I wanna talk about two of the most
hated and overused words in the English vocabulary:
Game
Value
If you subscribe to Game Theory as I do,
you’ll recognize every human
(possible every biological) interaction
as a game.
One game that we could all do a little better playing is:
The Value Game
In every human interaction,
the players e-value-ate each other.
They ask themselves questions all pertaining to value:
How valuable am I?
How valuable are they?
How valuable do they think I am?
How valuable do they think they are?
Nearly every game I have lost is because
the other player didn’t value me
as much as they valued themselves.
So I rarely, if ever, play games with players
who don’t perceive my value.
In times past, I didn’t require players
to earn their way into the game with me.
That was a mistake.
I liked playing games
more than I liked winning.
This makes no sense to Charlie Sheen.
If you want to have value,
you must act as if
you actually have value.
Require people to treat as such.
If they do not recognize your value,
you have a few options…
But when in doubt,
DON’T PLAY.
I like games.
No, I love games.
But the only games worth playing are game of stakes.
That’s when we have the biggest wins.
Many will think the only games of stakes are
zero sum games:
those with one winner and one loser.
This is where there is a value disparity between the players.
I disagree.
I think the best games are non zero sum games:
the games where there can be two winners.
This is where the players’ perspectives
of their respective values are lining up.
That would make sense to Charlie Sheen.
(editors note, ala “Bi-Winning” -ATG)
It certainly makes sense to me.
Whether or not you like to play games,
you’re playing one all the time…
so you might as well be good at it.
Cooperate if possible.
You can cooperate in a relationship to where the players’ values are agreed upon.
Compete if necessary.
You must compete in a relationship where values are not agreed upon.
But remember….
If you’re gonna play,
you might as well win!
{ 3 comments }
frankie,
very well put.
some observations of mine:
I’ve mistakenly believed that the other individual or individuals had the same values as I. As a result I was surprised by their actions. I now know that the payoffs can be different for all players, which in turn would alter their strategies. What I may percieve to be a loss, another may see as a win. Cooperation could happen here because we both can win.
i.e. I like the oreo cookie, you like the cream. There’s no reason to compete for the cookie.
True zero-sum games are hard to find. In most, something is gained by the perceived “loser” and something is lost by the “winner”.
In an athletic contest, the loser may lose the match but could still learn new strategies for future competitions. The winner exposes their winning strategy which will eventually decrease the strength of it.
I rather miss the oppurtunity to not win as much than take the risk of losing all.
An important lesson for all- the game is not played at a 1 for 1 ratio. Not everyone is starting at the same level, and most players do not know (or want to know) they are playing.
Frankie,
I like the post. The idea that people will only assign as much value to you as you as you expect them to is a recent and valuable finding of mine. Not playing games where the other player doesn’t recognize your value seems like an excellent strategy, I will consider this one further and try it in my own life.
I’ll let you know how it goes.