02 Nov 2019
The reality of getting what you want in a world that doesn't care
Society is comprised of many formal and informal systems. Whether its old or new, organic or forced, man-made or not, systems not only run today's society, but have been running the world since the beginning of time.
Every interaction is a system. Be it between organs within your body, 5 cars at a stop sign, 10,000 organisms in a forest, or all matter on Earth, systems are the composition of interaction points. Systems work in one or many ways, and don’t work the rest of the ways, ultimately rewarding certain behaviours, and punishing others. (Quick examples: a human being's digestive system rewards a balanced diet, modern "justice" systems punish citizens acting against the law, the interaction system between me and my fridge rewards careful opening of the door with access to what’s inside).
Wherever there are rewards and punishments, there will be winning and losing strategies. In other words, where there are systems, there are incentives. Incentives bring about strategies and games around those strategies (read: "metas"). And in the end, there are winners and losers.
Although the phrase "don't hate the player, hate the game" sucks to hear, it marks an important shift in focus. You lost because the systems in place rewarded your opponent's strategy over yours. In the real world, it's never this black and white, and reality is shrouded by perception, but underneath it all, those that can play the game get what they want.
This post will be about accepting this fact, and how to get what you want by playing the game.
I was taught to place importance on abilities and competencies. These, I define, as the raw skills learned and practiced. Conversely, the “real world” (read: society) places much more weight on perception. In other words, the raw competencies go almost unnoticed and neglected, where the emphasis lies in everything surrounding – the presentation, rapport, delivery, timing, and much more.
Because of my mindset, I was willfully resistant of the importance of items that weren't raw technical ability. But in interviewing for jobs, it was more than just about the raw technical abilities. In some cases, it wasn't important at all. When I first learned how to "nail" the interview, I was shocked at how little the technical abilities mattered. Further, I realized I wasn't half bad – persuading the interviewer to hire me was difficult but something that I could see myself doing.
And so I gamed it. Interviews became about conversion rates, and racking up offers left and right became the norm. And to an extent I was good at it, but new systems and new games arose. Technical jobs? Better grind leetcode for months. Product roles? Better have a portfolio and prior experience. And because none of these incentivized raw technical ability, I was willfully resisting these systems. Partly because I wasn't good at it, but also I didn't see a world where I actually spent time working on it and improving it. I dismissed these systems as "bullshit" and "unfair", as it did not reward what I thought should be rewarded.
And so I escaped to where I thought would be the most freedom ("startup-land"), away from all these "unfair" games, "useless" skills, and "poorly designed" systems. What a dream! To be my own boss, build what I want, free from the tyranny of many invisible hands. But alas, there are systems and games everywhere, taking on different forms. Want to fundraise? Better have traction in the round and an attractive market. Unattractive market? Change or find those that have the same mindset. Herd-like investors? Utilize their FOMO to your advantage. The reality is that knowing the "meta" around how the world works and playing with it rather than against it is beneficial to get your desired outcomes – whether that be negotiating salary, landing a job offer, and more.
Systems run the world. Systems that you didn't design. Systems that society has converged upon after many years of operation, without your say. And they're largely out of your control. It's delusional and highly unproductive to be willfully ignorant of their existence.
And once you accept their existence, you must also accept their terms. Example: Standardized testing in education today rewards regurgitation and cramming. There's nothing you can do about the system itself (as an individual/typical student), but it's proven that implementing that strategy will get the desired outcome. (Aside: that game might be a game within a longer-term, more important game, such as learning/education. So tradeoffs exist.)
You don't have to play in every game, but if you can't escape the system, you can't escape the game. In this case, "opting out" is equivalent to opting in with no action. In many cases, you might find yourself in systems you didn't intend on joining initially with no easy way out (such as: university education, workplace politics, etc.).
But this conscious decision is important – no one will encourage you to play. In fact, everyone doesn't want you to play cause they're scared you’ll win! Do not wait for your special invitation on a silver platter. Seize the chance to get something you want.
The world is cruel and unjust, and those that game the systems find the most success. Those that have figured it out get what they want. Sitting and complaining why you aren't getting what you want won't get you what you want.
The good news is: no one will blame you for playing the game. You are acting upon opportunities presented, why would you resist? What are the downsides? The only downside is that you're signaling to others that you are hungry for something. How could that be bad? The alternative is to signal cues such as "I'm too cool for this", or "I have more important things to focus on", which are rarely picked up on, and scarcely interpreted in the intended manner (usually comes off as cocky, pretentious, unapproachable).
You're not a crook/scumbag/etc., and you're not behaving extra/cutthroat/etc., rather you're playing the game in front of you because you want the end goal. (Of course, the optics around your actions play a huge role, so it is possible to come off with negative connotation. This is also part of "the game": how to optimize for the right optics.)
Aside: How do you play to win? I think there's enough content to write a book on that subject, but this also may be highly custom and largely domain specific. But there are general frameworks: optimizing for a focused outcome, understanding players and their incentives, laying out everyone’s options, and much more.
Let's take a more lighthearted example. In table tennis, there are two scopes of skills: technical skills (small scope), and skills that win you the game (large scope). Games are won by those that can play the latter, rather than solely the former. The scoreboard cares little for your technical ability to forehand loop to the back corner, or return a short low chop to the backhand side. But rather it's how well can you score points. And that in and of itself is a totally different skillset. (Aside: tech skill grants you the ability to employ strategies that wins games, so it is hugely important.) The tweet below likens the personal development process to the MVP (minimum viable product) model – needs to at least function at all levels before it can be "viable".
1/ It's very interesting and useful I think to apply the MVP model of product development to personal development.
Often in competition, you hear the phrase "play the player", but I always saw that as levels on top of technical skill, and ultimately "unnecessary". But you need skills in all levels (read: meta games, abstraction layers) to properly compete, rather than all your eggs in one basket. (I always thought it was “cheese” to be “playing to win”, a.k.a. picking strategies solely to win and display no skill. But upon reflection, by thinking that, I wasn’t playing to win, I was playing to lose.)
Democracy rewards optimizing strategies to maximize social buy-in. It's rarely about the bills and policies on your platform, but moreso about the platform itself – how the people perceive you (what the platform represents, stands for, etc.).
Business is politics with money (read: voting power). It’s less to do with the product, service, or value, but how you the stakeholder (i.e. prospect, shareholder) perceives the information.
A wise man once told me: public speaking is all about how you make the audience feel, rather than the content itself. (This is why I want to get good at writing, inspired by Paul Graham). This is abstract-able to any conversation. Make the investor feel smart and you'll get what you want. Make your stakeholders feel important to get what you want. etc. You would think it's what you say that gets you that big ticket deal, or that life-changing job offer, but in the end it's what they hear that will impact the outcome. Assuming that what you say and what they hear are equivalent is a rookie mistake. (Once again, perception is reality). (Aside: one framework that I employ with these situations is about painting pictures from my head into your head, and how to best do that given parameters/constraints. Yet another post.)
Systems can be gamed, and they should be (within ethical reason) in order to obtain your desired objective. Real world systems don’t care about you, but you should care about them. You're not edgy if you ignore the game, and it's not in your best interest to if you want anything in life. They will continue to exist, and continue to have immense impact on outcomes. Calling BS won't make it go away (most of the time). Take control of your agency by playing to win.