A framework for all human relationships | Part 2/3: Finite and Infinite Games
Prelude
Welcome back! This is part 2 of my explanation of the framework that has defined how I see all relationships - an intersection of two ideas: a) statefulness and b) the concept of finite and infinite games.
In Part 1, we discussed statefulness. Today I'll cover finite and infinite games. You don't have to have read Part 1 for today's column but you'll need to have read both for Part 3.
Finite and Infinite Games, explained
This is a fun exercise in summarizing just an excellent and dense and weird book from James Carse called Finite and Infinite Games. A big value of reading books is the time spent wrestling with the ideas and that's never been more true for me than for this book, so it's a high recommend.
That said, for our purposes, here quick and reductive summary:
The big idea: All human interactions are one of two things - finite and infinite games.
They differ roughly as follows:
Objectives: This is the key difference between the two. Finite games have definitive objectives—specific goals you aim to achieve to end the game. When the game ends you know who has won or lost based on these objectives. Infinite games, however, are all about keeping the game alive. The intent of an infinite game is to simply keep playing together.
Rules: Finite games have clear boundaries and fixed rules —you know exactly where and when they start and end and what the shared rules are that everyone has to follow. Infinite games, on the other hand, have fluid boundaries that can shift and change over time, and the rules are adaptable to service the objective of keeping the game going.
Participants: You know all the players in a finite game from the get-go—they’re known players. They are also exclusionary, such that new players can't join due to fixed rules. If and when new players join, it's a new game. In infinite games, though, players can come and go, making them unknown players, and allowing for inclusion of new players as the game evolves.
Rewards: Success in finite games is measured by rewards like trophies or titles, or a shared agreement of winners and/or losers. This derives from externally defined rules and values inherent to the game. Infinite games, on the other hand, are driven by intrinsic motivation, with the desire to play being the main reward, and values that are created by, and evolve with, the players.
I know that's abstract (and let me tell you the book is even more so!) but maybe an example of how I think about it would be helpful.
Let's take the Olympics as a salient example.
Any given event in the Olympics is a finite game. To run through the above pieces, triple jump has a clear objective (jump the farthest), with clear rules (can't cross the takeoff board), participants (the qualifying players only) and rewards (medals). Pretty straightforward, right?
The relationship between the Olympics (the IOC) and the viewers is an infinite game. Their objective is for the viewers to be engaged for as long as possible into the future in what happens at the Olympics. For this, they will adapt rules (e.g. COVID restrictions), flex participants (e.g. the Russian Olympic Committee team instead of Russia), change events (CLIMBING!), to make the event itself rewarding to watch.
Now here too, as with statefulness, we may fall into a temptation to believe that more infinite oriented games and relationships are inherently better than finite ones, but again I'd argue they are simply different and both can be really great.
Note also that while I talk about relationships as being categorically finite and infinite, it's more of a spectrum.
Finite relationships
When it comes to finite relationships, we have clarity on mutual expectations. As a roommate, you are at a minimum expected to pay rent on time, occupy specific rooms and contribute to some shared tasks. These relationships have contracts that are explicit (lease agreement) or implicit (strong social norms). They provide predictability by ensuring mutual accountability.
Because we can offload the structuring of these relationships to existing templates, they are generally low cost and medium-high reward. You get a roommate, or you get transported somewhere, or you pay money in exchange for certain amount of labor.
And it's not just for formal transactions. Even in informal contexts, finite games help us accomplish things. Think about what an accountability buddy is if not a relationship with clear objectives, rules, participants and rewards. In fact, finite games are so efficient that they are the infrastructure that runs our complex social world. Most of our interactions as we go through life are finite interactions, and honestly it's a relief because it would be paralyzing otherwise.
Infinite relationships
So then, what are infinite relationships for? At their best, they are the relationships that nurture us and the foundations on which we build our sense of social self. When people talk about "unconditional love" this is what they mean. They are hard to define, vary individually by the person (or even pet, group, etc.) and have an inevitable ineffable quality that makes them feel special.
But because each one is so particularly special, they are high cost and variable reward. While many are amazing, these are also the relationships that can be taxing and a source of outsize emotional (and financial, temporal) drain. A toxic family member, a sick pet, an unfulfilling romance - these are also types of infinite relationships. Still, when they're good, they are the things we reason around - we make sacrifices with finite games to fuel infinite games.
Carse notes that while finite games take time, infinite games make time. This is critically important. People don't think of time spent with loved ones as a cost - it's the objective! As the saying goes, "time enjoyed is not time wasted" and infinite games enable us to enjoy things boundlessly.
A key twist: Infinite games can contain finite games.
This is the final and fun quirk of the model. While relationships can generally fall into these two categories, infinite games can contain finite games. Of course this makes sense - you can play board games with your best friend.
But, finite games borne out of infinite games present an inherent tension. You are trying to toe the line between all that is required and permissible to win the finite game while still managing the infinite nature of your relationship. You can't be too annoying while trying to win games with your friends because you'll have to make amends afterwards. One person can't win MarioKart all the time because the infinite game will evolve to not include MarioKart at all in the relationship.
This is a difficult tension and one that comes up all the time. Do you want to start a business with a family member? Do you want to be roommates with a particular friend? You can see why explicitly finite relationships are easier to manage, and yet the allure of the infinite game persists.
What does this mean during the American election?
We're heading into a few months that really play with this dichotomy in the political realm.
In general, elections are a finite game. In the American system, the objective is to win the Electoral College, there are plenty of campaign rules (formal and informal), a multiyear process to determine the participants and the rewards are clear and enormous.
But American democracy and government itself is an infinite game. We have amendments that come out of major disagreements and ever-evolving laws and precedents that change the rules of engagement. What's more, a lot of the rules within the finite games are norms.
Norms, or implicit rules, really push the boundaries of that tension between finite and infinite games. If you really want to win the finite game (the election) you will be tempted to break the norms that hold the infinite game (democracy) intact. But when it's over, you often see as a part of a candidate's concession speech an appeal to national unity ("Congratulations to my opponent, I wish them the best in doing what's best for all of us") , which is a nod that the finite game is over and the infinite remains. When it doesn't happen, the finite game spills over to threaten the infinite one.
Anywhere you look, it's finite and infinite games, all the way down!