I like this post, even though I feel pretty strongly that the gamification of everything, and education especially, is net negative. aik has it right elsewhere

I like this post, even though I feel pretty strongly that the gamification of everything, and education especially, is net negative. aik has it right elsewhere in this thread that Dan Pink's findings are contrary to this blog post's points. Dan Pink's most interesting finding in my mind is that applying extrinsic financial motivation has positive effects on methodical, repetitive work, but a strongly negative effect on creative, out-of-the-box work. I'd be shocked if gamification had a different effect, though of course I have nothing empirical to offer. I expect that gamification works for repetitive tasks like playing WoW, but is not that effective for actually learning something, even if it does push you through Codecademy's tasks. We have an educational system that repeatedly de-emphasizes intrinsic motivation. How much of school is driven by what you want to learn and what you are interested in? I didn't take my first elective until junior year of high school. Given that most Americans (and most inhabitants of OECD countries) spend the first 12 years of their conscious life in a gamified environment, as _delirium points out, is it so surprising that the "underachievers'" intrinsic motivation is weak, and that the author finds gamification powerful and useful? I don't want to sound conspiracy theory-ish, but I think we've been quite effectively trained to respond to exactly this kind of stimulus.