I second the recommendation of Finite and Infinite Games by James P. Carse. He takes this simple concept and expands and applies it to modern tech, politics, the workplace, education, etc:
"There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite, the other infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play."
The player in a finite game actually wants it to end, where the play itself is just a means to this end. He is "playing against play." The player in an infinite game wants it to continue, and revels in the game itself.
"Although it may be obvious, it is worth stressing that “play,” as it is used here does not mean merely “playing around.” Play, in this discussion, is a metaphor for any number of complex human engagements whenever they take on a competitive, or cooperative, character. Corporations, for example, not only compete with each other but are in themselves populations of strivers, each trying to supplant another, each struggling for higher incomes and titles. The same applies to schools and colleges where attaining superior grade averages, degrees, and honors absorb the lives of students. Sexuality and marriage are often finite battle grounds with winners and losers. In fact, the features of play–finite and infinite–are essentially the same whether we are children playing jacks or soldiers caught up in a war between nations."
To me it is a concise and broadly applicable way to see the world.
Jordan Peterson describes something like this, but as if one is embedded within the other, as the game itself which can be wonr or lost, and the meta-game of all future games which means you get to continue playing; and uses it to discuss why cheating in games is so bad, especially when teaching children about cooperation.
Cheating might win you the game, but it means nobody will trust you and nobody will want to play with you in future and you're out of the meta-game, you lost the more important thing. It's important to lose fairly at a game, so you get to play again long term.
Something that comes up in HPMOR where a dark lord can't submit and be humble to learn a lesson, instead fighting and killing everyone but losing the larger goal, and something which surely comes up every time someone is "technically right" on a mailing list or forum argument but in such a way that nobody wants to engage with them in future.
"There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite, the other infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play."
The player in a finite game actually wants it to end, where the play itself is just a means to this end. He is "playing against play." The player in an infinite game wants it to continue, and revels in the game itself.
"Although it may be obvious, it is worth stressing that “play,” as it is used here does not mean merely “playing around.” Play, in this discussion, is a metaphor for any number of complex human engagements whenever they take on a competitive, or cooperative, character. Corporations, for example, not only compete with each other but are in themselves populations of strivers, each trying to supplant another, each struggling for higher incomes and titles. The same applies to schools and colleges where attaining superior grade averages, degrees, and honors absorb the lives of students. Sexuality and marriage are often finite battle grounds with winners and losers. In fact, the features of play–finite and infinite–are essentially the same whether we are children playing jacks or soldiers caught up in a war between nations."
To me it is a concise and broadly applicable way to see the world.
https://jamescarse.com/wp/?page_id=61
Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/189989.Finite_and_Infini...