![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A Spontaneous Interview About Humanism
Oct. 21st, 2013 09:58 pm[Slightly edited excerpt from a longer chat between me and Val. Just before it starts, I'm talking about the manager-focused nature of baseball, and after it ends, Val talks about how aggravating Good Morning America is.]
Valancy: Did you ever read Reality is Broken?
Romie: I don't think so, no.
Valancy: It's quite interesting. Repetitive and not perhaps brilliantly written, but interesting. Basically focusing on how humans really work well with games, saying we should take advantage of that and turn more things into games because it makes people happy and productive. And it also talks about how people are getting less into complex games now because of the advances of easily joined games - i.e., music v. video games.
Romie: I'm very familiar with that argument but am actually on the other side of it. I'm very against gamification of regular life.
Valancy: Why so? I don't know I necessarily agree or disagree, just curious. I do think it's helpful for some people, motivation-wise.
Romie: Well, you know that I love games, and am perfectly willing to use games of my own devising to keep myself engaged. However, those games are (importantly) invented by me and understood to be games. Sort of like the way I can talk about "filmmaker Romie" as though that's a separate person but know full well that is not a separate person and that I am using it as a metaphor and only temporarily. The push toward gamification is bound up in neoliberal economics, and aggressively views us each as individuals who are in some sense or another competing in a market system of rules.
Valancy: Interesting.
Romie: It can make people "happier" but in a kind of superficial way, in that it says you are not part of a community or narrative.
Valancy: I think her approach was actually more about making difficult chores tolerable and helping to reawaken some aspects of community, i.e., allowing cemeteries to become places of gathering, and exploring social connections. I haven't heard of what you're talking about. Now I need to read up more.
Romie: Yes, but it's still capitalist.
Valancy: It's...a creepy thought.
Romie: And I'm not exactly anticapitalist, but you run into - have you heard the term "patriarchal bargain"?
Valancy: I think I've heard you mention it, but I couldn't define it
Romie: It's where instead of challenging the system, you work to maximize the benefits of a corrupt system that accrue to you. For instance, as a woman, you're in a shitty situation, but you know that flirting with your boss is going to get you a promotion. Do you not flirt with your boss, because it's shitty that you're in that position? Then you don't get a raise and don't have influence. Or do you flirt with your boss, which means you get a raise and have more influence, but influence that derives from cooperating with the patriarchy?
This happens all the time, and obviously applies to other minorities than women - anybody low status. Gamification basically says: Yes, definitely make the best patriarchal bargains. And yes, to some extent, that is a good strategy. And to another extent, it is totally soul destroying.
Then there's another angle to gamification. I could define the goal of gamification as: "socially engeineer desirable responses in a population by managing rewards and penalties." This sounds good and logical, and as an economist obviously it appeals to me. Social engineering yes. Rewards that align with behaviors I want to enforce, yes. But you wind up hitting some problems, like: cheaters win. Assholes get rich and then act more assholish and get richer; "playing the system" is accepted as a good thing.
Valancy: That is true.
Romie: And so you get editorials saying "oh, we shouldn't blame bankers for the banking crisis. We set up the wrong incentives." NO WE DID NOT. They knew the right thing and chose not to do it.
Valancy: And we okayed it because they technically followed some loosely defined rules and found loopholes.
Romie: So gamification can become a form of oppression, reinforcing the status quo (accepting that the "winners" are "winners"), and is also very convenient for corporate interests, who try to convince us that it's a good "game" we enjoy to do things like freely advertize their brands and "win" badges, etc.
Valancy: Ah, I see now. I'm getting the picture.
Romie: Instead of paying me more for creating a good, you reward me by showing that I got a high score. Instead of making a product I need, you give me points for buying a product I don't need. Again, obviously I say all this loving games. I am always recommending people play video games instead of taking painkillers. But they are painkillers.
Valancy: The book, by the way, focuses more on trying to make social connections stronger and facing down troubling difficulties, like poor health and house chores, by creating your own positive reinforcement systems. As I recall, anyhow.
Romie: If you start talking to people who design slot machines, it gets very disturbing very quickly, particularly since slot machine style design is making its way into regular video games and also into other forms of gamification.
Valancy: Oh, gosh, I can imagine. I get creeped out most of the time by those. Acevedo and I have never been into a casino here. We are not officially against them - I love glamour, as you know - but there seems to be an aura of severe depression around them. They do not feel like good places.
Romie: That whole "getting into the zone" thing - I read a very good piece a while back about how what this is doing is tricking your brain into thinking it's getting "flow," which is that kind of perfect joy of playing a musical instrument or something.
Valancy: Exactly.
Romie: But it's like . . . it's like that Next Gen episode where everybody's playing the game on those eye things. You know the ep I'm talking about?
Valancy: It rings a bell.
Romie: And eventually it's like "I don't even have to play, it just does it on its own."
I guess what I'm saying is I do think games can be used in very positive ways and that play is a natural human state, but that it's dangerous when it loses its "play" aspect. It can start being like artificial sweetener that is not giving you any calories, or can have strongly coercive qualities.
Valancy: It's a good point.
Romie: Gamification theory draws a lot on the positive psychology movement, which similarly mixes stuff that is sensible (cognitive behavioral treatments that have been demonstrated to work on depression), stuff that's classic self-help in new clothes (The Secret or How to Win Friends and Influence People but dressed up in academic language), and some really fraudulent research. For instance.
Both gamification and positive psych fall into the trap of wanting to take something sensible like "drinking water is good for you!" and say "water cures cancer!" Or "prayer helped me get through this" versus "God is the only solution." There's a desperation to transform "seems useful in some situations" into argument-clinching panaceas, when the data isn't there. Lots of sloppy studies and correlation presented as causation.
[Unrelatedly, today was the first day cold enough that I woke up to a warm radiator.]
Valancy: Did you ever read Reality is Broken?
Romie: I don't think so, no.
Valancy: It's quite interesting. Repetitive and not perhaps brilliantly written, but interesting. Basically focusing on how humans really work well with games, saying we should take advantage of that and turn more things into games because it makes people happy and productive. And it also talks about how people are getting less into complex games now because of the advances of easily joined games - i.e., music v. video games.
Romie: I'm very familiar with that argument but am actually on the other side of it. I'm very against gamification of regular life.
Valancy: Why so? I don't know I necessarily agree or disagree, just curious. I do think it's helpful for some people, motivation-wise.
Romie: Well, you know that I love games, and am perfectly willing to use games of my own devising to keep myself engaged. However, those games are (importantly) invented by me and understood to be games. Sort of like the way I can talk about "filmmaker Romie" as though that's a separate person but know full well that is not a separate person and that I am using it as a metaphor and only temporarily. The push toward gamification is bound up in neoliberal economics, and aggressively views us each as individuals who are in some sense or another competing in a market system of rules.
Valancy: Interesting.
Romie: It can make people "happier" but in a kind of superficial way, in that it says you are not part of a community or narrative.
Valancy: I think her approach was actually more about making difficult chores tolerable and helping to reawaken some aspects of community, i.e., allowing cemeteries to become places of gathering, and exploring social connections. I haven't heard of what you're talking about. Now I need to read up more.
Romie: Yes, but it's still capitalist.
Valancy: It's...a creepy thought.
Romie: And I'm not exactly anticapitalist, but you run into - have you heard the term "patriarchal bargain"?
Valancy: I think I've heard you mention it, but I couldn't define it
Romie: It's where instead of challenging the system, you work to maximize the benefits of a corrupt system that accrue to you. For instance, as a woman, you're in a shitty situation, but you know that flirting with your boss is going to get you a promotion. Do you not flirt with your boss, because it's shitty that you're in that position? Then you don't get a raise and don't have influence. Or do you flirt with your boss, which means you get a raise and have more influence, but influence that derives from cooperating with the patriarchy?
This happens all the time, and obviously applies to other minorities than women - anybody low status. Gamification basically says: Yes, definitely make the best patriarchal bargains. And yes, to some extent, that is a good strategy. And to another extent, it is totally soul destroying.
Then there's another angle to gamification. I could define the goal of gamification as: "socially engeineer desirable responses in a population by managing rewards and penalties." This sounds good and logical, and as an economist obviously it appeals to me. Social engineering yes. Rewards that align with behaviors I want to enforce, yes. But you wind up hitting some problems, like: cheaters win. Assholes get rich and then act more assholish and get richer; "playing the system" is accepted as a good thing.
Valancy: That is true.
Romie: And so you get editorials saying "oh, we shouldn't blame bankers for the banking crisis. We set up the wrong incentives." NO WE DID NOT. They knew the right thing and chose not to do it.
Valancy: And we okayed it because they technically followed some loosely defined rules and found loopholes.
Romie: So gamification can become a form of oppression, reinforcing the status quo (accepting that the "winners" are "winners"), and is also very convenient for corporate interests, who try to convince us that it's a good "game" we enjoy to do things like freely advertize their brands and "win" badges, etc.
Valancy: Ah, I see now. I'm getting the picture.
Romie: Instead of paying me more for creating a good, you reward me by showing that I got a high score. Instead of making a product I need, you give me points for buying a product I don't need. Again, obviously I say all this loving games. I am always recommending people play video games instead of taking painkillers. But they are painkillers.
Valancy: The book, by the way, focuses more on trying to make social connections stronger and facing down troubling difficulties, like poor health and house chores, by creating your own positive reinforcement systems. As I recall, anyhow.
Romie: If you start talking to people who design slot machines, it gets very disturbing very quickly, particularly since slot machine style design is making its way into regular video games and also into other forms of gamification.
Valancy: Oh, gosh, I can imagine. I get creeped out most of the time by those. Acevedo and I have never been into a casino here. We are not officially against them - I love glamour, as you know - but there seems to be an aura of severe depression around them. They do not feel like good places.
Romie: That whole "getting into the zone" thing - I read a very good piece a while back about how what this is doing is tricking your brain into thinking it's getting "flow," which is that kind of perfect joy of playing a musical instrument or something.
Valancy: Exactly.
Romie: But it's like . . . it's like that Next Gen episode where everybody's playing the game on those eye things. You know the ep I'm talking about?
Valancy: It rings a bell.
Romie: And eventually it's like "I don't even have to play, it just does it on its own."
I guess what I'm saying is I do think games can be used in very positive ways and that play is a natural human state, but that it's dangerous when it loses its "play" aspect. It can start being like artificial sweetener that is not giving you any calories, or can have strongly coercive qualities.
Valancy: It's a good point.
Romie: Gamification theory draws a lot on the positive psychology movement, which similarly mixes stuff that is sensible (cognitive behavioral treatments that have been demonstrated to work on depression), stuff that's classic self-help in new clothes (The Secret or How to Win Friends and Influence People but dressed up in academic language), and some really fraudulent research. For instance.
Both gamification and positive psych fall into the trap of wanting to take something sensible like "drinking water is good for you!" and say "water cures cancer!" Or "prayer helped me get through this" versus "God is the only solution." There's a desperation to transform "seems useful in some situations" into argument-clinching panaceas, when the data isn't there. Lots of sloppy studies and correlation presented as causation.
[Unrelatedly, today was the first day cold enough that I woke up to a warm radiator.]
