Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.6 AVERAGE
3.6 AVERAGE
Everything in life is a finite or an infinite game
According to Carse, the games of adults can be divided into finite and infinite games. Finite games have specific temporal, spatial, and numerical boundaries. A finite game always has a clear beginning, a particular playing field, and a certain number of players. Apart from these external constraints, the rules of the game must also be agreed upon in advance by the players. The players then compete under these sets of external constraints and rules intending to win.
Then the game is over.
If the above classification doesn’t sound rooted in reality to you, consider a general election. The rules of the election are clearly outlined before the election, different candidates compete under these rules, and a winner is decided by the number of votes they get on the election day.
Infinite games, on the other hand, are the exact opposite of finite games.
While players compete to win in a finite game, infinite games are played to continue the game. Therefore, infinite games don’t have the external or internal restrictions, characteristic of finite games.
A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play.
Consider painting: there will never be the best painting because there will always be new artists creating art. No artist makes art to win or be the best, but because the art they create is an invitation for others to join the game.
Finite players play in boundaries, while infinite players play with boundaries
Finite games are not just constrained by the spatio-temporal boundaries. They’re also regulated by the audience observing them. It is the audience that determines when the game occurs and who the players are. In the example of the election, the electorate is the audience that determines who the two candidates are and when the election will be held.
This means that the finite player is not free to play the game at the time of his liking, and requires an audience. The finite player must perform for the audience in the time they’re given.
In contrast, infinite games have no boundaries, so infinite players govern their own time. As infinite games don’t have a specific beginning or an end, time doesn’t pass for an infinite player. Instead, each moment presents a new beginning with new possibilities for the game to unfold and develop.
Because infinite players prepare themselves to be surprised by the future, they play in complete openness. It is not an openness as in candor, but an openness as in vulnerability. It is not a matter of exposing one's unchanging identity, the true self that has always been, but a way of exposing one's ceaseless growth, the dynamic self that has yet to be.
Finite players see society, while infinite players see culture
No one can play a game alone. One cannot be human by oneself. There is no selfhood where there is no community. We do not relate to others as the persons we are; we are who we are in relating to others.
Players, whether they’re playing finite or infinite games, can’t play alone. However, there’s a difference in how finite and infinite players perceive their game in relation to other players.
Finite players see society mainly as one big finite game consisting of smaller finite games such as their career, or relationships, with every player trying to win against others and be awarded a title.
Titles are simply recognition for having won finite games in the past. For example, the title of “Forbes 30 Under 30” would be a title for a finite player, symbolizing them winning the game of achieving a great career in their 20s. This title is then displayed through property, and society is obliged to honor it.
Infinite players are different. They see society as a continually developing culture. The infinite player is concerned with the future; focussing on titles means concentrating on past victories. They’re more concerned with offering a vision of the future that would encourage others to join in and work to develop that vision.
Finite players play to win, while infinite players strive to coexist through playing
The desire to dominate accompanies finite players everywhere — from their behavior in the workplace to their conversations with friends.
Finite players play to win to dominate and gain control of others. By flaunting their titles, they exhibit their superiority and overshadow others. (Next time you’re browsing through LinkedIn, notice if you’ve anyone in your network who adds Ph.D. to their name) They endeavor to do this in every way possible, and this represents their gameplay.
Have you ever had a conversation where the other person seemed more interested in giving explanations and convincing you of their intelligence than having a discussion and listening? In this conversation, they were probably eyeing the title of intelligence.
The infinite player, on the other hand, is not concerned with winning over others, because to them, only the game matters. As infinite games don’t have winners, players aren’t concerned with showcasing their superiority. They play for the sake of play.
For an infinite player, conversations are about give and take, where they aren’t focussed on convincing the other person of anything. Instead, they offer their conversation partner a perspective and are open to any new knowledge that the conversation might bring.
Finite players are a product of their past, while infinite players transform their past
Finite players are compelled to play by their fixation on the past. Finite players eagerly assume the roles they were given in the past and thus play a character that was designed in the past and for the past.
Consider the psychology behind entering a finite game. As it’s all about winning, the players must feel the urge to prove themselves. How often a player wins or loses is irrelevant because they dwell on their past, where they’re still a loser. If they weren’t so wrapped up in the past, they wouldn’t enter a finite game in the first place. For example, this post talks about how most successful entrepreneurs have a “chip on their shoulder”, and often start companies and work incredibly grueling hours to prove their worth.
However, infinite players don’t have this relationship with the past. For them, the past is history. It doesn’t determine the future, because the future is an infinite game and is rife with possibility.
The choice is yours
Finally, you have the power to choose what kind of game you want to play, for participation in every game is voluntary. Finite players feel the pressure to perform, but in the end, no one can force you to participate in a game if you don’t want to join.
Finite players feel trapped because they have to put on a particular guide to play specific roles properly. However, sometimes these masks become too convincing even to ourselves, and they get lost in the game, forgetting that they’re only assuming a role and can always quit the game.
This reminded of the famous Richard Feynman quote —
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
Every week I publish my key takeaways from books I'm reading here — thewrapup.substack.com
According to Carse, the games of adults can be divided into finite and infinite games. Finite games have specific temporal, spatial, and numerical boundaries. A finite game always has a clear beginning, a particular playing field, and a certain number of players. Apart from these external constraints, the rules of the game must also be agreed upon in advance by the players. The players then compete under these sets of external constraints and rules intending to win.
Then the game is over.
If the above classification doesn’t sound rooted in reality to you, consider a general election. The rules of the election are clearly outlined before the election, different candidates compete under these rules, and a winner is decided by the number of votes they get on the election day.
Infinite games, on the other hand, are the exact opposite of finite games.
While players compete to win in a finite game, infinite games are played to continue the game. Therefore, infinite games don’t have the external or internal restrictions, characteristic of finite games.
A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play.
Consider painting: there will never be the best painting because there will always be new artists creating art. No artist makes art to win or be the best, but because the art they create is an invitation for others to join the game.
Finite players play in boundaries, while infinite players play with boundaries
Finite games are not just constrained by the spatio-temporal boundaries. They’re also regulated by the audience observing them. It is the audience that determines when the game occurs and who the players are. In the example of the election, the electorate is the audience that determines who the two candidates are and when the election will be held.
This means that the finite player is not free to play the game at the time of his liking, and requires an audience. The finite player must perform for the audience in the time they’re given.
In contrast, infinite games have no boundaries, so infinite players govern their own time. As infinite games don’t have a specific beginning or an end, time doesn’t pass for an infinite player. Instead, each moment presents a new beginning with new possibilities for the game to unfold and develop.
Because infinite players prepare themselves to be surprised by the future, they play in complete openness. It is not an openness as in candor, but an openness as in vulnerability. It is not a matter of exposing one's unchanging identity, the true self that has always been, but a way of exposing one's ceaseless growth, the dynamic self that has yet to be.
Finite players see society, while infinite players see culture
No one can play a game alone. One cannot be human by oneself. There is no selfhood where there is no community. We do not relate to others as the persons we are; we are who we are in relating to others.
Players, whether they’re playing finite or infinite games, can’t play alone. However, there’s a difference in how finite and infinite players perceive their game in relation to other players.
Finite players see society mainly as one big finite game consisting of smaller finite games such as their career, or relationships, with every player trying to win against others and be awarded a title.
Titles are simply recognition for having won finite games in the past. For example, the title of “Forbes 30 Under 30” would be a title for a finite player, symbolizing them winning the game of achieving a great career in their 20s. This title is then displayed through property, and society is obliged to honor it.
Infinite players are different. They see society as a continually developing culture. The infinite player is concerned with the future; focussing on titles means concentrating on past victories. They’re more concerned with offering a vision of the future that would encourage others to join in and work to develop that vision.
Finite players play to win, while infinite players strive to coexist through playing
The desire to dominate accompanies finite players everywhere — from their behavior in the workplace to their conversations with friends.
Finite players play to win to dominate and gain control of others. By flaunting their titles, they exhibit their superiority and overshadow others. (Next time you’re browsing through LinkedIn, notice if you’ve anyone in your network who adds Ph.D. to their name) They endeavor to do this in every way possible, and this represents their gameplay.
Have you ever had a conversation where the other person seemed more interested in giving explanations and convincing you of their intelligence than having a discussion and listening? In this conversation, they were probably eyeing the title of intelligence.
The infinite player, on the other hand, is not concerned with winning over others, because to them, only the game matters. As infinite games don’t have winners, players aren’t concerned with showcasing their superiority. They play for the sake of play.
For an infinite player, conversations are about give and take, where they aren’t focussed on convincing the other person of anything. Instead, they offer their conversation partner a perspective and are open to any new knowledge that the conversation might bring.
Finite players are a product of their past, while infinite players transform their past
Finite players are compelled to play by their fixation on the past. Finite players eagerly assume the roles they were given in the past and thus play a character that was designed in the past and for the past.
Consider the psychology behind entering a finite game. As it’s all about winning, the players must feel the urge to prove themselves. How often a player wins or loses is irrelevant because they dwell on their past, where they’re still a loser. If they weren’t so wrapped up in the past, they wouldn’t enter a finite game in the first place. For example, this post talks about how most successful entrepreneurs have a “chip on their shoulder”, and often start companies and work incredibly grueling hours to prove their worth.
However, infinite players don’t have this relationship with the past. For them, the past is history. It doesn’t determine the future, because the future is an infinite game and is rife with possibility.
The choice is yours
Finally, you have the power to choose what kind of game you want to play, for participation in every game is voluntary. Finite players feel the pressure to perform, but in the end, no one can force you to participate in a game if you don’t want to join.
Finite players feel trapped because they have to put on a particular guide to play specific roles properly. However, sometimes these masks become too convincing even to ourselves, and they get lost in the game, forgetting that they’re only assuming a role and can always quit the game.
This reminded of the famous Richard Feynman quote —
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
Every week I publish my key takeaways from books I'm reading here — thewrapup.substack.com
First couple of chapters were outstanding - though mostly reinforcing what you can get from the abstract. Finite vs Infinite seems a useful abstraction. Then fell sharply off a cliff into philosophical drivel, real slog to finish. On an aesthetic level I appreciate trying to shoehorn literally everything into a framework like this to see what comes out of it ... but I don't need to be a participant to the whole thing.
i was pretty disappointed overall - big "i'm 14 and this is deep" vibes, or a Naval tweet that went way, way too long. i would probably recommend the first chapter "there are two kinds of games," but think it gets worse as it goes on (or maybe more tiring). but also i get the sense that this is a love/hate kind of book, so maybe i'm wrong.
Carse starts with a fundamental distinction:
- finite games: zero-sum competitions played to win / outrank
- infinite games: non-teleological scenarios played to play
of course, he argues that infinite games are always preferable. I'm pretty convinced by this / personally have always leaned this way: principles over tactics, journey over destination. he then makes a bunch of other distinctions connected to this first one, like garden vs. machine, stories vs. explanations.
the thing is, this book is basically a bundle of aphorisms. the writing style is pretentious, repetitive, and has no grey areas. Carse makes sweeping claims about sociology, war, Freud, ecology, sex, and Evil, then layers new claims on top without warranting the first. most of the arguments aren't especially new, and honestly made better in other books (the garden stuff in Seeing Like A State, the adaptability stuff in Antifragile, etc).
there's also something to be said about the neglected role of privilege in playing infinite games. this book is very "master of your own destiny" stuff, which just isn't reality for most people, especially when carse is so derisive about finite players who feel constrained by the competitive nature of capitalistic society - carse says that slaves agreed to oppression, for god's sake!!
anyway, i will say that his metaphors can be useful mnemonics, and most people who read this will find a few that resonate enough to remember and apply. the book is short and obviously not meant to be an empirical investigation or anything like that. it is provocative, if nothing else. it just didn't work for me.
Carse starts with a fundamental distinction:
- finite games: zero-sum competitions played to win / outrank
- infinite games: non-teleological scenarios played to play
of course, he argues that infinite games are always preferable. I'm pretty convinced by this / personally have always leaned this way: principles over tactics, journey over destination. he then makes a bunch of other distinctions connected to this first one, like garden vs. machine, stories vs. explanations.
the thing is, this book is basically a bundle of aphorisms. the writing style is pretentious, repetitive, and has no grey areas. Carse makes sweeping claims about sociology, war, Freud, ecology, sex, and Evil, then layers new claims on top without warranting the first. most of the arguments aren't especially new, and honestly made better in other books (the garden stuff in Seeing Like A State, the adaptability stuff in Antifragile, etc).
there's also something to be said about the neglected role of privilege in playing infinite games. this book is very "master of your own destiny" stuff, which just isn't reality for most people, especially when carse is so derisive about finite players who feel constrained by the competitive nature of capitalistic society - carse says that slaves agreed to oppression, for god's sake!!
anyway, i will say that his metaphors can be useful mnemonics, and most people who read this will find a few that resonate enough to remember and apply. the book is short and obviously not meant to be an empirical investigation or anything like that. it is provocative, if nothing else. it just didn't work for me.
there were some interesting ideas in the first third of the book but the last two-thirds was incomprehensible word salad
I really wanted to like this book. I do like the central arguments, but I became frustrated with the writing style. I think the author thinks he's more clever than he actually is. I stalled for a few weeks towards the end, and almost added this to my DNF shelf.
DNF 50%
Cannot rate due to DNF, BUT ugggghhhhhh.
This was a book club book, chosen as it was thought that this book would "make for good discussion"
It's difficult to put on finger on the "thing" that caused the visceral feeling of not wanting to continue this book.
Perhaps I don't feel that the dissection of life and life events as finite or infinite games a need I was lacking in my life.
I also was never the person to get really entranced with the conversation, "do you think we all see the same color red?" I appreciate the question, I appreciate the conversation, but if it went on for hours I wouldn't feel more fulfilled or profoundly changed.
I was bored. These are fun topics to discuss at the dinner table, utterly painful to sit and read.
Cannot rate due to DNF, BUT ugggghhhhhh.
This was a book club book, chosen as it was thought that this book would "make for good discussion"
It's difficult to put on finger on the "thing" that caused the visceral feeling of not wanting to continue this book.
Perhaps I don't feel that the dissection of life and life events as finite or infinite games a need I was lacking in my life.
I also was never the person to get really entranced with the conversation, "do you think we all see the same color red?" I appreciate the question, I appreciate the conversation, but if it went on for hours I wouldn't feel more fulfilled or profoundly changed.
I was bored. These are fun topics to discuss at the dinner table, utterly painful to sit and read.
Would-be Nietzsche or Wittgenstein writing sporadic philosophy. The attempt to bind the aperçus with the game metaphor fails, and becomes annoying, but there are enough stimulating observations and felicitous turns of language to make the whole worthwhile.