82,890
edits
Finite and Infinite Games: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
In any case Carse’s central idea is this: there are two types of “games” in the world: “finite” ones — [[Zero-sum game|zero-sum]] competitions played to ''win'' — and “infinite” ones, played to ''continue playing''. | In any case Carse’s central idea is this: there are two types of “games” in the world: “finite” ones — [[Zero-sum game|zero-sum]] competitions played to ''win'' — and “infinite” ones, played to ''continue playing''. | ||
Finite games are from Mars, via [[Thomas Hobbes]]; infinite ones from Venus, via [[Adam Smith]]. | Finite games are from Mars, via [[Thomas Hobbes]]; infinite ones from Venus, via [[Adam Smith]]. | ||
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.<ref>Notably, both [[Chess]] and [[Go]] are ''finite'' games. </ref> | 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.<ref>Notably, both [[Chess]] and [[Go]] are ''finite'' games. </ref> | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
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. This he does by means of a number of dualities: | 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. This he does by means of a number of dualities: | ||
=== | ===“Historic” versus “prospective”=== | ||
{{Quote|“We were seeing things that were 25 [[standard deviation]] moves, several days in a row”. | |||
:—David Viniar, Chief Financial Officer, [[Goldman Sachs]], August 2007.}} | |||
Many distinctions between finite and infinite games boil down to their historical perspective: those that look backwards, concerning themselves with what has already been established and laid down — as agreed rules, formal boundaries and limited time periods for resolution necessarily do — will be finite in nature; those that are open-ended, forward looking, and indeterminate — concerned with what has yet to happen are infinite. | |||
Historically-focused finite games are ''fine'': there is no harm and much reward to be had from a game of football, as long as everyone understands the “theatricality” of what is going on; but to apply finite, backward-looking techniques to the “resolution” of ''infinite'' scenarios — necessarily forward-looking, indeterminate problems (in that you don’t even know that there is a problem, let alone what it is) will get you into bother. | |||
[[File:Normal vs fat-tailed distribution.png|350px|thumb|right|The ostensible similarity between normal and fat-tailed distributions, yesterday.]]Yet, finite techniques may work perfectly well much of the time, because for long periods infinite environments may resemble finite games. In ordinary conditions, business proceeds by reference to an established order, existing conventions and what is already known. Rules feel fixed. Competition is apparent. | |||
This | As long as your environment behaves like this, a “historic” approach is efficient and effective. Exercising central control ''as if one were playing a finite game'' provides consistency and certainty. This is why [[thought leader]]s are so fond of sporting metaphors. | ||
But it 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. | |||
It is also, let us hazard, why senior executives in large corporations get paid so much money. When events are within a couple of standard deviations of the mean — as, for the most part they are — central control seems a capital idea, and well worth paying for. | |||
When a [[Complex system|wicked environment]] goes all kooky on you — as surely it will from time to time — and your executive leaders start telling you something that has happened three times this week already shouldn’t have happened one in several trillion trillion lives of the universe, it may feel like you’ve been paying for talent in all the wrong places in the organisation.<ref>You would expect a “25-sigma move” on one in 1.3 billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion days, which is several trillion trillion trillion trillion times as long as the life (to date) of the known universe. More on this fascinating topic on our [[normal distribution]] article.</ref> | |||
=== | ===“Power” versus “strength”=== | ||
[[ | {{quote|{{power versus strength quote}}}} | ||
It is [[Disdain fashionable things. Especially ideas.|fashionable]] in our time to speak loosely about “power” — much of [[critical theory]] is a manifesto against the violence [[Power structure|power structures]] do to the marginalised — and Carse’s distinction between “power” and “strength” is a good reminder to exercise care here. | |||
Sure, social hierarchies can be pernicious, where operated by those engaged in a fight to the death, but most people are not. [[Critical theory|Critical theories]] themselves are [[paradigm]]s — social hierarchies of just this kind. Those who who favour any form of communal organisation more developed that flapping around in primordial sludge will concede that social arrangements don’t ''have'' to be destructive: they can be ''con''structive, enabling, levers to prosperity and betterment for everyone who wants it. If we call such a centralised, curated, defended store of knowledge for sharing a “strength structure” it does not sound so ominous. | |||
{{quote|“Strength is paradoxical. I am not strong because I can force others to do what I wish ''as a result of my play with them'', but because I can allow them to do what they wish ''in the course of my play with them''.”<ref>{{carseref}}29.</ref>}} | |||
===“Society” versus “culture”=== | |||
{{quote|“Society they understand as the sum of those relations that are under some form of public constraint, culture as whatever we do with each other by undirected choice. If society is all that a people fells it must do, culture “is the realm of the variable, free, not necessarily universal, of all that cannot lay claim to compulsive authority”.<ref>{{carseref}}33 (citing Carl Jacob Christoph Burckhardt).</ref>}} | |||
Perhaps Carse would describe a [[power structure]] as of “society” and a “strength structure” as of “culture”. The historic, zero-sum nature of finite games contrasts with the prospective, permissive nature of infinite ones. | |||
''Society'' is finite, bounded, and patriotic: functions to establish a hierarchy, bestowing titles, honorifics and awards — the emblems of past victories in combat, and markers of power —to grant certain participants [[formal]] status. One desires the permanence of society because it vouches safe the permanence of one’s titles and prizes. | |||
''Culture'' is infinite, unbounded, endlessly creative and sees its history not as destiny, but tradition: a narrative that has been started but is yet to be completed and that may be adjusted as required. Just as one can can play finite games within the context of an infinite one, so can there be society within culture. | |||
===The “theatrical” versus the “dramatic”=== | |||
{{Quote|Inasmuch as a finite game is intended for conclusion, inasmuch as its roles are scripted and performed for an audience, we shall refer to finite play as ''theatrical''. [...]<br> | |||
Inasmuch as infinite players avoid any outcome whatsoever, keeping the future open, making all scripts useless, we shall refer to infinite play as ''dramatic''.<br> | |||
Dramatically, one ''chooses to be'' a mother. Theatrically one ''takes on the role'' of mother.<ref>{{carseref}}15.</ref>}} | |||
This is a harder distinction to glom, especially since Carse concedes that during a finite game the action is “provisionally” dramatic, since the players write the script as they go along. But the object of the game is to ''kill'' the drama by making the outcome inevitable. So provisional, and hostile, to drama. | |||
===The value of artists=== | |||
A society that wishes to transcend itself and stay in touch with its culture must embrace its “inventors, makers, artists, story-tellers and mythologists”: not those who deal in historical actualities, but who help imagine new possibilities for how the culture might be.<ref>Unhelpfully, Carse calls these people “''poietai''” — from Plato’s expression, a label hardly [[calculated]] to make his work ''more'' penetrable.</ref> Their mode of engagement having no particular intended outcome or conclusion, they can appear hostile to those already holding rank, title or position in society, and who would rather shore up the historical record to validate their victories. | |||
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<ref>Redemption comes at you fast: in a notorious interview in 1976 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XGe_hncsiMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XGe_hncsiM Bill Grundy] compared these new “punk rockers” the Sex Pistols to “the nice, clean Rolling Stones” who had, not 11 years earlier, been outraging public decency with their subversive tunes about onanism.</ref> — but they operate not by directly confronting the established order, but by sketching out an imagined alternative which eventually takes root. | |||
===“Training” versus “education”=== | ===“Training” versus “education”=== | ||
A centrally-guided automaton needs only ''training''; an autonomous agent playing a finite game needs ''education''.{{Quote|“To be prepared against surprise is to be ''trained''. To be prepared for surprise is to be ''educated''.”<ref>{{carseref}}17.</ref>}} | |||
==== Players of finite games ''train.'' ==== | ====Players of finite games ''train.''==== | ||
A master tactician works out moves, devises playbooks, and solves equations for them, presenting all to the players for ingestion and later regurgitation. | A master tactician works out moves, devises playbooks, and solves equations for them, presenting all to the players for ingestion and later regurgitation. | ||
| Line 63: | Line 82: | ||
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 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. | ||
==== Players of infinite games need ''education''. ==== | ====Players of infinite games need ''education''.==== | ||
''Training'' 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. | ''Training'' 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. | ||
| Line 70: | Line 89: | ||
===“Complicated” versus “complex”=== | ===“Complicated” versus “complex”=== | ||
==== Finite games are ''[[complicated]]''. ==== | ====Finite games are ''[[complicated]]''.==== | ||
{{complicated capsule}} | {{complicated capsule}} | ||
==== [[Infinite game|Infinite games]] are ''[[complex]]''. ==== | ====[[Infinite game|Infinite games]] are ''[[complex]]''.==== | ||
{{complex capsule}} | {{complex capsule}} | ||
=== | ===Top-down versus bottom-up === | ||
In team sport, a central manager who can plan ahead, instil in players a defined set of pre-formulated tactics, plays and set-pieces: and an on-field captain to direct operations as the game unfolds they are executed is a powerful strategy. Under these circumstances a team of ordinary players may prevail over a disorganised assembly of better athletes. This is the lesson of Michael Lewis’ ''[[Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game]]''.<ref>It is also the falsification of Anita Elberse’s ''[[Blockbusters: Why Big Hits and Big Risks are the Future of the Entertainment Business]]''[[Blockbusters: Why Big Hits and Big Risks are the Future of the Entertainment Business|.]] The “Galácticos” strategy of buying the best players money can buy, thereby emphasising individual talent, over central management and tactical excellence has generally had disappointing results (at least on a cost/benefit basis) for those franchises who have tried it.</ref> This works precisely because rules are fixed, variables are known, and there are tight parameters around what players can do, where they can do it. Sports — and other finite games — are responsive to top-down management. | |||
[[ | |||
Now if business is a ''finite'' game, there is much to take from this. In such an environment, [[form]] dominates [[substance]]: we should have our best minds formulating rules working out [[algorithm]]s and devising [[Playbook|playbooks]] and sourcing players who will faithfully and unquestioningly follow the plan. Success is a simply a matter of who had the better plan, and who executed it best. This, in turn, has a few implications about how we configure the organisation: | |||
Firstly, it means the ''brilliant minds belong at the top of the organisation'': they do the most inspired thinking. They come up with the best plan. Securing “the man with the best plan” is worth paying ''extraordinary'' amounts of money for.<ref>[https://nypost.com/2022/04/08/50m-bonus-to-goldman-sachs-ceo-and-coo-excessive/ Goldman Sachs to pay one-time bonuses of $30 million to CEO and $20 million bonus to COO.]</ref> | |||
Secondly, it means the organisation’s sacred quests are the ''creation of excellent process'' and ''optimising the cost of carrying it out''. Our most talented personnel are those who can write formal rules, and build machines that reliably follow them. | |||
Thirdly, it means those in the organisation whose job is not to formulate policy but to carry it out — those who must put the leadership’s plans into practice — ''must not think'': they must, so far as possible, just ''follow instructions'': quickly, flawlessly, cheaply. ''They should act like automatons''. If your special sauce is your central strategy, the ''last'' thing you want your players to do is improvise. | |||
Those with an interest in modern management philosophy — or, we dare say, a job in a modern multinational — might recognise this disposition. But note the drift: for operational staff it is towards ''efficiency''; for administrative staff it is towards ''excellence''. Excellence in building, maintaining and refining machinery. | |||
'' | Now business is an ''infinite'' game, we have a different proposition. Since the rules aren’t fixed and we can’t predict what opposing players will do — or for that matter who’s even playing — and as there is no end-goal in particular other than to avoid arriving at an end — a pre-determined strategy will not work. Indeed, the very idea of a predetermined strategy is incoherent. | ||
Instead, every player must constantly assess her environment and act 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 so they can keep playing. We want our players to be virtuosos with freedom and resource to carry on and augment the game. We need our infrastructure to be simple, robust and permissive — enabling communication, allowing the players to dynamically reallocate resources as they see fit. Management’s overarching goal should be to empower quick and effective decision-making in the field, but otherwise to ''keep out of the way''. | |||
Seeing as the idea is not to win but to continue, conferring discretion upon those who directly engage with the complex adaptive system outside is not 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. | |||
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. | |||
===“Formal” versus “substantive”=== | ===“Formal” versus “substantive” === | ||
We have argued [[High modernism|elsewhere]], at [[Tedium|tedious]] length, that the great curse of [[Modernism|modernity]] is the primacy of [[Substance and form|form over substance]]. | We have argued [[High modernism|elsewhere]], at [[Tedium|tedious]] length, that the great curse of [[Modernism|modernity]] is the primacy of [[Substance and form|form over substance]]. | ||
| Line 129: | Line 126: | ||
Instead of an army of the ''trained'' carrying [[playbook]]<nowiki/>s containing the pre-baked tactics of a super-coach, we need the ''educated'': those best equipped to [[OODA loop|observe, orient, decide and act]] — if combat is required — or collaborate, if it is not. People who can do this well must necessarily be skilled, experienced and therefore ''expensive'' — but none is anything like as expensive as a super coach''.'' | Instead of an army of the ''trained'' carrying [[playbook]]<nowiki/>s containing the pre-baked tactics of a super-coach, we need the ''educated'': those best equipped to [[OODA loop|observe, orient, decide and act]] — if combat is required — or collaborate, if it is not. People who can do this well must necessarily be skilled, experienced and therefore ''expensive'' — but none is anything like as expensive as a super coach''.'' | ||
=== Problem cases=== | ===Problem cases=== | ||
Finite and Infinite Games is a theoretical tract — a work of abstract principle, not a practical guide — and while it is a useful means of framing a different approach to business and a powerful tool for disarm our intuition that business leaders are worth the compensation they are paid. But they cannot solve the intractable messiness of the real world. Bad things happen, and even a distributed network of empowered subject matter experts is fallible. | Finite and Infinite Games is a theoretical tract — a work of abstract principle, not a practical guide — and while it is a useful means of framing a different approach to business and a powerful tool for disarm our intuition that business leaders are worth the compensation they are paid. But they cannot solve the intractable messiness of the real world. Bad things happen, and even a distributed network of empowered subject matter experts is fallible. | ||
==== You cannot switch overnight ==== | ====You cannot switch overnight==== | ||
Multinationals have been in thrall to the cult of the chief executive for decades. The firm’s design choices, big and small — the way it structures its business, how it organises operations, who it hires to do what — all are predicated on the [[High modernism|modernist]] disposition that genius lies in formulating that central strategy, and that day-to-day management is a matter of efficiently carrying it out. We don’t hire experienced, expert improvisers to do “[[service delivery]]” — we hire school-leavers from Bucharest and give them a user manual. Those who stay on and progress do so not because of their talent for extemporising, but because they are excellent — meaning fast — at following instructions. The organisation fashions itself over time in its own image. Should the scales fall from your eyes, you cannot command an over-managed multitude of rule-followers to suddenly “be agile” or “creative” — at least not without dispensing the management superstructure that sits over them nannying them into doing no such thing. Modernist approach is a matter of ''culture'' and culture sits deep in the ontology of the system. Culture moves very slowly. It cannot change overnight. | Multinationals have been in thrall to the cult of the chief executive for decades. The firm’s design choices, big and small — the way it structures its business, how it organises operations, who it hires to do what — all are predicated on the [[High modernism|modernist]] disposition that genius lies in formulating that central strategy, and that day-to-day management is a matter of efficiently carrying it out. We don’t hire experienced, expert improvisers to do “[[service delivery]]” — we hire school-leavers from Bucharest and give them a user manual. Those who stay on and progress do so not because of their talent for extemporising, but because they are excellent — meaning fast — at following instructions. The organisation fashions itself over time in its own image. Should the scales fall from your eyes, you cannot command an over-managed multitude of rule-followers to suddenly “be agile” or “creative” — at least not without dispensing the management superstructure that sits over them nannying them into doing no such thing. Modernist approach is a matter of ''culture'' and culture sits deep in the ontology of the system. Culture moves very slowly. It cannot change overnight. | ||