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.
(apr 08, 2020)
To reply you need to sign in.