4 ms·

> ... it's the sort of thing that obviously doesn't scale linearly with the amount/intensity of consumption. Is there anything that actually scales linearly? I

> ... it's the sort of thing that obviously doesn't scale linearly with the amount/intensity of consumption. Is there anything that actually scales linearly? I thought the law of diminishing rewards applied to pretty much anything you do.

NationalPark 5y ago
Sure, nobody is worried that if you eat healthy food every day or sleep 8 hours every night, it may eventually turn into life-impairing addiction.
TeMPOraL 5y ago
I'd argue that benefits from games - at least from games in the 90s - scale in a weird but, to a degree, superlinear way. That is, if you do it only a little, you may as well not do it at all. Come to think of it, quite a lot of things in life scale like this. Software development being among the well-known ones for this audience - e.g. if you'd be given only a 30 minute window for writing code during a day (or even a couple such windows spread out), you'd likely not even open the editor, as there's no point in even engaging with the task in such short window. I'd go as far as saying that, in order to realize the most non-enjoyment value of a game, you not only need long enough sessions to fully engage with a game - you need long enough sessions to get bored with the game. But, that may be impossible with modern gambling-for-chindren-but-legal style of games. You can imagine this as an "S-curve" model of value, where with games, the point most people consider "too much" for a kid is barely on the ramp-up part of the curve.
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  This seems very plausible. I suspect one of the most consistent benefits of games is that it trains the mind to pay attention to one thing for a long time. The longer those sessions, the more effective it probably is.
mattgreenrocks 5y ago
> I thought the law of diminishing rewards applied to pretty much anything you do. IMO, the interesting part of many things in life comes after a significant time/difficulty spike. Think of music, art, programming, athletic performance, etc.

NationalPark 5y ago

Sure, nobody is worried that if you eat healthy food every day or sleep 8 hours every night, it may eventually turn into life-impairing addiction.

TeMPOraL 5y ago

I'd argue that benefits from games - at least from games in the 90s - scale in a weird but, to a degree, superlinear way. That is, if you do it only a little, you may as well not do it at all. Come to think of it, quite a lot of things in life scale like this. Software development being among the well-known ones for this audience - e.g. if you'd be given only a 30 minute window for writing code during a day (or even a couple such windows spread out), you'd likely not even open the editor, as there's no point in even engaging with the task in such short window. I'd go as far as saying that, in order to realize the most non-enjoyment value of a game, you not only need long enough sessions to fully engage with a game - you need long enough sessions to get bored with the game. But, that may be impossible with modern gambling-for-chindren-but-legal style of games. You can imagine this as an "S-curve" model of value, where with games, the point most people consider "too much" for a kid is barely on the ramp-up part of the curve.

SuoDuanDao 5y ago
This seems very plausible. I suspect one of the most consistent benefits of games is that it trains the mind to pay attention to one thing for a long time. The longer those sessions, the more effective it probably is.

mattgreenrocks 5y ago

> I thought the law of diminishing rewards applied to pretty much anything you do. IMO, the interesting part of many things in life comes after a significant time/difficulty spike. Think of music, art, programming, athletic performance, etc.