Finite and Infinite Games

Before I continue the series on Cooling Out, I need to take an aside to describe an idea I came across about five years ago and has greatly influenced my philosophy about life. In a used bookstore in Boulder, Colorado, I picked up a small paperback by James P. Carse called "Finite and Infinite Games." His distinction between finite games and infinite ones has important implications for political philosophy and group dynamics of any sized social circle, whether a binary friendship, clique, business, small town, etc... I don't know how widely available the book is; perhaps when I get the time I will post a scanned copy.

Finite Games

A finite game, according to Carse, is what we normally refer to as just a "game": Monopoly, football, elections. In each of these cases, there are players, rules, and temporal and spacial boundaries on game play, each of which are determined in advance and remain constant for the duration of play. For football, there are twenty-two players allowed on the field at any one time; rules regarding acceptable and unacceptable means to advance the ball as well as penalties assessed for infractions; play begins at 1 pm Sunday afternoon and continues until 60 minutes of gametime has elapsed on a designated field 120 yards in length and 75 yards in width.

The purpose of the game is to win. Every action is designed to further the goal of winning and when you win, you are given the title of "winner". This title denotes your superiority over the losers. The Pittsburgh Steelers are superior to the Arizona Cardinals and every other NFL team because, according to league rules, they won enough regular season games as well as all their playoff games and the Super Bowl. Barack Obama is superior to John McCain and every other American citizen because he won the election by receiving the most electoral votes. A title like "winner" or "President" refers to a competition that has ended; it is no longer in doubt who won and lost. Moreover, a title compels recognition by everyone else. We all must recognize that the Steelers and Obama are winners and grant them certain respect.

Infinite Games

An infinite game is directly opposed to a finite game. The purpose of an infinite game is not to win, but to continue playing. The rules are what facilitate continued play and constantly change. Carse analogizes this to the grammar of language, which we all must agree on and allows us to interact in a meaningful way. Yet language changes over time, words change meanings, new ones are introduced and old ones retired. In contrast, the rules of a finite game are like the rules of a formal debate: time limits, topic, alternating speakers, etc...

An example of an infinite game is friendship:

Johnston's answer is "that acquaintances become friends when they agree to play status games together." This means that we deliberately dominate our friends, just to accept their dominance a moment later. By flip-flopping in dominance over time, we become equally dominant on average. It's a "see-saw" principle. And any violation of this hidden rule (i.e. not accepting a friend's dominance when it is his turn or failing to "pay them back" for their dominance gestures) can destroy a friendship.

...

The delicate nature of balancing out status between friends is astonishing. When we are with true friends, we need to constantly assess the status balance between them and us, and playfully subtract or add dominance whenever needed.

A willingness to accept submission to your friend does not make sense unless you realize that it is a move calculated specifically to keep the friendship going.

In this case, the ball busting and continuous status games are a small price to pay for friendship. They can be annoying at times but friendship is worth much more than this. However, sometimes continuing play requires a much greater cost. For instance, how much can you forgive a friend? Would you be willing to forgive him if he:
-ate the last piece of cake
-broke your TV
-crashed your car
-stole your girlfriend/wife
-killed someone
-killed your mother/father/brother/sister/son/daughter/friend

In each of these cases, to continue the friendship, both you and he need to take various steps to recover. He needs to apologize, replace your TV/car, ask for forgiveness and demonstrate his trustworthiness while you need to forgive him, possibly help him deal with his sense of guilt. But most importantly, when it comes to this, whether he deserves your forgiveness or not has nothing to do with it. If you want to still be friends, you have to forgive him.

The Treaty of Versailles

One problem with a finite game is that the losers have to accept that they lost and accept the superiority of the winners over themselves. They can be badgered, threatened, bribed or tricked into accepting this, but ultimately each man has to decide for himself to accept it. John McCain does not go around protesting that the election was rigged or attempt to walk into the White House, go upstairs and lie down on the bed because he thinks it is rightfully his residence, not Obama's. Larry Fitzgerald and Kurt Warner have not made diamond rings for themselves or break into the Elias Sports Bureau to change the final score in the record books.

But losers do not always accept that they have lost. While from the perspective of the winner, as Quintus says in Gladiator, "People should know when they are conquered," the losers are not always willing to put down their weapons and accept their subjugation. This is where the problems of political legitimacy, cooling out and George Sodini come in.

Consider World War I. The Allies were victorious and set about drafting a peace treaty that blamed German aggression for the war and demanded huge sums of money in reparations. As we all know, this was disasterous. People do not just accept the poverty and humiliation that comes with losing a war. Instead, they will bide their time, smoldering with rage, until a man comes along who promises them wealth and greatness and then lash out at their enemies with violence. Hence Hitler and World War II.

The same is true of George Sodini. He was a loser in the dating game. He suffered from his continued failures, which only hurt his ability with women further. He grew desperate and angry.

As has been pointed out many times, women do not care one bit about beta males, creeps, losers. The probably never think about it but I'm sure it's natural for them to assume that these men deserve their celibacy and should accept it. The females attempt to badger, insult and demean men into submission, to maintain their power. They call Sodini a racist, a grievance misogynist. And you get rants like this from Fem X about how men are morally inferior.

But it is a fact of life that these men will not "just accept it." Misogyny has nothing to do with it. Is a slave wrong for hating his master, a man who makes him spend his life working under the Southern sun in a cotton field?

So

[Had women] better submit to such manipulation, unless they want to get shot[?]

To some extent, yes. "Deserves" got nothing to do with it. Coexistence is an infinite game. We all desire to live indefinitely, which is the very definition of an infinite game. We are all living here on the same planet; we managed to not kill each other yesterday so for the moment, we have succeeded in continuing play. But sometimes you have to take drastic measures to continue play.