Life, Games, and Survivor (was Re: It's IBM dummy)

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Jeff Bone (
Date: Wed May 09 2001 - 01:57:19 PDT

Tom sez:

> You win some you loose some, the main goal is not winnig or loosing

Sorry Tom, but while you might be right --- probably are right --- in terms of
the "game of life," the problem is that that game is actually composed of lots
of subgames, each with their own rules. Some of those games are zero-sum games,
and some aren't, and some are ambiguous --- they can be either. And those
subgames have their own subgames... it all gets annoyingly complicated. ;-)

In the "entrepreneur" game, it's not clear who you're really playing against or
whether it's zero or nonzero, but the goal --- regardless of the parameters ---
is "winning." Winning defined as ROI. And the decisions one has to make in
order to win are often very much opposed to your own prejudices, opinions,
principles, etc. You try to play the game as straight and ethically as it can
be played, but at the end of the day you either play to win or you lose.

It's a lot like Survivor. I for one am totally annoyed with Colby, because IMO
he totally undermined his own integrity *within the game* in throwing the game
to Tina by voting out Keith in the last round. No "entrepreneur" spirit in the
context of that subgame for Colby, he seemed to be overcome by a wave of
nauseating, unsubstantiated "altruism." OTOH, perhaps Colby's game was a larger
game: he did after all (supposedly) land a $4M modelling / spokesman contract
with somebody... and maybe that was the idea: preserve the illusion of "moral
integrity" (popular but flawed) in order to win the bigger game.

I dunno. Just some thoughts,


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 09 2001 - 02:11:03 PDT