3 ms·

Unpopular opinion: Why do we push games on society instead of work? Why is chess and MMOs fun, but not sewing a shirt or building a new app? I would disagree,

Unpopular opinion: Why do we push games on society instead of work? Why is chess and MMOs fun, but not sewing a shirt or building a new app? I would disagree, I find sewing shirts and making apps fun, MMOs can be grindy and chess is basically just studying. I'm sure there are some relatively minor things like reward rate, physical exertion, etc... but I have to imagine much of it is cultural. Lets not take this to logical extremes, but rather, why don't we value group volunteer work more than playing chess? You have your social aspect, you have rewards, its often different and unique each time. As I've gotten older, its a bit apparent to me that 'beating Zelda' is more akin to work, than it is to getting fulfillment. (However, then there are games like Divinity Original Sin(2) that feel extremely fulfilling, can't deny that.) You wonder how many people are playing Call of Duty because a leader of a friend group saw the advertisement, bought the game, and pushed their friends to do the same. Instead of playing football, they play COD.

forgotmypw17 3y ago
Chess specifically helps practice complex multi-step thinking and grokking multiple component systems.
- hospitalJail 3y ago
  Prove it with science. Skills from one area do not necessarily transfer over.
  - NickC25 3y ago
    The whole point of the game is multi-step thinking. If I make a move, I need to prepare for the inevitable response, which might or might not be obvious to my opponent. The game is inherently more and more complex after each move. While things might not carry over directly in a provable way, there's a reason chess has survived as a game for hundreds of years - because there's definitely ways the game improves your thinking processes, pattern recognition, and abstract decision making skills.
    - hospitalJail 3y ago
      >While things might not carry over directly in a provable way, there's a reason chess has survived as a game for hundreds of years - because there's definitely ways the game improves your thinking processes, pattern recognition, and abstract decision making skills. No, you need science. This is Appeal to Tradition fallacy. Chess was the 'in' game for the upper class/nobility through history. That is the reason it survived. Wouldn't great chess players be fantastic outside of the chess world? Wouldn't kingdoms who had chess beat regional powers that didn't have the technology? Wouldn't chess players defeat their political rivals? If any of this was true, we'd see evidence of it.
      - spicymapotofu 3y ago
        Science is not a good tool to win an argument with. Are you trying to argue that abstract logic games like chess have no impact on how people otherwise live? This is a crazy stance, I hope you agree.
        hospitalJail 3y ago
        >. Are you trying to argue that abstract logic games like chess have no impact on how people otherwise live? Yes, they don't have an impact from everything I've read. Again, it should be easy to prove. Why not see how the best chess players in the world do outside of chess? You'd think with all those abstract logic skills we'd have them running companies, universities, and being secretary of state. Instead all seem to be stuck as chess players. >Science is not a good tool to win an argument with. Feelings are better? No bud. It sounds like you just really want Chess to be useful.
        NickC25 3y ago
        >You'd think with all those abstract logic skills we'd have them running companies, universities, and being secretary of state. Instead all seem to be stuck as chess players. Sounds like you're not familiar with what Kasparov (undisputed #1 player in the 80s-early 2000s) does outside of Chess. Guy has told off Putin to his face, and has been a champion of human rights and democracy - getting arrested in his native Russia several times while protesting the one-party state Putin has built to enrich himself. He's also written books on geopolitics. Magnus Carlson has done alright for himself too. He's won a few poker tournaments, and last season was the best fantasy soccer player on the planet.
  - forgotmypw17 3y ago
    n=1 shrug
- sobellian 3y ago
  I play quite a bit of chess. I also develop software, so theoretically I practice complex multi-step thinking and hopefully I grok multi-component systems. Unfortunately I think chess does not help me at all in my job. I wish it did! Chess is highly specific. Most players tend to learn and improve on those specifics. I know that bishops are more valuable than knights in an open position. I know several openings to a depth of ~30 ply. I know many theoretical endgames. These things do not help me at all in any arena besides chess.
reedf1 3y ago
Because reading Harry Potter is more fun than reading an economics textbook. And eating pizza is more fun than chicken + broccoli. tl;dr FUN!!
cirgue 3y ago
At least with chess (and plenty of other games) it’s a structured way of participating in cooperative competition/competitive cooperation. Your peers are your adversaries when you’re actually playing, but they’re also the people helping you get better. Work doesn’t teach that, or at least not explicitly, but the ability to navigate social spaces where you’re both cooperating and competing is critical to getting anything done.
kitsunesoba 3y ago
“Fun” is subjective. I love programming for example but most people would find it to be somewhere between dry and mind numbingly boring, which isn’t good or bad, it just is. Same for MMOs or sewing or chess or what have you.
yifanl 3y ago
The difference between "work" and "games" is how easily monetizable the activity is, not how useful the output of the activity is.
n4r9 3y ago
I'm not sure whether you're making a comment about prison society or society in general. Penal labour sounds like a pretty bad idea to me. But I can see a few reasons that chess might be good for rehabilitation (some referred to in article): * Simple, indisputable demonstration of intelligence. People from deprived background often have low self-esteem and very little evidence to show for their smarts, even if they are in fact intelligent. * It's traditionally a slow, thoughtful game, in stark contrast to the stress and demands of the outside world. * It provides escapism by totally focusing your mental faculties onto the world of the board. * There are few external expectations. No one will be upset if you make a silly move, like they would if you make some bad stitches.
- f33d5173 3y ago
  Prison forced labour might not be a good idea. Prison labour as an optional thing is definitely a good idea, and most prisons give prisoners the option to contribute, at least to the running of the prison, in exchange for certain privileges. The jobs include working in the laundry room or serving food. These are not intensely engaging occupations, but they are an improvement over the monotony of prison life, and give people the opportunity to excercise certain skills useful in the real world like teamwork, diligence, etc.
whimsicalism 3y ago
I disagree with those who claim that only people from a certain social setting can comment on certain issues, but I have to admit that it provokes my ire a bit seeing HN commentators who likely have pretty much no experience with inner-city cycles of schooling/imprisonment/poverty suggesting more penal labor as some sort of solution and drawing on their experience of how 'beating Zelda' is akin to work.
im3w1l 3y ago
Games are better because you can choose who you play with rather than having to pretend to like some asshole. In a similar vein you don't have to submit to some bullshit boss and his bullshit rules.

forgotmypw17 3y ago

Chess specifically helps practice complex multi-step thinking and grokking multiple component systems.

hospitalJail 3y ago
Prove it with science. Skills from one area do not necessarily transfer over.
- NickC25 3y ago
  The whole point of the game is multi-step thinking. If I make a move, I need to prepare for the inevitable response, which might or might not be obvious to my opponent. The game is inherently more and more complex after each move. While things might not carry over directly in a provable way, there's a reason chess has survived as a game for hundreds of years - because there's definitely ways the game improves your thinking processes, pattern recognition, and abstract decision making skills.
  - hospitalJail 3y ago
    >While things might not carry over directly in a provable way, there's a reason chess has survived as a game for hundreds of years - because there's definitely ways the game improves your thinking processes, pattern recognition, and abstract decision making skills. No, you need science. This is Appeal to Tradition fallacy. Chess was the 'in' game for the upper class/nobility through history. That is the reason it survived. Wouldn't great chess players be fantastic outside of the chess world? Wouldn't kingdoms who had chess beat regional powers that didn't have the technology? Wouldn't chess players defeat their political rivals? If any of this was true, we'd see evidence of it.
    - spicymapotofu 3y ago
      Science is not a good tool to win an argument with. Are you trying to argue that abstract logic games like chess have no impact on how people otherwise live? This is a crazy stance, I hope you agree.
      - hospitalJail 3y ago
        >. Are you trying to argue that abstract logic games like chess have no impact on how people otherwise live? Yes, they don't have an impact from everything I've read. Again, it should be easy to prove. Why not see how the best chess players in the world do outside of chess? You'd think with all those abstract logic skills we'd have them running companies, universities, and being secretary of state. Instead all seem to be stuck as chess players. >Science is not a good tool to win an argument with. Feelings are better? No bud. It sounds like you just really want Chess to be useful.
        NickC25 3y ago
        >You'd think with all those abstract logic skills we'd have them running companies, universities, and being secretary of state. Instead all seem to be stuck as chess players. Sounds like you're not familiar with what Kasparov (undisputed #1 player in the 80s-early 2000s) does outside of Chess. Guy has told off Putin to his face, and has been a champion of human rights and democracy - getting arrested in his native Russia several times while protesting the one-party state Putin has built to enrich himself. He's also written books on geopolitics. Magnus Carlson has done alright for himself too. He's won a few poker tournaments, and last season was the best fantasy soccer player on the planet.
- forgotmypw17 3y ago
  n=1 shrug
sobellian 3y ago
I play quite a bit of chess. I also develop software, so theoretically I practice complex multi-step thinking and hopefully I grok multi-component systems. Unfortunately I think chess does not help me at all in my job. I wish it did! Chess is highly specific. Most players tend to learn and improve on those specifics. I know that bishops are more valuable than knights in an open position. I know several openings to a depth of ~30 ply. I know many theoretical endgames. These things do not help me at all in any arena besides chess.

reedf1 3y ago

Because reading Harry Potter is more fun than reading an economics textbook. And eating pizza is more fun than chicken + broccoli. tl;dr FUN!!

cirgue 3y ago

At least with chess (and plenty of other games) it’s a structured way of participating in cooperative competition/competitive cooperation. Your peers are your adversaries when you’re actually playing, but they’re also the people helping you get better. Work doesn’t teach that, or at least not explicitly, but the ability to navigate social spaces where you’re both cooperating and competing is critical to getting anything done.

kitsunesoba 3y ago

“Fun” is subjective. I love programming for example but most people would find it to be somewhere between dry and mind numbingly boring, which isn’t good or bad, it just is. Same for MMOs or sewing or chess or what have you.

yifanl 3y ago

The difference between "work" and "games" is how easily monetizable the activity is, not how useful the output of the activity is.

n4r9 3y ago

I'm not sure whether you're making a comment about prison society or society in general. Penal labour sounds like a pretty bad idea to me. But I can see a few reasons that chess might be good for rehabilitation (some referred to in article): * Simple, indisputable demonstration of intelligence. People from deprived background often have low self-esteem and very little evidence to show for their smarts, even if they are in fact intelligent. * It's traditionally a slow, thoughtful game, in stark contrast to the stress and demands of the outside world. * It provides escapism by totally focusing your mental faculties onto the world of the board. * There are few external expectations. No one will be upset if you make a silly move, like they would if you make some bad stitches.

f33d5173 3y ago
Prison forced labour might not be a good idea. Prison labour as an optional thing is definitely a good idea, and most prisons give prisoners the option to contribute, at least to the running of the prison, in exchange for certain privileges. The jobs include working in the laundry room or serving food. These are not intensely engaging occupations, but they are an improvement over the monotony of prison life, and give people the opportunity to excercise certain skills useful in the real world like teamwork, diligence, etc.

whimsicalism 3y ago

I disagree with those who claim that only people from a certain social setting can comment on certain issues, but I have to admit that it provokes my ire a bit seeing HN commentators who likely have pretty much no experience with inner-city cycles of schooling/imprisonment/poverty suggesting more penal labor as some sort of solution and drawing on their experience of how 'beating Zelda' is akin to work.

im3w1l 3y ago

Games are better because you can choose who you play with rather than having to pretend to like some asshole. In a similar vein you don't have to submit to some bullshit boss and his bullshit rules.