Winning in a game like basketball is straightforward. Have more points than the other team when the time runs out, and you win.

Same thing in a traditional board game like chess or checkers. There’s an objective route to a clear winner.

But over the past few years, a different type of game has gained popularity. By now there are countless versions of the same concept (Apples to Apples, Cards Against Humanity, What Do You Meme?, etc.), but they all share an interesting detail – winning is purely subjective.

Essentially, a single person acts as the judge each round and they get to pick which player wins the round. They don’t have to pick the most logical answer, the wittiest, the funniest, or the most insightful answer. They just pick whatever is “best.”

They don’t even need a good reason for why they made their decision. It’s purely subjective and, at times, it seems arbitrary.

This style of game can be frustrating, but I think about it differently.

In some ways, this subjective judging system is more like the real world than any of the traditional games we could play.

When my customer makes a purchase decision, they don’t need to have a clear reason. They don’t need to pick the cheapest solution or the supplier providing the most technical expertise. They get to pick based on whatever they define as “best.”

Same thing when we’re picking a spouse or a place to eat. There isn’t a clear set of objectives that determines who wins and who loses. We just pick.

So sure, we might like it if every situation came with a clear set of evaluation criteria, but maybe we’d be better served to just embrace things as they are.

-Brandon