C. Thi Nguyen

And they can try to like do some dumb communication task.

And the more they lose themselves in that task, the more fun they had.

But notice in this case, what we're doing is moving through layers of evaluation.

We're diving into the scoring system.

We're focusing on it.

And then we're stepping back and we're saying from the standpoint of our larger purpose, was it fun?

Was it chill?

Did it relax me?

And what I think your analysis of baseball is, is that baseball has a scoring system that was set up from some larger purpose, but then we forgot.

It's a weird case where it's kind of like value capture by the inner part of the game.

It's like if you became so obsessed with charades that you just studied it and became a charades asshole and just like inflicted your charades skill on people, you've missed the larger point.

And I think part of the reason it's easy to miss, I mean, it's not,

The thing I'm talking about is not so hard.

It is not an arcane thing to play charades and afterwards ask yourself, was that fun?

And be totally fine with losing because it was fun.

That is a thing all humans know how to do.

But when we enter larger social institutions, it becomes so much easier to be like, no, no, here's a score, winning the baseball game.

And I think baseball is more complicated because by the time you get to the professional stage...

Clear economic incentives are tied to the win.

One thing about charades is there aren't economic incentives tied to the win.