Read about it here.
Is this a step back from the Gamepocalypse? I don't think so -- I think it is a step forward, because now New York realizes that these programs only work when the game design is good enough. Or as they put it: “Big lesson for the future? Got to make it a lot more simple.”
One lens down (#42), ninety-nine to go. :)
What a bunch of stupid ideas. As if the general population isn't already so misinformed and undereducated and over-marketed! We need more games, toothbrush games, and gps systems giving points for showing one's location and movement on the internet? Have you heard of "Big Brother"? Wifi toothbrushes? Am I surprised that the ideas are coming from a game design company owner? Do you have no social conscience as to where this kind of brain dead, sheep like mass behavior can lead? A society of consuming internet connected nitwits! This is a dream for any political / religious demagogue who wants to create a tyranny over a brainwashed society. I will never ever give in to such foolish 'I wanna have fun' movement. Go make fools of yourselves, but don't you dare getting into my life. A few years ago I heard an MIT professor talk about the new electronic 'playfulness'. You open a jar of salsa and the lid plays tune for you until you close the jar again. My reaction would be: smash the g d f...ing jar, and curse the inventor with a life in hell where endless tunes are played, a hundred eleven at any given time, until his brain melts into nothingness. What a bunch of dangerous BS.
ReplyDeleteJesse, have you read Punished By Rewards yet? These are exactly the kind of extrinsic incentives that Kohn argues have the *opposite* of the intended effect. A lot of research shows that it's not the simplicity that's the problem; it's the approach.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Jason Pratt: I have only just started "Punished by Rewards", and I will post about it when I am done. But it is hard for me to imagine that this is a black or white issue -- to say that extrinsic rewards and punishments will always make any activity better is obviously foolish -- but it strikes me as equally foolish to hold the position that they always make things worse, since there are so many obvious counter-examples, such as, say, the fall of communism. I'm trying to make a serious study of this, since it seems very important, and too many people just brush it off with "always works" or "never works", based on scant evidence. I suspect the truth is that the answer is "works under certain conditions" ... and knowing those conditions seems pretty important.
ReplyDelete@Thom Thori: Don't get me wrong -- I'm not advocating what *should* happen, but rather making clear what I think *will* happen. Sure, we could ignore it, and just watch it happen, but better, I think, to be ready for when it comes, so that we are ready. I'm puzzled by some of your contradictory statements -- you say that things like this are a waste of time that no one would do, but you also talk about how dangerous it is? If no one will engage with these kinds of things, they can't be dangerous, can they? And if they are dangerous, it is only because people will want to do them. One thing I cannot argue with: Smashing a musical salsa jar is the right thing to do. Why, it almost sounds fun. :)
ReplyDeleteAlthough well intentioned, I have a concern about the theory of this model that I did not see addressed in the article. So let us assume that the program were to continue. What happens when the subsidy stops? What incentive is there for a family to continue these behaviors once they would no longer be eligible for the program? For example, most programs of this nature have a maximum income level that a participant could have. What data do we have to suggest that once the family or individual is no longer eligible for the incentive program, that they will keep up the positive behavior?
ReplyDelete