4 ms·

The fact that some people fail to accomplish a thing doesn't mean others can't. Of course you can engineer addictive games. We know quite a lot about addiction.

The fact that some people fail to accomplish a thing doesn't mean others can't. Of course you can engineer addictive games. We know quite a lot about addiction. What do you think casinos are, exactly?

andrewla 6y ago
Tell me this -- do casinos fail? If you look only at examples of successful things and say "it is addictive" but don't look at the same principles as applied to failed examples of the same thing, then you're being intellectually lazy. In order to establish some facet as "addictive" it needs to work both ways, otherwise you're just using "addictive" as a synonym for "successful" -- Edison's light bulb was "addictive" and people were "addicted" to Pullman cars. But you get to carry all the negative connotations of "addictive"; you're trying to let the informal do all the work while positing nonsensical equivalences.
- karpierz 6y ago
  Do bars fail?
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    Yes, and so do casinos. That is the point
    - karpierz 6y ago
      The original point was: "The idea that you can engineer yourself an addictive game is a silly concept." The rebuttal was: "this is literally what casinos do" The rebuttal to that was: "well, some casinos fail" Which isn't really a point. Some casinos fail, that doesn't show that they don't optimize for addiction. It just indicates that optimizing for addiction is necessary but not sufficient for a casino to maintain solvency.
      - s1artibartfast 6y ago
        I think we have fundamentally different of andrewla's original point, and that is OK. I read it as pointing out that success isn't guaranteed with an addictive game model. I did not read it as saying that some games don't or cant optimize for addictiveness.
- KillahBhyte 6y ago
  So you call someone intellectually lazy... and immediately turn around and make an implication that if casinos have failed to be successful then that somehow speaks to the addition qualities of gambling? Something something nonsensical equivalences.

andrewla 6y ago

Tell me this -- do casinos fail? If you look only at examples of successful things and say "it is addictive" but don't look at the same principles as applied to failed examples of the same thing, then you're being intellectually lazy. In order to establish some facet as "addictive" it needs to work both ways, otherwise you're just using "addictive" as a synonym for "successful" -- Edison's light bulb was "addictive" and people were "addicted" to Pullman cars. But you get to carry all the negative connotations of "addictive"; you're trying to let the informal do all the work while positing nonsensical equivalences.

karpierz 6y ago
Do bars fail?
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  Yes, and so do casinos. That is the point
  - karpierz 6y ago
    The original point was: "The idea that you can engineer yourself an addictive game is a silly concept." The rebuttal was: "this is literally what casinos do" The rebuttal to that was: "well, some casinos fail" Which isn't really a point. Some casinos fail, that doesn't show that they don't optimize for addiction. It just indicates that optimizing for addiction is necessary but not sufficient for a casino to maintain solvency.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      I think we have fundamentally different of andrewla's original point, and that is OK. I read it as pointing out that success isn't guaranteed with an addictive game model. I did not read it as saying that some games don't or cant optimize for addictiveness.
KillahBhyte 6y ago
So you call someone intellectually lazy... and immediately turn around and make an implication that if casinos have failed to be successful then that somehow speaks to the addition qualities of gambling? Something something nonsensical equivalences.