By Ted Murcray<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Simon Sinek recently published a book titled The Infinite Game<\/em><\/a>, which I have, admittedly, not yet purchased nor read. However, as part of the promotional materials for the book, he sat down for an interview that was available on YouTube<\/a>, which I did watch. I was fascinated by the idea that we are all playing games in life – whether at home, at work, in the classroom, or in society – that can be categorized as either finite or infinite games.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I was caught by the idea that not only are the games we play different in structure, but they suggest different attitudes or approaches to the game. In a finite game, the intention of the players is to win, which I think is a familiar way of looking at games. Conversely, in an infinite game, the goal is to stay in the game as long as possible, such as in marriage. I had not thought of my marriage as a game before, so this was a provocative idea.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sinek says he \u201ctripped over\u201d this idea when he was reading a book by James Carse, a philosopher who wrote Finite and Infinite Games<\/a> in 2013. Since Sinek\u2019s book had not yet been published, I got online and got my copy of Carse\u2019s book, so I could read up on this philosophical perspective. A review of that book will come up in another post.<\/p>\n\n\n\n