“in playing chess honestly, the player's aim is to master the rules of chess; in playing it dishonestly, his aim is to beat his opponent. In one case, winning is secondary to playing well and learning to play better; in the other, winning is primary and all that counts. Honest game playing thus implies that the players value the skills that go into playing the game well; whereas dishonest game playing implies that they do not value these skills. It is evident, then, that honest and dishonest game playing represent two quite different enterprises: in the one, the player's aim is successful mastery of a task -- that is, playing the game well; in the other, his aim is control of the other player -- that is, coercing or manipulating him to make certain specific moves. The former task requires knowledge and skills; the latter -- especially in the metaphorical games of human relations -- information about the other player's personality.
These considerations have the most far-reaching implications for social situations in which those in authority are concerned not with their subordinate's performance, but with their personality. Characteristically, in such situations, superiors not only tolerate but often subtly encourage inadequate task performance by their subordinates; what they want is not a competent subordinate but a subordinate they can dominate, control, and "treat." One of the most ironic examples of this is the psychoanalytic training system, in which the trainers are avowedly more concerned with the personality of the trainees than with their competence as psychoanalysts. The workings of countless other bureaucratic and educational organizations, in which superiors seek and secure psychological profiles and psychiatric reports on their subordinates, illustrate and support this interpretation: in these situations, the superiors have replaced the task of doing their job competently, with the task of managing their personnel "compassionately."”