|dog-fight]] or a board game: notably both [[chess]] and [[go]] are finite games. | ||
An infinite game is | An infinite game is more like 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.]]) nebulous arrangements, of course, but one thing they are definitely ''not'' is contests. There are no winners and losers in an infinite game, since the idea is to avoid a final result. | ||
You may play multiple, interlocking, nested finite games at any time, and you can even embed finite games into infinite ones — though, for obvious reasons, not vice versa — so it is important in life not to ''confuse'' one’s finite and one’s infinite games. The thrust of Sinek’s book is that much of modern life ''does'' confuse them: that when we carry over the [[metaphor]]s of sport and war into business and politics we are tempted to play infinite games to win — that is, as if they were finite games. This is a [[category error]]. We may find ourselves excluded from the game while others carry on. We may find our finite 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 | That said, the distinction between the two is less tractable than it at first appears. A football ''match'' is finite; a football ''team'' is infinite. A team plays each match to defeat its opponent utterly; in the wider league, it needs its opponents to survive and flourish, so it can continue to play against them, and so that there is the realistic prospect of drama (and not merely theatrics) on the field. While a team never wishes to lose any ''particular'' match, in the long run it must lose ''some'' matches in general, lest there be no drama: spectators and players 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. We play finite games ''in the context of a broader infinite game''. | ||
Carse, who died last year, | Carse, who died last year, was 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 would often write 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 it would have been better — or, at least, more fathomable — had he explained better 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 meant to leave room for listeners to make what they will of his mystic runes. In any case, 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 invites us to reframe activities we might see as existential struggles instead as opportunities to build a different future: all it requires is players who are skilled at the infinite game. To do this he sets up a number of dualities: | |||
Carse | |||
===“Training” versus “education”=== | ===“Training” versus “education”=== | ||
| Line 58: | Line 56: | ||
Society is ambivalent towards the dreamers and malcontents who imagine a different order — they once broke Mick Jagger on a wheel; now he’s a peer of the realm — but they operate not by directly confronting the established order, but by sketching out an imagined alternative which eventually takes root. | Society is ambivalent towards the dreamers and malcontents who imagine a different order — they once broke Mick Jagger on a wheel; now he’s a peer of the realm — but they operate not by directly confronting the established order, but by sketching out an imagined alternative which eventually takes root. | ||
== Original research == | ==Original research== | ||
There are many resonances here with some of the JC’s other favourite big ideas. | There are many resonances here with some of the JC’s other favourite big ideas. | ||
| Line 78: | Line 76: | ||
This, we think, is just an other way of noting that the middle of a [[normal distribution]] resembles the middle of a “fat-tailed” distribution and the same approaches will work passably well for both, as long as the events fall within the middle, which for the most part they do. | This, we think, is just an other way of noting that the middle of a [[normal distribution]] resembles the middle of a “fat-tailed” distribution and the same approaches will work passably well for both, as long as the events fall within the middle, which for the most part they do. | ||
=== “Formal” versus “substantive” === | ===“Formal” versus “substantive”=== | ||
We have argued elsewhere that the great curse of [[Modernism|modernity]] is the primacy of [[Substance and form|form over substance]]. In [[Finite game|finite games]] the distinction between the two can be trivial; in an infinite game it is not. | We have argued elsewhere that the great curse of [[Modernism|modernity]] is the primacy of [[Substance and form|form over substance]]. In [[Finite game|finite games]] the distinction between the two can be trivial; in an infinite game it is not. | ||
| Line 85: | Line 83: | ||
Where the universe is not bounded, where rules are unknown or changeable, where unknowns swamp knowns<ref>[[Signal-to-noise ratio|All data is from the past]]. Seeing as there is an infinite amount of data from the future, the portion of the available data we have is, effectively, nil. </ref> — where the [[Infinite game|game is ''infinite'']] — ''substance is not a function of form''. There are no equations, axioms or formulae to follow when interacting with [[Complex system|complex adaptive system]]s. It will be tempting to rely on formulae that tend to work most of the time — the [[Black-Scholes option pricing model|Black Scholes option pricing model]] works most of the time, at least [[Long-Term Capital Management|until it does not]] — but this is a lazy and, at the limit, dangerous, economy. We need a different approach. Instead of the trained — those best equipped to carry out complicated instructions — we need the ''educated'': those best equipped to [[OODA loop|observe, orient, decide and act]]. These people are necessarily skilled, experienced and therefore ''expensive''. | Where the universe is not bounded, where rules are unknown or changeable, where unknowns swamp knowns<ref>[[Signal-to-noise ratio|All data is from the past]]. Seeing as there is an infinite amount of data from the future, the portion of the available data we have is, effectively, nil. </ref> — where the [[Infinite game|game is ''infinite'']] — ''substance is not a function of form''. There are no equations, axioms or formulae to follow when interacting with [[Complex system|complex adaptive system]]s. It will be tempting to rely on formulae that tend to work most of the time — the [[Black-Scholes option pricing model|Black Scholes option pricing model]] works most of the time, at least [[Long-Term Capital Management|until it does not]] — but this is a lazy and, at the limit, dangerous, economy. We need a different approach. Instead of the trained — those best equipped to carry out complicated instructions — we need the ''educated'': those best equipped to [[OODA loop|observe, orient, decide and act]]. These people are necessarily skilled, experienced and therefore ''expensive''. | ||
=== Top-down versus bottom-up === | === Top-down versus bottom-up=== | ||
{{Quote| | {{Quote| | ||
You know, man, when I was a young man in high school<br> | You know, man, when I was a young man in high school<br> | ||
| Line 94: | Line 92: | ||
:Lou Reed, ''Coney Island Baby''}} | :Lou Reed, ''Coney Island Baby''}} | ||
Finite games | ==== Finite games as execution of the master plan ==== | ||
Finite games favour top-down game management, with central homunculus instilling in players a defined set of pre-formulated tactics: a coach to formulate them and a captain to see they are executed. Infinite games are bottom up: every player must continually assess her environment and work out what to do based on the information she currently has. Here a “coach” is little more than a central coordinator supplying information and resources to help the players make their own tactical decisions as the need arises. | |||
In a predefined contest, [[form]] dominates substance: we should concentrate our resources at the centre, formulate rules, work out [[algorithm]]s and devise [[Playbook|playbooks]], since if we get this right, success is a matter of execution, and “failure” comes from shortcomings in execution of the plan. | |||
This has a few implications: firstly, it means the brilliant minds belong at the top of the organisation: they do the most inspired thinking. | |||
Secondly, it means there is no more sacred quest than ''the creation of excellent process''. Our most talented personnel are those who can write and maintain formal rules. | |||
Thirdly, it means those at the edges of the organisation whose job is not to formulate policy but to follow it — those who must put the leadership’s plans and algorithms into practice — ''must not think'': they must, so far as possible, just ''follow instructions'': quickly, flawlessly, cheaply. ''They should act like automatons''. If you are in a finite game environment, the ''last'' thing you want your players to do is improvise, or make things up as they go along: that will upset the carefully formulated plan. Players must not just act like machines: ideally, players would ''be'' machines: cheap, reliable and fungible. | |||
Those with an interest in modern corporate management philosophy might recognise this disposition. It is the one that recommends that those who carry out the firm’s day-to-day business and interact with its clients should be [[Downgrading|juniorised]], if they cannot be [[Outsourcing|outsourced]], if they cannot be [[Automation eliminates value but not risk|automated]] — those who formulate strategy and policy and who watch from the Gods should be feted, lionised, and rewarded. | |||
==== Infinite games as virtuoso improvisation ==== | |||
[[Infinite game]]s favour virtuoso performances in the field: in a [[wicked environment]] cheap, quick, accurate machines are no use, and the infrastructure they need to ensure they continue working may get in the way. Rather than being elaborate, internal infrastructure should be simple, robust and permissive — enabling communication, facilitating dynamic reallocation of resources, but fundamentally organising the architecture to empower quick and effective decision-making in the field. Seeing as the idea is not to win but to continue, conferring discretion upon those at the edge of the organisation who must engage with the complex adaptive system outside is not necessarily catastrophic as long as the individuals are experienced experts: they must ''not'' act like machines, and empowered — ''trusted'' to deal with unfolding situations as they perceive them. The ongoing prosperity of the organisation is an [[emergent]] property of the behaviour of these subject matter experts. This is quite the opposite model: here the greatest value is provided at the edges of the organisation. The bottom-up model: ''laissez-faire''; [[invisible hand]]; evolutionary. | [[Infinite game]]s favour virtuoso performances in the field: in a [[wicked environment]] cheap, quick, accurate machines are no use, and the infrastructure they need to ensure they continue working may get in the way. Rather than being elaborate, internal infrastructure should be simple, robust and permissive — enabling communication, facilitating dynamic reallocation of resources, but fundamentally organising the architecture to empower quick and effective decision-making in the field. Seeing as the idea is not to win but to continue, conferring discretion upon those at the edge of the organisation who must engage with the complex adaptive system outside is not necessarily catastrophic as long as the individuals are experienced experts: they must ''not'' act like machines, and empowered — ''trusted'' to deal with unfolding situations as they perceive them. The ongoing prosperity of the organisation is an [[emergent]] property of the behaviour of these subject matter experts. This is quite the opposite model: here the greatest value is provided at the edges of the organisation. The bottom-up model: ''laissez-faire''; [[invisible hand]]; evolutionary. | ||
=== As [[Single-round prisoner’s dilemma|single-round]] and [[Iterated prisoner’s dilemma|iterated prisoner’s dilemmas]] === | ===As [[Single-round prisoner’s dilemma|single-round]] and [[Iterated prisoner’s dilemma|iterated prisoner’s dilemmas]]=== | ||
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. | ||
| Line 106: | Line 114: | ||
===Problem cases=== | ===Problem cases=== | ||
====The Christians, atheists and their [[interminable game]]s==== | ====The Christians, atheists and their [[interminable game]]s==== | ||
A particular type of argumentative youth — it may not shock you to find that the JC was one, once — will take delight in forming abstract and highly artificial positions from which to launch highly formalised | A particular type of argumentative youth — it may not shock you to find that the JC was one, once — will take delight in forming abstract and highly artificial positions from which to launch highly formalised denouncements of the views of an anyone holding a contradictory abstract position while opponents to just the same thing back | ||
This used to happen in town squares and speakers corners, and now mainly happens on [[Twitter]]. | This used to happen in town squares and speakers corners, and now mainly happens on [[Twitter]]. | ||
| Line 122: | Line 130: | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||
{{c|Big ideas}} | {{c|Big ideas}} | ||
<references /> | |||