• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Andrew Skotzko

  • Home
  • About
  • Reading list
  • Contact
  • Newsletter

Mental Models

Are you with us, or against us?

Think about the games you’re playing. Are you competing with the other players in the game, or are you competing against them?

Two ideas I’ve been captivated by in recent months are (1) the idea of infinite games and (2) mastery.

An infinite game is a game with no finish line. The point of the game is to keep playing, to stay in the game and keep it going.

Mastery is a mindset, a posture that approaches any medium from the long view. Embracing the long arc of never-ending improvement and ever deeper expression.

They seem related, but how do these fit together? And how do they frame the way we approach competition?

First, embracing the infinite game provides context for everything you do. It supports resilience through the emotional roller coaster of a finite game. When you know the game you’re really playing, you’re secure in that context. And it’s easier to adjust your approach without losing your center or sense of direction.

Once you’ve embraced an infinite context, then mastery is the mindset or posture to play from.

The mastery mindset is one which embraces the path of endless, goalless practice. This posture is the hallmark of the true master in any field. The mastery mindset is the most practical posture to both go the distance and enjoy the ride. It would suck to go on a never-ending journey without enjoying the ride itself. The mastery mindset helps make the infinite game inherently rewarding to play.

So, if we’re playing an infinite game with a mastery mindset, how do we think about the idea of competition?

One of the five things that you need to play the infinite game on a finite level is a worthy adversary.

In an infinite game, the only true competitor is yourself. We are always competing to be better than we were yesterday. To better fulfill our vision, to become more of who we’re trying to be. This is true at all levels: individual, team, organization, or society.

How to view external competitors, then?

Everyone else is there to reveal our weaknesses to us, so we can improve. They are there to provide the stimulus that pushes us to get better.

We need them. We need them to push us to see and reach for new levels of our own potential. Nobody does their fastest time alone. They do it in a race, with others.

This is what it means to compete with the players in the game. Here, we’re each competing to be better than ourselves, together.

Or, we can compete against the other players in the game. Here, we’re each competing against the others, by ourselves.

Are we trying to see how good we can be, trying to do something better than it’s ever been done before? Or are we just trying to beat them?

It turns out that “with us or against us?” is a matter of perspective. A choice. And yes, one choice works better.

One burns out. The other burns on.

Filed Under: Leadership, Mental Models

Impossible*

“Impossible” and “Unpossible”: we confuse these two ideas all the time, and it doesn’t serve us.

Something that is “impossible” cannot ever possibly happen, according to all known laws of science.

Something that is “unpossible” cannot happen according to reality as we know it.

There’s a difference.

Most of what we call “impossible” is actually “unpossible.” Something I want may be impossible to me, right now, this month, with my current circumstances. That means it’s not impossible, it’s merely unpossible.

Really, instead of saying “that’s impossible” we should be saying “that’s unpossible.” Or “that’s impossible, according to how I have defined this other term.” Or, if we really want to be honest about it, we could say “that’s not possible for me, yet.”

Even something “impossible” should have an asterisk next to it, because our scientific understanding of the laws of nature is always expanding. New discoveries can and will change our understanding of what’s possible. That’s what science does, and it works.

The word that changes everything: “yet.” But I’ll take an asterisk as a shorthand for ‘yet’.

Faster than light travel: impossible*.

Next time you find yourself writing that something is “impossible,” try writing it as “impossible*” instead.

Filed Under: Mental Models

Adulting: The Fundamentals

3 Comments

“Get it together, dude.”

“Ugh, I hate my job.”

“I have no idea what to do next.”

“I feel like such a loser.”

We’ve all been there.

Life can be hard, unfair, challenging. But no matter what life brings my way, I want to be always learning, growing, and getting better. I want to get the most out of my life and assume you do, too.

Whenever I’ve thought something like the above, it’s always come from a place of deep frustration. I’ve wanted and needed an answer. I knew something was off, but was stuck as to how to move forward.

In my experience, the real problem is usually that I’ve stopped taking care of the fundamentals. Part of the foundation of my life is out of whack.

So I start in the wrong place, putting the cart before the horse. I address the symptoms but not the causes.

Oh, you too? Glad I’m not the only one.

Continue reading »

Filed Under: Career, Lessons, Mental Models

Charlie and The Zealot

Have you met The Zealot lately?

He’s the bombastic preacher who blasts all other forms of worship.

He’s the chess player who is entirely reliant on memorized gambits to win or confound his opponent, and is upset when it’s not enough.

He’s the middle manager who insists that This is How It Must Be Done. Why? Because this is how it must be done.

What do these zealots share? Circular logic. A vague malaise. A low sense of their ability to create or adapt to new ways of doing things. An inability to improvise, because they have not grasped the deeper principles of their chosen framework and integrated those principles into an overall seamless flow in decision making.

On the other hand, there’s Charlie.

Charlie Munger is a billionaire and philanthropist who is the cofounder of Berkshire Hathaway. Charlie is famous for giving speeches, and being able to think very deeply about a wide range of problems.

Here’s the difference between Charlie and The Zealot: dependence.

Charlie knows that every framework has a point of view that can be useful.

Continue reading »

Filed Under: Mental Models, Psychology

Primary Sidebar

Andrew Skotzko (@askotzko) is a product leader and entrepreneur living in Los Angeles, CA.
Read more→

SUBSCRIBE

Search

Footer

Recent Posts

  • Connecting the dots between high-level work and low-level tasks
  • A simple framework for tough stakeholder updates
  • Are you with us, or against us?
  • What I want for Christmas: A Quiet Internet
  • The work grows out of the work

Categories

  • Blog
  • Books & Reading
  • Career
  • Creativity
  • Entrepreneurship
  • Future
  • Leadership
  • Learning
  • Lessons
  • Management
  • Mental Models
  • Mindset
  • Performance
  • Psychology
  • Teams
  • Technology
  • Tools
  • Travel
  • Trends

Search this site

Follow me elsewhere

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

© 2019 Andrew Skotzko

  • Subscribe to my newsletter
  • Follow me on Twitter