The chess comparison really clarifies the distinction between recognizing strategic opposition and descending into tribalism. I've noticed this exact dynamic play out in tech policy debates, where one side refuses to acknowledge structural opposition and gets repeatedly outmaneuvered. The point about Greenpeace being more aware of "us" as a group than we are of ourselves is kinda brutal but accurate. It reminds me of how decentralized movements often lose to centralized ones not because of resources but because of coordination. The part about rules mattering even in conflict feels underrated, most people think recognizing enmity automatically means abandoning all norms when it's actually the oposite.
In my experience, people who think about The Game think about it in personal and tribal terms.
Separately, nerds avoid thinking about The Game (except in abstract terms), and non-nerds like thinking about it.
In either case, the Good aspect comes after: get power in The Game, and then separately use it to do Good.
Ideally, one would incorporate Good in their vision of The Game itself:
- Looking for positive-sum sub-games. Notable examples include trade agreements, and international infrastructure projects (think Eurostar or Transatlantic Communication Cables).
- Explicitly renegotiating the rules of the game. Eg: UN Charter, Hague Convention, etc.
- Raising the sanity waterline, by pushing for universal education everywhere for instance.
The chess comparison really clarifies the distinction between recognizing strategic opposition and descending into tribalism. I've noticed this exact dynamic play out in tech policy debates, where one side refuses to acknowledge structural opposition and gets repeatedly outmaneuvered. The point about Greenpeace being more aware of "us" as a group than we are of ourselves is kinda brutal but accurate. It reminds me of how decentralized movements often lose to centralized ones not because of resources but because of coordination. The part about rules mattering even in conflict feels underrated, most people think recognizing enmity automatically means abandoning all norms when it's actually the oposite.
Very interesting article! I'm curious what percentage of the world thinks about The Game on this level.
In my experience, people who think about The Game think about it in personal and tribal terms.
Separately, nerds avoid thinking about The Game (except in abstract terms), and non-nerds like thinking about it.
In either case, the Good aspect comes after: get power in The Game, and then separately use it to do Good.
Ideally, one would incorporate Good in their vision of The Game itself:
- Looking for positive-sum sub-games. Notable examples include trade agreements, and international infrastructure projects (think Eurostar or Transatlantic Communication Cables).
- Explicitly renegotiating the rules of the game. Eg: UN Charter, Hague Convention, etc.
- Raising the sanity waterline, by pushing for universal education everywhere for instance.