Skip to main content

You've Been Played - Adrian Hon ***

There's some interesting material in You've Been Played, waiting to be discovered - but it could have been a lot better if Adrian Hon had gone with a co-author: unfortunately, as a book it's no great shakes.

Let's do the interesting thing first. Hon is talking about gamification - the (clumsily named) idea of using game-like elements outside of games, where they are supposed to encourage us, for example, to exercise more, to work more efficiently, or to follow some government edict. The idea is to provide some game-like rewards (or punishments) for certain behaviours, and as a result to either change the way we act or to make a routine chore more fun.

Unfortunately, as Hon makes clear, this is rarely a good thing. Firstly it's based on behavioural theory that is largely outdated. But also it's manipulative, and even if it does generate a degree of fun to begin with it rapidly becomes a chore and loses its positive contribution. Hon is good at showing us the negatives, but also making clear the limits of what has been achieved so far - so, for example, he highlights the Chinese social credit system, which has been portrayed as a Big Brother system that gamifies everyday life. This is done by supposedly rewarding good behaviour and punishing bad as seen by the Communist Party, but has only been implemented piecemeal and has generated a significant amount of rebellion. (Hon is not saying it's good, just that it's not yet as dystopian as it could be and is usually portrayed.)

Without doubt, some employers' use of gamification to exploit workers as Hon describes is disturbing and needs action. Equally, a lot of gamification, while relatively benign, is irritating and infantilises the users of the system. So we get a strong and disturbing message. Oddly, apart from the basic threat of gamification being misused, the most interesting chapter in the book wasn't about gamification, but about modern conspiracy theories. Hon draws decidedly tenuous links between the two, but his discussion of how and why modern conspiracy theories succeed was genuinely interesting. But after a while, the main theme becomes very repetitive - this is close to being an article that has been stretched to fit a book format. 

Perhaps the biggest problem with the book is that there is far too much about Hon and his company, which he puts forward unconvincingly as a paragon of good gamification - sometimes the text sounds more like a prospectus for investors than useful analysis. I can see the argument for using game features that are entertaining, rather than taking basic game elements like leaderboards and scores and applying them with nothing that the users will really enjoy, but it's hard not to see a vested interest at play when the best example is usually one of Hon's own products.

The other problem is that Hon is a big enthusiast for role playing games, and seems to assume that they are universally enjoyed, and hence can provide a model for how gamification should be done. He describes an online conference that was positively transformed by being gamified. To give the beneficial experiences of an in-person conference, for example, attendees could drink a 'polymorph potion' at the online bar that would 'add a random and inevitably silly emoji to their name' which apparently is a great conversation opener. Similarly 'The Haunted Foyer had a mysterious portal leading to a miniature choose your own adventure game that changed the colour of your name, a swag table that gave away items like a generic sword or official conference socks, and vending machines dispensed unique procedurally generated items'. Hmm.

This is great if you love cosplay or pretending to be a wizard, but for many people (certainly for me) it would be a huge turn off. Whenever there's role play in training, for instance, my inclination is to try to subvert it by cheating the system - or ideally to swerve it entirely. Hon is suffering from the assumption that because he loves this kind of thing it would make experiences better for the rest of the world - to be honest, I prefer generic gamification to this kind of stuff. (I ought to say it's not that I hate games - I regularly play and used to review them professionally, but I don't want to pretend to be someone/something else in a fantasy world.)

Overall, there is interesting material in here, but it's a shame it wasn't presented better.

Hardback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...
Post a Comment
Read more