Trivial Pursuits
4 hours ago
- #scoring systems
- #critical analysis
- #gamification
- The author starts their morning with simple word puzzles but avoids more complex games to prevent them from taking over too much time.
- They differentiate between 'good games' that offer enriching experiences and 'bad games' or gamification that extract data and reduce human experience to metrics.
- C. Thi Nguyen argues that good games use arbitrary scoring systems to facilitate creative or competitive play, while bad games pretend their scores have inherent meaning, often leading to oppressive systems like university rankings.
- Good games are voluntary and allow players to walk away, whereas bad games trap participants, reinforcing sunk costs and lack of exit options.
- Nguyen believes that games add value when players voluntarily take on unnecessary obstacles, but the author critiques this binary view, noting that scoring systems can also expose hidden power structures and enable accountability.
- The author points out that social systems like etiquette can be both oppressive and liberating, serving as non-numerical scoring systems that regulate behavior and access.
- Historical figures like Hobbes and Bentham used scoring systems to combat opaque power structures, suggesting that external measures can be necessary for public accountability, even if they simplify complexity.
- The author argues that scoring is dialectical, not binary, and can both curb and encourage arbitrary power, with examples like university rankings being both corrupting and useful.
- Nguyen's distinction between gamers and gamifiers is blurred, as figures like Silicon Valley leaders grew up playing role-playing games like Dungeons & Dragons, showing how reinvention can lead to both liberation and domination.
- The author concludes by reflecting on their own resistance to overly analytical approaches, suggesting that the pursuit of value should balance openness to new experiences with awareness of how value is captured by systems.