fallen_one_fs t1_j4i513b wrote
TL;DR for the article: "gamification" is taylorism on roids, nothing more, nothing less.
It's an ancient theory taken to its pinnacle by realizing that humans are competitive. Wow. Such discovery. Give this man an honorary Nobel prize. It's not like we already had competition for gratification bonuses like, say, lawyers' companies, or for promotions in like, say, every office ever... No, wait...
The one thing I am surprised to see is how long it took companies to realize this and apply en masse, it's been used for education time and again, too, this is not some groundbreaking discovery, someone just happens to have put it on paper only now, you know, after Taylor did it about 150 years ago, and lo and behold, the article even points this out, comparing how Taylor measured worker efficiency with stopwatches and now companies use advanced metrics.
"yOu ArE bEiNg PlAyEd FoR a FoOl!!11!", no, only the 3 or so "too ignorant to care" that have no idea what this is are, ever since Ford did the exact same thing with the goddamn roller belts.
[deleted] t1_j4iandq wrote
[deleted]
fallen_one_fs t1_j4j4lwa wrote
Yes, important notice in: MUCH larger.
TheKingOfTCGames t1_j4ivkj6 wrote
it's not even just competitive though, gamification also has a bunch of pointless accolades that has none at all.
the point is to make things a skinner box, to feed the lizard dopamine receptors without regard to actual outcomes.
fallen_one_fs t1_j4j4q5c wrote
I believe there's plenty of regards to the outcome, but not the one you're thinking...
adrianhon t1_j4kpsew wrote
Author here! There is a lot about Taylorism in the book, and about how the principles behind gamification extend back hundreds if not thousands of years. The reason why we talk about "gamification" now is not just because it's a slogan, however, it's because the way in which it's being presented and the feedback loops are very different from the past.
I do agree with you about the "you've been played" aspect, that's a publisher thing and "the gamification of everything" would be a less sensational and more accurate title.
fallen_one_fs t1_j4ks2sh wrote
The feedback loops are presented in a different way, but I see no fundamental difference anywhere, I'd have to read the whole book to see your point.
About the publisher thing I agree, it could with a lot of toning down on the impactful wording, the way the article presents it makes a very poor case for it too.
gardenofhounds t1_j4jqf2j wrote
If you’re not aware of this you’re complaining about it
SkyJebus t1_j4kqktv wrote
Ty for opening "taylorism" box for me!
fallen_one_fs t1_j4ks7vh wrote
I hope you have good readings with it, it's an interesting theory, if not a bit dirty.
SkyJebus t1_j4kscuq wrote
Dirty?
fallen_one_fs t1_j4ksqtp wrote
Yes, dirty.
It might be only my take on it, but I believe that minimizing effort and maximizing repetition is not good, I believe this mostly because of fordism, which is taylorism on roids but less roids than this one, which led to the 1920's great depression, and that was bad stuff.
Edit: notice how I talked about Ford and the GODDAMN roller belts before, yeah, I just don't like that at all, it's bad stuff.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments