4 ms·

In the book "Reality is Broken" by Jane McGonigal, she argues that instead of video games being something that are a corrupting influence, real life is not near

In the book "Reality is Broken" by Jane McGonigal, she argues that instead of video games being something that are a corrupting influence, real life is not nearly as engaging as it could be compared to video games. Consider how some people get much more satisfaction out of being in a World of Warcraft guild compared to going to their public school. There is nothing that would make it impossible for a job or a school system to be as engaging as a video game, and there are actually people I once met at the Game Developers Conference (GDC) who are trying to do that. On the other hand, from the perspective of evolution, the human brain did not evolve in the presence of things like high fructose corn syrup and infinite Facebook feeds, and so it can require unnatural efforts to use moderation, especially if someone is predisposed to be particularly addicted to something. So, maybe like most things, the issue is more nuanced than just "video games are horrible" and "video games are completely good."

visarga 9y ago
As we're entering a risky new era in technology, it might be that same technology that would provide us with a cure.
- davidscolgan 9y ago
  I am optimistic that that will turn out to be true. Some are pessimistic about, say, how there are so many different prescription drugs out there that now no doctor can realistically know how all of the interactions work. But, in the case of something like the IBM Watson computer, it (at least theoretically as it is pitched) can examine literally all the combinations and make it work. My current running theory is that the world will become really great if we can just get to that point before everything explodes.
Sangermaine 9y ago
>There is nothing that would make it impossible for a job or a school system to be as engaging as a video game Of course there is: real life has real consequences like failing school or poverty or death if you mess up too badly. Part of the fun of video games is that you can do exciting things without actual risk.
- amelius 9y ago
  This would mean that rich people have more fun, because their risks are lower.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    That seems likely to be true, coupled with the fact that wealth means greater selection in their entertainment.
    - swsieber 9y ago
      However, they are not more likely to be happy (down to a certain point - earning less that 70K affects your happiness; above that though, it doesn't seem to have an influence). Happiness != Fun. Sadly, we often seem to try to maximize Fun (/pleasure/ease/etc.), and not Happiness.
      - KGIII 9y ago
        True, but OP mentioned fun. It's also true that more wealth doesn't seem to make me happier, in and of itself. It does mean I have much less stress. That makes me more content, which some might call happiness.
      - adwn 9y ago
        > However, they are not more likely to be happy (down to a certain point - earning less that 70K affects your happiness; above that though, it doesn't seem to have an influence). I thought that was a misinterpretation of the data, which showed essentially logarithmic growth of happiness with respect to money? When plotted on a linear graph, the curve seems to go flat after a certain income level, but it actually keeps on increasing. Which would mean that more money results in more happiness, but with diminishing returns.
    - amelius 9y ago
      But it's not like rich people live their lives as if everything is without risk like a videogame.
barce 9y ago
I'm not sure the author is doing an either/or. Instead she is examining the uses of the word "pharmakon" in Plato's work, and suggests that how it describes the innovation of written speech as a spell or drug or scapegoat could be inferred of technology, too. The author concludes, "Demonizing the substance, rather than the impulse, behind addiction is what leads us away from true healing and towards damaging narratives. Technophobia isn’t a soothing ointment, it’s pushing some guy you don’t like off a cliff and hoping your pustules magically disappear."
hnthrwawy566 9y ago
The delay between the sacrifice and the gratification (and the corresponding neurochemical responses) in real life is often on the order of years or even decades. In video games the delay is often on the order of minutes or hours. The real world cannot compete with video games in the same way that milkshakes cannot compete with broccoli.
- princeb 9y ago
  the world is way more random than video games. in general most games reward effort with a small set of known outcomes, and for online RPGs and the like, the more effort (time) spent, the more rewards one can get. in real life you could spend your entire life dedicated to a single craft and fall short for reasons outside of your control.
- davidscolgan 9y ago
  Something that I've been thinking a lot about lately is the idea that due to the way humans evolved, we've spent most of the ~100k years of our species existence in an environment we evolved to be adapted to. Humans have spent most of our history as hunter-gatherers, and only in the last 6k years or so have we had civilization and only in the last 100 years have we invented abnormally pleasurable experiences (crack cocaine, Doritos, World of Warcraft, etc). Milkshakes cannot compete with broccoli because milkshakes are far beyond the tastiness of anything we would have found in the savannas of Africa. But so my wonderance is - would life 70k years ago be as fulfilling and enjoyable as World of Warcraft, since that was the environment we were adapted to do well in? Modern schools ask children to sit still for hours and do mental work. The savannas had us outside all the time, living with close family and friends, exercising a lot, etc. I'm not trying to romanticize living in the jungle, just makes me wonder how our ancestors felt day to day.
- deepnotderp 9y ago
  > The real world cannot compete with video games in the same way that milkshakes cannot compete with broccoli. It's ironic that you bring this up because I actually quite like boiled broccoli.
colordrops 9y ago
> There is nothing that would make it impossible for a job or a school system to be as engaging as a video game You mention "public school" in the previous sentence, which is important, because many private school do successfully address the engagement issue by having a much more rich and unstructured environment with better teacher to student ratios and passionate teachers that more freedom to innovate. That doesn't mean that there aren't great teachers at public schools, but that the standardization and lack of resources really hobbles them.
- rtpg 9y ago
  Standardization is often talked about, but it would totally be possible to standardize on a "good curriculum". It's extremely hard to find teachers that are willing and able to produce entire curriculums on their own for the group of 30 children. However, there are many teachers that would be excited to try out better curriculums if they were offered them. That curriculum can, of course, be less structured as well. Hundred percent agree on lack of resources, of course.
  - eadmund 9y ago
    > Hundred percent agree on lack of resources, of course. My state provides about $7,000 per public school student (I don't know if this is per student actually enrolled or student in the district, even if the student goes to a private school). That means that a classroom of 30 students is worth $210,000. There is absolutely no way that $210,000 is an insufficient amount of resources to educate 30 K-12 students. That's 3½ times U.S. median income — easily enough to teach a year's worth of material. The problem with public schooling is structural, not resources.
    - rtpg 9y ago
      Food is subsidized, so let's say about $100/month/kid is going to help pay for their school lunch. There's $36,000 a year gone. Arts classes requires materials. Instruments for band. Mopping the classrooms. Maintenance for desks. Some of those kids go to detention, so now some teachers get paid overtime to sit with them. The football team takes the bus to go somewhere. The library buys some new books. Updates the computers. There's a lot of stuff going on, it's not just the teacher.
coldtea 9y ago
>In the book "Reality is Broken" by Jane McGonigal, she argues that instead of video games being something that are a corrupting influence, real life is not nearly as engaging as it could be compared to video games. The same could be said for porn. But unless we think it's ok to turn everyday life in endless group-sex (often involving tentacled animals) I don't think it's relevant, either there or here. Heck, the same holds for drug use -- drugged states can be more engaging as compared to "real life". Games can be totally "exciting" by taking shortcuts and providing cheap dopamine thrills, in a way regular life can't easily replicate. But the proper question is not what is more engaging, but what is more meaningful/useful.
- davidscolgan 9y ago
  I agree with you - the threshold for what is engaging and what is over-engaging is not really very defined. That's where my thoughts from evolutionary psychology come, since it gives a way to define that threshold. Basically anything that is way beyond what we would have experienced 70k years ago might be best viewed with caution.

visarga 9y ago

As we're entering a risky new era in technology, it might be that same technology that would provide us with a cure.

davidscolgan 9y ago
I am optimistic that that will turn out to be true. Some are pessimistic about, say, how there are so many different prescription drugs out there that now no doctor can realistically know how all of the interactions work. But, in the case of something like the IBM Watson computer, it (at least theoretically as it is pitched) can examine literally all the combinations and make it work. My current running theory is that the world will become really great if we can just get to that point before everything explodes.

Sangermaine 9y ago

>There is nothing that would make it impossible for a job or a school system to be as engaging as a video game Of course there is: real life has real consequences like failing school or poverty or death if you mess up too badly. Part of the fun of video games is that you can do exciting things without actual risk.

amelius 9y ago
This would mean that rich people have more fun, because their risks are lower.
- KGIII 9y ago
  That seems likely to be true, coupled with the fact that wealth means greater selection in their entertainment.
  - swsieber 9y ago
    However, they are not more likely to be happy (down to a certain point - earning less that 70K affects your happiness; above that though, it doesn't seem to have an influence). Happiness != Fun. Sadly, we often seem to try to maximize Fun (/pleasure/ease/etc.), and not Happiness.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      True, but OP mentioned fun. It's also true that more wealth doesn't seem to make me happier, in and of itself. It does mean I have much less stress. That makes me more content, which some might call happiness.
    - adwn 9y ago
      > However, they are not more likely to be happy (down to a certain point - earning less that 70K affects your happiness; above that though, it doesn't seem to have an influence). I thought that was a misinterpretation of the data, which showed essentially logarithmic growth of happiness with respect to money? When plotted on a linear graph, the curve seems to go flat after a certain income level, but it actually keeps on increasing. Which would mean that more money results in more happiness, but with diminishing returns.
  - amelius 9y ago
    But it's not like rich people live their lives as if everything is without risk like a videogame.

barce 9y ago

I'm not sure the author is doing an either/or. Instead she is examining the uses of the word "pharmakon" in Plato's work, and suggests that how it describes the innovation of written speech as a spell or drug or scapegoat could be inferred of technology, too. The author concludes, "Demonizing the substance, rather than the impulse, behind addiction is what leads us away from true healing and towards damaging narratives. Technophobia isn’t a soothing ointment, it’s pushing some guy you don’t like off a cliff and hoping your pustules magically disappear."

hnthrwawy566 9y ago

The delay between the sacrifice and the gratification (and the corresponding neurochemical responses) in real life is often on the order of years or even decades. In video games the delay is often on the order of minutes or hours. The real world cannot compete with video games in the same way that milkshakes cannot compete with broccoli.

princeb 9y ago
the world is way more random than video games. in general most games reward effort with a small set of known outcomes, and for online RPGs and the like, the more effort (time) spent, the more rewards one can get. in real life you could spend your entire life dedicated to a single craft and fall short for reasons outside of your control.
davidscolgan 9y ago
Something that I've been thinking a lot about lately is the idea that due to the way humans evolved, we've spent most of the ~100k years of our species existence in an environment we evolved to be adapted to. Humans have spent most of our history as hunter-gatherers, and only in the last 6k years or so have we had civilization and only in the last 100 years have we invented abnormally pleasurable experiences (crack cocaine, Doritos, World of Warcraft, etc). Milkshakes cannot compete with broccoli because milkshakes are far beyond the tastiness of anything we would have found in the savannas of Africa. But so my wonderance is - would life 70k years ago be as fulfilling and enjoyable as World of Warcraft, since that was the environment we were adapted to do well in? Modern schools ask children to sit still for hours and do mental work. The savannas had us outside all the time, living with close family and friends, exercising a lot, etc. I'm not trying to romanticize living in the jungle, just makes me wonder how our ancestors felt day to day.
deepnotderp 9y ago
> The real world cannot compete with video games in the same way that milkshakes cannot compete with broccoli. It's ironic that you bring this up because I actually quite like boiled broccoli.

colordrops 9y ago

> There is nothing that would make it impossible for a job or a school system to be as engaging as a video game You mention "public school" in the previous sentence, which is important, because many private school do successfully address the engagement issue by having a much more rich and unstructured environment with better teacher to student ratios and passionate teachers that more freedom to innovate. That doesn't mean that there aren't great teachers at public schools, but that the standardization and lack of resources really hobbles them.

rtpg 9y ago
Standardization is often talked about, but it would totally be possible to standardize on a "good curriculum". It's extremely hard to find teachers that are willing and able to produce entire curriculums on their own for the group of 30 children. However, there are many teachers that would be excited to try out better curriculums if they were offered them. That curriculum can, of course, be less structured as well. Hundred percent agree on lack of resources, of course.
- eadmund 9y ago
  > Hundred percent agree on lack of resources, of course. My state provides about $7,000 per public school student (I don't know if this is per student actually enrolled or student in the district, even if the student goes to a private school). That means that a classroom of 30 students is worth $210,000. There is absolutely no way that $210,000 is an insufficient amount of resources to educate 30 K-12 students. That's 3½ times U.S. median income — easily enough to teach a year's worth of material. The problem with public schooling is structural, not resources.
  - rtpg 9y ago
    Food is subsidized, so let's say about $100/month/kid is going to help pay for their school lunch. There's $36,000 a year gone. Arts classes requires materials. Instruments for band. Mopping the classrooms. Maintenance for desks. Some of those kids go to detention, so now some teachers get paid overtime to sit with them. The football team takes the bus to go somewhere. The library buys some new books. Updates the computers. There's a lot of stuff going on, it's not just the teacher.

coldtea 9y ago

>In the book "Reality is Broken" by Jane McGonigal, she argues that instead of video games being something that are a corrupting influence, real life is not nearly as engaging as it could be compared to video games. The same could be said for porn. But unless we think it's ok to turn everyday life in endless group-sex (often involving tentacled animals) I don't think it's relevant, either there or here. Heck, the same holds for drug use -- drugged states can be more engaging as compared to "real life". Games can be totally "exciting" by taking shortcuts and providing cheap dopamine thrills, in a way regular life can't easily replicate. But the proper question is not what is more engaging, but what is more meaningful/useful.

davidscolgan 9y ago
I agree with you - the threshold for what is engaging and what is over-engaging is not really very defined. That's where my thoughts from evolutionary psychology come, since it gives a way to define that threshold. Basically anything that is way beyond what we would have experienced 70k years ago might be best viewed with caution.