Comments on: Mistaking the Edges for the Norm http://johnnyholland.org/2012/09/mistaking-the-edges-for-the-norm/ It's all about interaction Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:38:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Kathy Sierra http://johnnyholland.org/2012/09/mistaking-the-edges-for-the-norm/#comment-119356 Kathy Sierra Thu, 27 Sep 2012 18:07:17 +0000 http://johnnyholland.org/?p=17238#comment-119356 I wish everyone in an form of development, design, management, marketing, education, etc. would read this post. Or at least this sentence: "At IA Summit I had quite a few discussions with UX people trying to fix the communities that were damaged by gamification in the long run after a nice initial uptick." Far too many folks do not understand the subtlety of the science around motivation (and especially the deep issues around operant conditioning and self-determination theory). This lack of deep knowledge is made far worse thanks to the intuitively (seeming) safe nature of incentives. After all, what possible harm could come from rewarding the behavior you want more of? I recall a meeting long long ago, Thomas, up at Microsoft, where you and I and Nancy White audibly gasped when someone mentioned incentives/rewards for community participants. I was so relieved to not be the only one expressing a concern. And that was long before the gamification frenzy that has made Skinner /operant conditioning /behaviorism suddenly popular and exciting. Meanwhile, professional animal trainers are themselves beginning to question the pure behaviorist approach upon realization that even horses can become DEmotivated when rewarded for behaviors that *should* be intrinsically pleasurable. The fact that the DEmotivating/undermine effect happens below the conscious awareness of the incentivized person makes this even more dicey and difficult to spot... Until its too late. Amabile's work on "The Progress Principle" has some excellent research on these issues, and I still find myself telling those who want to incentivize community, social, or work behaviors to make sure they have at least watched Dan Pink's TED talk on "Drive" -- which does a nice job of summarizing the decades of underlying research on these counter-intuitive effects. (apologies for the long rants comment. This is an issue I care quite deeply about today) I wish everyone in an form of development, design, management, marketing, education, etc. would read this post.

Or at least this sentence:
“At IA Summit I had quite a few discussions with UX people trying to fix the communities that were damaged by gamification in the long run after a nice initial uptick.”

Far too many folks do not understand the subtlety of the science around motivation (and especially the deep issues around operant conditioning and self-determination theory). This lack of deep knowledge is made far worse thanks to the intuitively (seeming) safe nature of incentives. After all, what possible harm could come from rewarding the behavior you want more of?

I recall a meeting long long ago, Thomas, up at Microsoft, where you and I and Nancy White audibly gasped when someone mentioned incentives/rewards for community participants. I was so relieved to not be the only one expressing a concern. And that was long before the gamification frenzy that has made Skinner /operant conditioning /behaviorism suddenly popular and exciting. Meanwhile, professional animal trainers are themselves beginning to question the pure behaviorist approach upon realization that even horses can become DEmotivated when rewarded for behaviors that *should* be intrinsically pleasurable. The fact that the DEmotivating/undermine effect happens below the conscious awareness of the incentivized person makes this even more dicey and difficult to spot… Until its too late.

Amabile’s work on “The Progress Principle” has some excellent research on these issues, and I still find myself telling those who want to incentivize community, social, or work behaviors to make sure they have at least watched Dan Pink’s TED talk on “Drive” — which does a nice job of summarizing the decades of underlying research on these counter-intuitive effects.

(apologies for the long rants comment. This is an issue I care quite deeply about today)

]]> By: Adrian Chan http://johnnyholland.org/2012/09/mistaking-the-edges-for-the-norm/#comment-119309 Adrian Chan Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:13:03 +0000 http://johnnyholland.org/?p=17238#comment-119309 ... but what is the norm? There isn't one. Social is dynamic, and in its exchange/interaction with tools, is ever-changing, adapting, and experimenting. The fleeting success of gamification owes as much to curiosity and novelty as it does to limits of game rules. People played, found little, got bored, and when they stopped the games were exposed for what they were: largely empty and pointless. But this is not explained by a return to norms (IMHO); simply a common social dynamic. What we sometimes call fad but otherwise recognize as "event." … but what is the norm? There isn’t one. Social is dynamic, and in its exchange/interaction with tools, is ever-changing, adapting, and experimenting. The fleeting success of gamification owes as much to curiosity and novelty as it does to limits of game rules. People played, found little, got bored, and when they stopped the games were exposed for what they were: largely empty and pointless. But this is not explained by a return to norms (IMHO); simply a common social dynamic. What we sometimes call fad but otherwise recognize as “event.”

]]>