Thoughts on the 'gamification' of life

[Anomalous]

There's a video here. You can watch the video. You can ignore it and share whatever thoughts you have anyway, or you can watch most of it and skim through a few parts, like I did. Or you can ignore the thread altogether.

Whilst I think there are both potential positives and negatives to such a perspective, my initial inclination is to reject the notion of objectifying life in such a fashion. To me it suggests a certain level of presupposition towards reality. A game of football, for example, would not work if everyone were aiming toward different goals. Semantically 'game' therefore would seem to imply a centralized ideology imposed upon its unwilling players. I was somewhat disappointed that Zizek didn't emphasize this point.

 

[Asa]

I watched long pieces of this, but what ultimately catches me up is that I've always disliked the idea that "life is a game" and believe people who enjoy playing games (cards, football, Risk, whatever) use the phrase and associate it with play. All the research, rules, strategy, etc, used to emphasize that life is a game often forget that games imitate life, not the other way. The concept oversimplifies life, and as a person who is not game-oriented, the concept irks me. I also gravitate away from the "winner/loser" mentality.

The centralized ideology imposed upon its unwilling players may be a key factor in why I dislike games. It is too bad Zizek didn't emphasize this. He made some interesting points. What he said about "undeadness" at the beginning was interesting.

Destiny made some good points about how the internet and modern companies via apps, websites, etc, are commodifying our lives and simplifying them into games (in a negative way), such as "swiping left."

I'm stuck on a loop right now about how Ayn Rand and her objectivism destroyed Americans and turned them into uncaring, selfish pricks who can't even be bothered to care enough about anything outside themselves to save their own futures. That plays well into the whole "life is a game" concept because it is all about strategy and greed. According to this framework, that self-centeredness would mean everyone plays by their own rules, but it is still implied that everyone is ultimately playing the same game because the goals and ideals are ingrained. (People who don't play by those rules are judged, outsiders, and considered 'losers' by default.) So, in this case, is it a Battle Royale?

 

[Sloe Djinn]

I will not have my choices restricted to your quaternary framework. I will pay attention to the thread AND withhold my thoughts!

 

[aeon]

Semantically 'game' therefore would seem to imply a centralised ideology imposed upon its unwilling players.

Given the history of propaganda force-fed throughout most of the 20th century, and human neurology and psychology as part of our being programmatic mammals, thatʼs exactly what we got.

Social media 2007-current was the cherry on top, except now we program each other. We so loved our captors, itʼs now become the ultimate Stockholm syndrome.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Timujin]

I could not watch all of that, If you have a goal in life, why not call it a game? I don't think it matters what you call it but if you do have a goal, someone could say you won or lost depending on how close you came to it or how lofty that goal is from their perspective. I think a lot of people I know would benefit from treating life like a game. picking up new party members (friends) grinding towards whichever goal.

are we not in the most influential country game currently?

but aside from that. it does not change by what you call it, except maybe by your perspective or approach to it.

 

[Elis]

I don't have time to watch the full video right now, but I would be interested to hear what some of the talking points are. Mostly when I hear about gamification it hasn't been about life as a whole, but about a specific process. The gamification of the work place, the gamification of dating, the gamification of being a law abiding citizen. I think each of them have to be evaluated differently and separately.

There is a process to boil down a process to its fundamental points and acting on that, and I think this is strong if you want to achieve something.

On the other hand, gamification often comes with an extra extrinsic reward tacked on to whatever process you're doing. This, depending on how its used can be rather soulless and kill the spirit if you don't believe in what it is you're doing.

 

[niar]

Why would anyone willingly watch Destiny?

 

[aeon]

Life is a game, and it will require you to play hard, and regardless, you will lose in the end.

Have Fun,
Ian

 

[Wyote]

Using gamification as a motivator tool is proven to be effective as a method for self improvement.
But using it in realms outside of general motivation veers off into neuroticism.

 

[Jexocuha]

Whilst I think there are both potential positives and negatives to such a perspective, my initial inclination is to reject the notion of objectifying life in such a fashion. To me it suggests a certain level of presupposition towards reality. A game of football, for example, would not work if everyone were aiming toward different goals. Semantically 'game' therefore would seem to imply a centralized ideology imposed upon its unwilling players. I was somewhat disappointed that Zizek didn't emphasize this point.

I find this interesting, may I ask the following, out of curiosity, for more context of your perspective?:
1. Why does objectively looking at life as a game bother you so much?
2. What would be your alternative perspective to this,?

Yes, I do see life as a game(honestly further, I believe it is not only a game, but most specifically an alien simulation game, but I digress...). I didn't always see it this way. I was raised in a very religious family, so I believed life was strictly God's creation, and that everything was all set on purpose and had a distinct purpose from God. I thought people who played life as a game had no soul, were ignorant of spiritual things, were sinful and needed God. It wasn't until some unexpected turns in life started to get more practical, questioned everything, and even challenged to go against my morals in some situations to survive. It was in rough times I could reflect and integrate what I would learn from my academic literature in the background, that all of life, or better "consciousness" is experienced and navigated as a game with rules, boundaries, history of players, players, and noobs. You're right, good observation, that it is not a fair game, that participation is involuntary by birth. And I may suggest it wise that all who consider having children really think about that reality of imposition into an unfair game.

I also would, if you are sincerely interested in exploring this perspective of life games deeper, highly recommend reading Robert de Ropp's creative psychology classic The Master Game: Pathways to Higher Consciousness

Cheers.

 

[Anomalous]

I find this interesting, may I ask the following, out of curiosity, for more context of your perspective?:
1. Why does objectively looking at life as a game bother you so much?
2. What would be your alternative perspective to this,?

Yes, I do see life as a game(honestly further, I believe it is not only a game, but most specifically an alien simulation game, but I digress...). I didn't always see it this way. I was raised in a very religious family, so I believed life was strictly God's creation, and that everything was all set on purpose and had a distinct purpose from God. I thought people who played life as a game had no soul, were ignorant of spiritual things, were sinful and needed God. It wasn't until some unexpected turns in life started to get more practical, questioned everything, and even challenged to go against my morals in some situations to survive. It was in rough times I could reflect and integrate what I would learn from my academic literature in the background, that all of life, or better "consciousness" is experienced and navigated as a game with rules, boundaries, history of players, players, and noobs. You're right, good observation, that it is not a fair game, that participation is involuntary by birth. And I may suggest it wise that all who consider having children really think about that reality of imposition into an unfair game.

I also would, if you are sincerely interested in exploring this perspective of life games deeper, highly recommend reading Robert de Ropp's creative psychology classic The Master Game: Pathways to Higher Consciousness

Cheers.

It seems overly reductive. Unlike reality, you can cheat at a game, which implies you can step outside of it in some way. You can deduce what kind of game you are playing and ideally choose whether or not to partake or break the rules. Essentially, a game is an abstraction of reality and therefore distinguishable from reality itself.

An alternate perspective might be to consider that life encompasses the player as much as the game and to question to what extent we are aware what game we are playing.

Ironically, it could be argued that religion was the game here and you freed yourself by not playing.