The Infinite Game: Difference between revisions

The Infinite Game (view source)

Revision as of 23:03, 16 March 2023

20 bytes added , 16 March 2023

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{a|book review|{{br|The Infinite Game}} by {{author|Simon Sinek}} }}The [[JC]] is indebted to  TED-talker extraordinaire {{author|Simon Sinek}} for the TED talk which introduced him to {{author|James P. Carse}}’s obscure but brilliant book {{br|Finite and Infinite Games}}, which provides the basic idea for this, Sinek’s own take on the subject.
-Alas, “basic” idea, in more ways than one: Carse’s hypothesis is subtle, deep and many-splendoured. Its ideas continue to unfold on you, kind their own infinite game, months after you first ingest them.
+Alas, “basic” idea, in more ways than one: Carse’s hypothesis is subtle, deep and many-splendoured. Its ideas continue to unfold on you, like their own infinite game, months after you first ingest them.
-Would that you could say the same about Sinek’s book. No such luck. Where Sinek understands Carse at all, he does so superficially and in a flat monochrome. But that isn't often. Mostly, Sinek misses Carse’s point altogether, and presents “finite mindsets” and “infinite mindsets” mutually-exclusive negative and positive moral values, and hence delivers a glib, lumpen social democratic tract, which is not Carse’s industry at all.
+Would that you could say the same about Sinek’s book. No such luck.
+Where Sinek understands Carse at all, he does so superficially and in flat monochrome. But that isn’t often. Mostly, Sinek misses Carse’s point altogether, and presents “finite mindsets” and “infinite mindsets” as mutually-exclusive negative and positive moral values, and hence delivers a glib, lump-headed social democratic tract, which is not Carse’s industry at all.
 Sinek manages also to misrepresent [[Adam Smith]], [[Shareholder capitalism]], [[Evolution by natural selection]], [[Friedrich Nietzsche]] and, most egregiously of all poor old Milton Friedman, whom Sinek paints as a kind of selfish Gorgon; something he emphatically was not.
-In fairness, Carse’s book, though elegant, is gnomic. It asks of its reader. It requires, but richly rewards, hard work.
+In fairness, Carse’s book, though elegant, is gnomic. It asks questions of its reader. It requires, but richly rewards, hard work.
-But this seems to be work Sinek has not put in. His own book reads as if he’s read Carse’s flyleaf, thought, “okay, got it,” and taken off, embroidering the basic concept with his own ideas, some of which really aren’t great.
+This seems to be work Sinek has not put in. His own book reads as if he’s read Carse’s flyleaf, thought, “okay, got it,” and taken off, embroidering the basic concept with his own pat ideas, some of which really aren’t great.
 The greatest tragedy will be if Sinek, who doubtless has a knack for popularising, wipes out Carse’s original, because Sinek’s version — which boils down to, “wouldn’t it be nice if everyone was kind to one another and businesses weren’t so rapacious” won’t last, and could take a better work out with it.