From: Tom (email@example.com)
Date: Wed May 09 2001 - 08:17:41 PDT
On Wed, 9 May 2001, Jeff Bone wrote:
--]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.
The games we all play are very very goal based and I think a lot of where
people fail in the understanding dept is the goals each of us set for
ourselves, wether covertly or overtly. Knowing what the goals ar for the
people your ddealing with can go a long way into understanding them and
thus your relation to and with them.
I didnt watch survivor, I lived in NYC and was on MIndvox, thats enough
drama and caty infighting to last me a lifetime.(guilty pleaure moment, I
do like the VH1 show Bands on the Run. I always wanted MediaWhore to be a
real touring band and this is a fun look at how other bands deal with
that life and those choices)
But I hear what your saying about the games of life and the needs to win
some to win more to get where you want to go. I think if anything life is
like an RPG with a tri polar undermedicated narcoleptic DM.
Or to quote on of the wise sages "you got to know when to hold em, know
when to fold em, know when to walk away and know when to run. You never
count your money when you sitting at the table, therell be time enough for
counting when the dealins done."
You see,m knowing that life as all sorts of differnt tacts means your best
wepon , or game skill, is to know how to read a situation and act however
best you need to get to the goal you want.
Even people in the same industry, in the same biz frame of reffernce, may
gave radicaly differnt goals and thus their response to a stituation will
Take, just for instance, Steve Jobs. Now If Steves goals were truly to
make INsanely Great computers would he have shit all over NeXT? Would he
have slipped into the Armanis so easily and gotten a Flavored Bubling
Water person to CEO for him. WOuld he had let JLG out of the fold? Would
the biggest tech achievment of a new model be the Color of the Case?
No, and there for the goal of INsanely Great computer is not evident in
Jobs actions. If you substitute INflation of Ego then you get closer to a
cause/effect case that makes sense. Apple's journey form the ][ to the OSX
is not about tech, not about money, and not about insansley great other
than in how those things aided in the Inflation of SJ's Ego.
Now for another example. Rap music. Here we can see how goals drasticaly
change the rules and the methods of play. Take Snoop Dog and Chuck D, same
game, very differnt takes. Better yet takes comtemps like KRS-ONe and
Ice T. The deal here is the gaol of being a Rapper, a PLaya, or simply a
Ho (hip hop hurray hoo hayy hooo)
So too in tech. Rainman or Schnierer, Jobs or Woz, Blamer or Hertzfeld
(who was the most brilliant guy at apple right up ther with Woz and
Atkinson)...its all about the goal.
"Free your mind and your ass will follow"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 09 2001 - 08:26:49 PDT