tiltfactor » Blog Archive » Skinner’s Gamification vs. CBT, etc.
Aug
09
2011

A variety of folks have been reacting to Ian Bogost’s “Gamification is Bullshit” post today (with which, for the record, I largely concur.)

This is one of my favorite responses.

The whole essay is fantastic, but I want to take a second to point out something of an aside of Mr. Nelson’s:

“…perhaps we could also read from the large body of research in areas like cognitive behavioral therapy, which includes a lot of thinking on quite relevant questions, such as how to use extrinsic interventions in a way that guides a user towards intrinsic motivation, rather than making them dependent on Skinner-box-like motivational approaches”

I find this very relevant. In short form, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is open, versus the closed “Skinner box” system.

Skinner somewhat famously treated the brain and mind as a “black box,” claiming that we could not speculate about what goes on in there, merely measure inputs and outputs.  (Later, after he had a stroke, he regretted this line of thinking.) He almost single-handedly disrupted a productive era of psychology and ethology – as well as many associated fields, such as linguistics – and delayed quite a bit of research for, in some cases, decades.

It’s a very simple-minded approach to human behavior – that we are what we eat, so to speak – and nothing more.  Reward the desired behavior and that behavior shall be effectively encouraged until it is normalized.  To some extent we all operate like this – we do respond to rewards and punishments, certainly.  But mere rewards and punishments do not comprise either life or behavior.

CBT, on the other hand, is a goal-oriented therapy approach that helps a person understand their behavior and learn ways to change it. It’s much more nuanced and complex than Skinnerian behavioralism.

It also involves the person in the process.

Perhaps it is this that is the most critical factor.  “Gamification” is something done to one at this point.  Sure, one may participate (one must participate, to be certain), but it is wholly external.  You are not involved in the gamification of your universe.  People want you to do something, and so they dangle carrots in front of that thing.  Some of those carrots are more effective and better thought-out than others, sure, but it is nevertheless a fantastically simplistic version of the user.

It also seems founded on the basic assumption that the user must be tricked into participating in the desired activity.

Employing CBT approaches, however, makes the assumption that the user wants to participate in the activity.  Is this not reasonable?  Oughtn’t we bring the user/player/actual human being, ffs into the fold, and actively involve them in developing the systems that will drive them to fulfill their goals?  Goals that we theoretically share?

Gamification as it stands presently-defined treats people like children – and often worse: like rats who are effectively controlled via shocks and pellets.  It represents an attitude both sinister and egregious; that of superiority.  An attitude of control and further – a belief that that control is warranted and appropriate.

No wonder “gamification” is looked upon with such reproach, such cynicism.

posted by at 7:23 pm   |   comments (5)

5 Comments »

  1. One hallmark of a game is that it is voluntary. . .

    Comment by mary — August 10, 2011 @ 12:33 pm


  2. That’s an interesting point. I suppose I see voluntariness as more problematic than helpful in analyzing games, though I recognize some (like Huizinga) see it as definitional. I’m more interested in the internal dynamics, which voluntariness admittedly can affect, but not necessarily decisively.

    A subsidiary question is how to establish voluntariness. Is the use of games by marketers in modern American capitalism voluntary play to begin with? To the extent that agency within capitalism is often constricted, I’m not so sure.

    Comment by Mark N. — August 10, 2011 @ 3:34 pm


  3. The infantilization angle is important. Taken to extremes, we could say that the corporatization of behavior (a process that begins in primary school) already primes the pump, such that we notice less and less how much of our lives we’ve infantilized.

    Comment by Ian Bogost — August 10, 2011 @ 4:19 pm


  4. […] here: tiltfactor » Blog Archive » Skinner's Gamification vs. CBT, etc. AKPC_IDS += "6705,";Popularity: unranked […]

    Pingback by tiltfactor » Blog Archive » Skinner's Gamification vs. CBT, etc. | BBGUniverse — August 14, 2011 @ 9:13 am


  5. […] potential to lead to exploitation, gamification can also affect people’s choices and decisions. http://www.tiltfactor.org/skinner-gamification-cbt-etc […]

    Pingback by Blog Update 1 « bowens089 — October 20, 2011 @ 2:37 am


Leave a comment

 


  • Tiltfactor invents new ways of thinking about important social issues through engaging games and play. Founded and directed by leading innovator Dr. Mary Flanagan, Tiltfactor is the award-winning design studio and research laboratory that takes on problem areas of national need and creates solutions through playful design.
  •