fallen_one_fs

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.

3

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.

1

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.

33