You've Been Played: The Pros & Pitfalls of Gamification

Speaker 1 Conference to Restore Humanity twenty twenty three is an invitation for k 12 and college educators to break the doom loop and build a platform for hopeful, positive action. Our conference is designed around the accessibility, sustainability, and affordability of virtual learning while engaging participants in a classroom environment that models the same progressive pedagogy we value with students. Instead of long Zoom presentations with a brief q and a, keynotes are flipped, and attendees will have the opportunity for extended conversation with our speakers. Antonia Darter, with forty years of insight as a scholar, artist, activist, and author of numerous works, including Culture and Power in the Classroom. Cornelius Minor, community driven Brooklyn educator, cofounder of the Minor Collective, and author of We Got This. Jose Luis Vilson, New York City educator, cofounder, and executive of EduColor and author of This Is Not a Test, and Iowa WTF, a coalition of young people fighting discriminatory legislation through advocacy, activism, and civic engagement. And instead of back back online workshops, we are offering asynchronous learning tracks where you can engage with the content and the community at any time on topics like environmental education for social impact, applying game design to education, and anti racist universal design for learning. This year, we're also featuring daily events from organizations, educators, and activists to build community and sustain practice. The conference to restore humanity runs July 24 through the twenty seventh. And as of recording, early bird tickets are still available. See our website, humanrestorationproject.org for more information. And let's restore humanity together. Hello, and welcome to episode one thirty one of our podcast at the Human Restoration Project. My name is Nick Covington. This episode is brought to you by our supporters, three of whom are Christina Danielle, Russell Walker, and Laura Henry. Thank you so much for your ongoing support. The trailer you heard in the intro is for our Conference to Restore Humanity, a fully virtual conference that runs July 24 through the twenty seventh. We've got a stellar lineup, so we hope you'll join us. Tickets and info can be found at humanrestorationproject.org/conference. This episode is a panel discussion we had with game designer and author Adrian Han on the pros and pitfalls of gamification as part of our Edufuturism learning series. You can find all of the previous events, including innovative AI tools for the classroom and their dilemmas, and learning from video game tutorials, as well as register for upcoming events in the series at humanrestorationproject.org/learning. You can also find this video and others on our YouTube channel by searching for Human Restoration Project. And with that, I'll hand it over to Chris. Enjoy the episode.

Speaker 2 Welcome everyone. Today for our Edufuturism Learning Series, the last one on video game design, we're joined by Adrian Hahn. Adrian is the recent author of You've How Corporations, Governments, and Schools Use Games to Control Us All. He is an award winning video game designer and the CEO and founder of six to Start. He's the co creator of one of the world's most successful smartphone fitness games there, Zombies Run. And he was previously the director of play at Mind Candy where he created alternative reality games. You've been played. It's it's a really fantastic work. It outlines how gamification has often become a form of boring behaviorist style control and recognizes how gamification has essentially made its way into all forms of our life. We wanted to invite Adrian on the series because gamification is so present in classrooms. That really took hold, I would say, like the late two thousands and remains strong now, whether that be adding points and badges to existing lessons or creating apps that track reward or punish students or teachers. So in our conversation today, we'll be having a question driven discussion, what it means to gamify content, learning, pedagogy, and everything and anywhere in between. So welcome, Adrian. Adrian, we appreciate you being here. If you wanna do, like, a a short intro, and we'll we'll go from there.

Speaker 3 Sure. Well, thanks for having me. It's great to be here. Yeah. You know, like, I I, you know, usually have a kind of feel about gamification. You know, I I first kind of got into this because, you know, I've been designing games for a long time. A lot of those games have been what people would call serious games, you know, educational games, games of, like, a non entertainment purpose. And those kind of fall within this idea of gamification, which is using using, ideas from game design for for, you know, serious things like education or health or for politics or or training or anything like that. And, you know, the term gamification really only came about, like, about fifteen years ago. It's a pretty it's a pretty new, word, even though the concepts behind it are very old. I mean, people often tell me as if it's a kind of a gotcha. Well, people have been doing this for hundreds of years. It's like, alright. I'm aware that people have been doing this for a long time, but there's a reason why this word gamification really only started taking purchase, you know, fifteen years ago because it started getting much, much more widespread with the with the spread of the Internet, with apps, with Web two point o, and with smartphones. And I think, you know, when I when I first came across gamification, I I thought it I didn't love it because because it felt it didn't really feel fun. I think I think people had the idea that if we add points and badges and leaderboards to to activities, then it would be they they would make them fun and engaging, and that that did not seem to be true. But I thought it would basically go away of its own accord. Basically, people would try lots of gamification. It would be a big bubble, and then it would go away. And I noticed probably about five years ago that I just started seeing in more and more places. You know, I started reading about gamification being used in Amazon warehouses. I started seeing it being used in, you know, for for controlling Uber drivers. You know, I started seeing health insurance everywhere. Instead of going away, it just seemed to be getting more and more common. And, you know, even though I hated the idea of kind of thinking about it, I wanted to write a book about it because, you know, I wanted to sort of, like, explore, like, how is it being used in practice? Is it is it good? Does it work? And and how widespread it is. And I think, you know, people often ask me, you know, what is the most kind of surprising thing, you know, example of gamification that I found? And it has been ClassDojo. It it was you know, I'm not just saying that because I'm I'm talking about, like, education here. It really was. You know, ClassDojo, I think if you're a teacher, you I'm sure you've probably heard about ClassDojo or, you know, people who use it. It's a classroom management app, behavior management app that basically does two things. It's kinda like a private social network, you know, for for parents, teachers, and students, but it's also a way for teachers to kind of reward or punish students for a range of behaviors for points. And I think when I first heard about it, I thought this can't actually be true. Like, I don't I don't really believe it, really. And then I started reading more and more reports of it. I started reading papers on it. I like, I I've literally never heard of this, and I spend my time making gamification. I don't understand, like, how there's such a disconnect here. I would talk to parents about it. I talked to teachers, and they'd say, well, of course. Don't you know about castor again? I was like, no. I don't know about it. People don't talk about this thing. And so there's a whole section in the book devoted to cast dojo, and it is one of the examples that I used. And it also happens to be one of the things that gets people most vocally responsive. You know, I've done interviews about the book and on radio. And most of the calls in are by people by teachers that can tell me about class. Right? And and the other calls are from from Uber drivers and Amazon workers. Right? You know, the the people with direct experience with gamification. So, you know, that's kind of my interest there. It I think I think it's really a little bit shocking. I think it's a little bit sad because I think that there are always these gamification, use video games, you know, ideas and games for good in in education. But, actually, in practice, like, if you are a student, you know, the gamification that you're most likely to encounter, you know, at school is not great. And and, you know, speaking of someone from the video games world, I think we love to talk a good game about how games can be good, but actually in practice, I think I think a lot of stuff that you see is is not good. So that's my that's my sort of intro piece, I guess, of high gamification.

Speaker 2 Awesome. And I figure I mean, at at this point, we're just gonna open up the floor. We've pre prepared some questions. But maybe to get us started, I'll ask one and then from there, feel free just to to dive in, either ask questions in the chat or you can unmute and talk that way. But something I wanted to open up with is speaking as your experience as someone who developed like one of the arguably early gamified apps that's widely successful. And I know you talk about this in the book and what makes that like good game design versus what we're seeing today. What is an example of gamification as good practice? So there's one thing I think all of us are probably familiar with Class Dojo, and we recognize the the issues with that platform. But there is an argument that perhaps there is a use for gamification in classrooms as well as a good practice. What does that look like to have a game that's actually well gamified that promotes positive behaviors without it turning nefarious or or dark or eerie?

Speaker 3 I mean, I I think that the best examples of gamification that I can think of are things that are really specific, you know, to, like, a subject rather than, like, here's one weird trick that will improve all learning, you know, of all kinds. And so one example that I use is this game called Kerbal Space Program, which is a a kind of, like, simulator. You know, you build you build rockets in this game, and you launch them, and you try and put these little Kerbal, you know, people into orbit. And you can build, you know, space stations and and moon bases and so on. I played it, and, you know, it it's fun because it's fun just building stuff and seeing rockets blow up, you know, and and, like, doing silly things. But it's also an extremely accurate physics simulator. And what that means is it is able to explain to you a lot of, like, really counterintuitive things about, like, physics and about orbital mechanics, which is to say, okay. Well, why is it, like, why is it so hard to get into space? I mean, space is only a 100 miles up. You know, you have to go into orbit. You have to go really fast. How do you do kind of, like, plane change maneuvers? How do you, like, you know, like, if if I'm here and the space station is there, how do I get there? Can I just go and, like, put my in that direction? Actually, no. You're gonna do this other thing. And just by process of playing a game, you learn about this stuff. And I think that, you know, there are other games like that, you know, like Factorio or or, like, you know, puzzle games where where they sort of teach you to kinda, you know, like, think in in different ways and kind of you know, there are some games that that essentially deep programming even though they don't really talk about it that way. You know, like, how to construct loops and how to construct if statements and things like that. And I think what is distinctive about them, I mentioned that they're specific. They're not trying to be like, well, here's one game that is good to teach you English and French and physics and geography. It's like, no. We we can only really do one thing at a time because it's really hard to make anything fun at all. Right? And so it is it is really hard to make, you know, orbital mechanics fun. It's really hard to make programming fun. They mentioned it for one thing. And I think that's the other thing, which is like I mean, it sounds obvious, but, like, the the the mark, I think, of good gamified product or experience is that people would do it even if they weren't being told to. Right? And people would pay for it, but kids would pay for it. You know? I see so many examples of gamification out there where they say, well, it's so popular. It's like, if you have to give it away a little bit, but then then, like, maybe people I'm not saying that you can give things away. Like, it's more just, like, if you're able to sell something to someone as they're able to do for games like Kerbal Space for our program, it means that, like, it's of high enough quality, you know, and it's fun enough that people are like, no. I want to spend my time on it. And so many gamified experiences I see are pretty, like, shortly built so that the only way they can actually get people to use them is because they're free. Because if you had to pay for it, people be like, well, it sucks. I'm not gonna use that. So those are kind of two quick examples.

Speaker 1 If I could, I'm I'm I'm glad that we started with the positive examples of gamified experiences because I I fear that the the vast majority of them are are not necessarily that. And you had mentioned in that introduction the rise of social gamification really kind of coming up up with the age of smartphones, the ability to track data from your pocket more than we had, the capacity to before. But I wonder if the user experience of it tends to be framed negatively, so either through ClassDojo or through Uber or Amazon, etcetera, what is, like, the inherent promise of gamification? Who who is it intended for, and why did it appear to fail in these big examples in which maybe it didn't live up to its promise?

Speaker 3 I mean, I I I think, you know, I think that's a good question. I think I think there's lots of, you know you could sort of classify gamification by in a way who's paying and who's benefiting for it. You know? And so, you know, if you look at something like, you know, your Apple Watch, you're of paying for it. You know? You you know, Apple doesn't really get any money if you use, you know, the the gamified features on your Apple Watch, like scores and and achievements. I mean, they they kind of like it because maybe you you'll buy another Apple Watch, but it's not really that direct. And so I think in that case, you know, things where you're paying for it and you're kind of choosing it, I would say, you know, those people in those cases, people like them or people people use a gamification because they think it will motivate them and reward them to do something they they, you know, already want to do. So an example would be Duolingo. Right? No one is, like, making you use Duolingo. Right? And so they see the gamification, which is very clearly, like, marketed, you know, in in in Duolingo, and they think, well, I find it hard to to learn French and to sort of, know, read vocabulary books. And so maybe, you know, turning it into a game will work. That doesn't mean it does work. Right? I I think Duolingo is actually extremely problematic. But I think that that, like, the the idea of of that is like, well, okay. It it's alright, and, like, you are buying into that. And so that is very different, however, from something like Uber or, you know, working for Uber, working for Amazon where if you work for Uber, you don't really have any choice but to add your working conditions gamified. Right? If you're working for Uber, you will be offered quests, right, to to do 50 trips this week. And if you do that, then you'll earn an extra $50. And you'll think, wow. Great. You know, like, extra money for me. I said, well, not really. I mean, like, they could just give you the money anyway. You know? They they don't they should it you know, it shouldn't have to be contingent on hitting this target. Right? And so even if it though it's framed as a bonus, it's not really a bonus. It's kind of more, you know, because your pay is, like, not particularly high. It's it's more like withholding money. I mean, certainly, if you look at it that way. And so I think the problem there is that basically the gamification is obfuscating your pay and your kind of working conditions, you know, and and it and it's also degrading your working conditions. And so those are kinda two different things. You know? I call it in the book coercive gamification. You know, these are these are forms of gamification where you go into work and pay, like, now now you have to play this game whether you like it or not. And then you have what I call sort of lifestyle gamification, which is like Duolingo, which is the Apple Watch and that sort of thing where it's probably better. Like like, no one's forcing you to do it. But in practice, I think it doesn't actually usually, it doesn't actually work that well. Usually, it's kind of oversold. And often, actually, in the case of Duolingo, ends up being, I think, kind of, like, quite antisocial and counterproductive because just a sort of short aside on on Duolingo. If we've got time, my my partner's mom, you know, uses Duolingo. And, you know, we noticed that, like, occasionally, she just disappear off into another room, like, in the middle of a conversation or dinner, you know, for, like, an hour. And then and then, you know, there'd be, like, Duolingo sounds coming from the other room. And then it would turn out that she got a notification about XP happy hour from her Duolingo app. And so, basically, the idea is that, like, for that hour, you get double experience points, you know, for the the Duolingo, you know, lessons you complete. And it's usually in the evenings, and it's just I think that's terrible. I think I think it's such a terrible thing. Like, I don't think anyone who signs up to Duolingo thinking, I wanna go and learn Mandarin things. I also want to be interrupted during my dinner and and, like, have my kind of value system, like, manipulated the point where I'm going to, like, just depart because now, like, I value VXP more than I value, like, actually learning, you know, this language. But that's what they've been able to do. And Duolingo is fascinating because the the the designers will spend a lot of time actually on social media very openly saying, here's how we here's how we maximize engagement by, like, doing all these tricks. I'm like, you're just saying it in the open, and people people don't seem to mind. It's very strange. So those are that's a bit rambling, but those are the distinctions I've made there.

Speaker 2 Yeah. As, like, a a really early version of that, I think about in the, like, the nineties and maybe the eighties, the, like, library book reading programs, where the second that a kid is introduced to myself included. The second that you learn about those programs. It's like, well, how many books can I quickly get through in order to earn that pizza ASAP? Because that's really all that matters at the end of the day. The book doesn't matter anymore. Yeah, it's interesting to note how how similar that is. I I want to make sure too that we hit on, kind of the origins of this. You talk about the quantified self movement, which I wasn't familiar with that at all, but the more and more I looked into that, like the more and more I was like, man, this is really similar to how schools function in terms of assessment and testing. You you quote in there, one of the originators says, unless something can be measured, it cannot be improved. So we are on a quest to collect as many personal tools that will assist us in quantifiable measurement of ourselves. Can you just talk a bit about that? Yeah.

Speaker 3 So so the quantified self movement is is a very kind of Californian, thing, which more or less came about when we had the technology, you know, to track elements of, you know, human behavior and human health, like, automatically. And so, you know, a good example would be, okay, maybe we had pedometers. Like, in the past, I had I was, like, a really nerdy kid and had a pedometer for some reason. But, like, you know, you get a Fitbit. Right? And a Fitbit, you know, can can measure your steps and your distance, it and can sync it to a computer. And so the quantified self movement was, okay. Let's let's try and hack together devices and software to do, like, a homegrown Fitbit before Fitbit exists. And so, you know, someone who's really into quantified self would be weighing themselves every day and putting in Excel. They'd be, you know, measuring their their, you know, their steps. They'd be, you know, just measuring everything they can. And it was possible to do that because the electronics were were starting to come out and starting to be get cheaper. And it sort of married with this very you know, this sort of, like, feeling in the two thousands is kinda supremacy, I guess, of of, you know, science. And, I mean, I say that as a scientist, former scientist. You know? Like, this kind of supremacy of, like, objectivism and and, like, okay. The only thing worth kind of studying are things that we can assign numbers to. And I think when it started, it was, you know, really exciting, I think, for the people who are really involved because maybe they've had bad experiences with, like, the traditional health care system. You know? They go to their doctor, and and they'd say, I have this particular problem. And the doctor would be like, well, you know, like, I don't have time to talk to you. Like, it's probably all in your mind or whatever. And so it quantified itself. Basically, promise that it would let people sort of take control of, you know, the information about their bodies and then sort of run experiments on themselves, you know, and see the effects. So they might say, okay. Now I'm gonna stop eating wheat. What does that do to my energy levels? Now I'm gonna start doing this. What does it do to that? Obviously, not very scientific in in some ways, but, like, I I get the appeal, which is like, well, I I want to like, I don't see why I can't have information about myself. And I think where as as with a lot of things with good intentions, you know, like, it it it sort of ended up becoming, like, extremely financialized where, you know, now the quantified self movement kind of doesn't really exist because it just got built into Apple watches and and and wearables. And and the data is a bit harder to sort of get hold of, and it's all become it's all become monetized. But the other thing is that, you know, it's one thing to have the data about yourself and to see that you're walking 4,000 steps, you know, a day, and maybe you want to get to 10,000 steps a day. Right? And so what people kind of all immediately landed upon as a mechanism to motivate themselves to to change their behavior was gamification. They're like, well, okay. The only thing I can think of that can that that I can use to make myself change my behavior is gamification. But I will, of course, I will give myself stars. Of course, I will give myself points. You know? I'll give myself achievements and. Right? And I just found that kind of really fascinating that, like, that, you know, it it was just like, well, that that's obviously the only thing that I'm gonna do. And even to today, if you go and look at people talking about occasionally, if you go and look on, like, hack performs and technology forms, you'll you'll see these, like, end of year posts by by people who've, like, measured 50,000,000 things about their bodies. And invariably, they'll say, well, I gave myself 50 points for doing this, and I gave myself minus 20 points for doing these things that I didn't like. And so that's how I kind of that's how I motivated myself to to change my behavior. And I think those, you know, those sorts of behavioral change kind of mechanisms ended up in consumer products, you know, being used by, you know, hundreds of millions of people. Because the people who designed quantified self and who used quantified self back in the early two thousands are the exact same people or friends with the people who designed the Apple Watch. You know, they all I mean, I'm not, like, suggesting any conspiracy here. It's just they all live in Silicon Valley. Like, you know, they go to the same conferences. Like, if you're a designer Apple Watch Apple, you don't get ideas from nowhere. You know, you probably read about it somewhere. And so that's these are the ideas that were sort of floating around.

Speaker 2 This is a quick follow-up. As you're explaining this, it makes me think a lot about, digital LMSs or learning management systems in school and how, yes, grades and tests and assignments have always been like handed back to kids and made them feel a certain way. But now we're at the point where you instantaneously know when that assignment's been graded. You get a notification on your phone and you check it ASAP. And it completely changes, like, how a kid feels about themselves and their emotions in real time to the point where you have family members and and students, like, complaining that at, 4PM, like, they just got home or maybe they're eating dinner with their family and now they know that, like, you know, mister Smith gave them an F on an assignment. And there's, like, a feeling a of control and dominance there on like how much academia has become part of just like the the daily life of a as a as a kid in the exact same way that class dojo, like, sets norms and cultural norms through discipline. Or as adults, like, you're constantly assessed on your performance at your job or or even, like, email. Something as simple as that and, like, responses. Yeah.

Speaker 3 I I think that's really important because, you know, whenever I talk about the subject, know, especially when talk about class dojo or about, you know, people getting having their workplace gamified, you know, is some smart ass will always come along and say, well, haven't we always done that? You know, didn't we always get grades? It's like there's a big difference between getting a grade at the end of the semester or the end of the week or another month and getting it microgrades every ten seconds. Right? And and if you can't see that, then then you're sort of being a little bit wolf of the abuse. You know? Like, because, you know, that I think I I would sort of tie it back to this sort of idea of, you know, quote, unquote play in the sort of game design sense. You know? You you you know, people talk about about fun and play coming from being able to have a sense of freedom within a sense of constraints. Right? Like, it it you know, school is going to have some constraints. A workplace is gonna have some constraints, you know, in terms of rules and things like that. But, otherwise, it'd just be complete chaos. But within that, you want to you ideally want to give people some freedom in how they approach their work, you know, and how they sort of do their job unless you wanna treat them like robots. And I think the process of grading people, you know, continuously and and then seeing that feedback eliminates that ability to play because there's essentially much more support close close you know, finely grained control being put over their behavior. And it yep. You know? I mean, I I think it's bad. I think it's very different from I I think it's very different experience than from getting getting a grade you know, more infrequently, even though it is still getting grades kind of. And and that is a technological part of it, you know, that you cannot do that kind of fine grained feedback, you know, where people will get grades at 4PM or whatever without having the Internet, without having smartphones, without having, you know, soon AI or or things like that. You know, it's just not really possible to do that at scale unless you have technology. So that's why it is different.

Speaker 1 I wonder if there is since you were talking about the difference between gamification in the in the game design sense, you know, we think about mechanics. We think about, events. We think about those kinds of things versus the the vision of gamification that that you're addressing, with with, all all these things, which seems to be like the Skinner box aspect of things, right, when involved in behaviorism and reinforcement. But I wonder, have you have you thought, looked, or do we have any I I I hate to ask about the data around this, but, like Mhmm. About the cumulative effects, right, the macro effects of living a life in a society at with with government agencies, you know, for profit companies who have all kind of bought into this gamification, we're all on the receiving end of this. What are those big macro level, impacts?

Speaker 3 So, no. It is is yes. Like, I I didn't I didn't think we have a lot of data about that. And partly, that's just because, you know, the, you know, the search is not funded into this, you know, and it should be. You know, I was astonished at, like, how little research there is into class dojo given an account per basic of this. There's there's very few papers really about it. And, you know, the other problem with gamification of any kind of fast moving technology is that as soon as you you study it, it's, like, out of date. You know? And god knows, you know, it takes, like, three years to get a paper published or, you know, to do a study. And and and so everything I'm reading is just completely out of date. And then you sort of put on top of that that that the the burden, you know, people obviously want pretty accurate studies. They want double blind studies. It just takes forever to sort of run those. So but then I would sort of pull back one step, and I I would say, okay. So imagine we have a study that said, actually, if you go and monitor kids every, like, five seconds and give them, like, a grade into their augmented reality glasses, their their sort of performance goes up 5%. Would we say, well, okay. That that's great. Actually, we should do that because the data says yes. Like, you know or would we go and say, actually, no. That's sort of against our values. Right? And I think that those are kind of two different things. It's like, you know, what like, you sort of have to decide, will we do anything, you know, to to increase, you know, students' performance at standardized testing? Or are there certain things where we're like, actually, like, our values are sort of against that. We don't think that we we should be putting that on kids even if on average, it includes, you know, the performance. And so, like, my argument would be, like, firstly, we don't have the data. But even if we have the data, I don't think that is actually how we think people should be learning. Like, you know, and and so that is a harder stance to take because because then you're kinda saying, well, no. Like, I think there are certain things which we which I'm not, like, prepared to do even if even if, like, the data points in that direction.

Speaker 2 Yeah. And I would imagine too, just interestingly enough, even if the data pointed the opposite way, that because there's a financial incentive in doing this type of work, like why would I follow it anyway? In the exact same way that, I mean, we have 99.9% of climate change papers point one way, but we still don't actively act on those things because there's a financial incentive at a macro level to not follow those things, at least not according to the companies that are involved. Right? Like, there's a there's a huge monetary component there.

Speaker 3 Yeah. I I I mean, I don't wanna be I definitely don't wanna be, a conspiracy first about it at all. Like, I used to be a scientist. You know? I think data is important. But I think that the the the role in which sort of, like, the search plays and usually, it's not very powerful research in terms of, like, it's sort of explanatory power or statistical power, you know, is usually I mean, the way I've seen it in my book, you know, where I look at companies who are selling lifestyle gamification, like brain training apps, like education apps. So I'll go and say, well, if you go and use our brain training app, you'll go and increase your, you know, maths ability by, like, percent. And then you go and look at the paper. And, like, this paper sucks. It's just terrible paper. You know, you're so misrepresenting the benefits. But but you're kind of saying that the data points in that direction. And, like, you clearly do not actually you're not interested in what the data says. It's just a marketing technique. Right? And if there were data that pointed in the opposite direction, you wouldn't share it with us. Right? So so, I mean, that's kind of where we are where, like, I I kind of feel like there is this burden of proof being placed on on things where it's like, well, head you know, heads I win tells you lose. But it's like, well, if I if I had a positive study, I'm good to use that. But if that's a negative study, I'm just gonna ignore it. And so, like, we we kinda have to get around this idea. Like, well, we can only act if the data says so because, like, it's gonna be very difficult to do that. Sure. That makes sense.

Speaker 2 Let me shift gears here. I'm gonna read, Nick's question here in the chat. He asks, is there a different vocabulary we can use to better differentiate the types of gamification that are coercive or extrinsically incentivizing from ones like cable Kerbal Space Program and simulations narrative driven games that are more intrinsic in motivating the player? Like, as in gamification is gimmicks and carrot on a stick stuff, whereas the new word would be a more ludic playful human. So changing up the terminology.

Speaker 3 Well, I mean, you know, but, you know, we we can. I I I think that there are you know, I think I think people have, you know, have used, you know, different words. You know, like, I I've tried to classify it as I mean, I guess in my book, I just I just classify as bad gamification. That's good gamification, honestly. Like, if I That's true. If I I'm if I'm being direct about it. Like, you know, like, I I think but but, you know, like, that would be the same as, like, can we use a a word for, like, you know, good games and bad games? We we just we just say they're good or bad. You know? I think I think I mean, I guess I would go and say that I call it generic gamification, you know, in my book, if I'm being specific, which is, like, when you have something like ClassDojo or a lot of other apps where it's basically saying, I'm going to give you points for good things you do and minus points for bad things you do, and I'm gonna give you achievements for good things you do and not achievements, bad things you do. And I'm gonna go back to you on the leaderboard. I call that generic gamification. And, like, that's not necessarily, like, a judgment that it's bad. It's just like, well, you're just using the same thing. And so, you know, I think it's possible to more easily dismiss generic gamification because it's like, well, it's probably not going to really do anything for most people. Might do something for some people some of the time. Some people do actually respond to that, But I it's generic, and therefore, it it it's only good to have a limited amount of power compared to more specific forms like Kerbal space program, like other things. And, unfortunately, you know, a lot of companies are are just really cheap companies. A lot of, like, you know, organizations are just cheap, and they they would rather, like, buy one thing rather than, you know, buying something weird. I mean, space program is weird. You know? Like, I can see why schools would be like, I don't know why we should do anything with this. Can't we just go and get something that that that will work for everything? And, you know, this sort of goes back to, like I mean, I'm not, an educator, but I know that, like, people are different, and they like different things. So I go and look at, you know, our own game, zombies run, which tries to make running more exciting. I'm I didn't imagine that this is going to work for everyone who's a runner even. You know? Because a lot of people don't like zombies. Right? Well, a lot of people don't like listening to stories or they don't, you know, like, when they're running or they don't like, you know, games or things like that. And so, you know, like, I I think that that there is this search for kinda like a silver bullet, you know, in terms of gamification solutions when actually you can't get that because I mean, I I don't wanna talk about learning styles. It's just more like some people like some things and other people like other things. And you will find we found that zombies run has worked incredibly well for some people to the point where it's really transformed their lives, and we've had 10,000,000 people download it. But other people, they're like, yeah. I I don't wanna use that. And I I prefer doing park run or I prefer using Garmin watches, and that's great. And so it's just like we can't do a one size fits all. What what we need there to be, it's like a thousand games. Right? And help it make it possible for people to go and find the ones that are gonna work for them. And and, you know, that that's where we need to be. Instead, we've kinda got, like, one game or or or zero games, and and we're just hoping that it's gonna work for everything. And so that's kind of that sort of feeds into my frustration with the research angle where people will go and say, well, we've, like, studied gamification to see whether, like, it helps at this. You know? And it's like, I just don't you know, we we sort of tested zombies run on university students to see whether, like, it made them run more. I'm like, yeah. But I don't want I don't wanna, like, force somebody's rung on people. Like, people should just choose whether to play or not. In fact, like, it had to get in the and I sort of trust them to kinda know whether they're gonna like it. And, of course, you know, that's a problem in schools where it's like, well, we just, like, more or less, like, force force people to kinda do something. And and, yeah, you kind of want them want to help them discover, you know, things they might not might like that they might not know about. But, yeah, I just wish there were, like, more options.

Speaker 1 That is the fascinating thing is that we've in education and and I'm trying to pull in some of the pieces into, you know, private sector stuff too. But in education, we we go immediately from the research about what works. And you had just said what what works with the game that you've created might not be the game for everybody, but we've decided systemically that, say, something like Class Dojo must be the thing that works for all kids or all classrooms or those places in which in which they are adopted. So it it really is that interesting move from, like, here's what we have the data around. Here's what we're going to assume what works, and then here's how we're going to like, it it really gets quickly into that course of space, that course of gamification that you were talking about there earlier that in order to in order to achieve what works, it requires students, Uber drivers, Amazon employees, etcetera, to participate in these coercive structures. You know, there's there's not a lot of data, I don't know, that that I've seen or research that I've seen that says, like, here's what works is you know, I don't know the the bits about agency or autonomy or anything else because then you're responding to dozens, like like, an infinite amount of ends. Yes. Right? It's all about me aligning means and ends through these sequences of coercion. And perhaps I'm just I'm doing one of those things in a in a talk where I'm thinking out loud and trying to make connections, but that that is sort of a connection I think I'm making on my end there too is the that part about gamification or the that part about coercion and gamification kinda go hand in hand. Because as soon as you introduce the autonomy and agency components, I don't know, then people can start to make decisions about what it is that they want to pursue, what it is that they wanna get done in there.

Speaker 3 Right. And and it's so it you know, the difficulty with, you know, trying to make these decisions, you know, on a kind of mass level is that, you know, you end up kind of watering down the the sort of effects that things can have. Like, you can imagine that that's a game that will help kids get more excited about English literature or about about, you know, learning French or something, but it only works on zero point five percent of kids. Right. And so, like, how are you really gonna, like, figure that out? I just don't you know, like, it's it's gonna be really difficult. If you went and tested it on everyone, it'd be like, well, it does nothing at all, basically. Like, it's not statistically significant. But if you if those kids were able to find that game and use it, then it might be, like, genuinely, like, transformative. I remember, you know, I I studied you know, I learned violin when I was growing up, and it was just horrible horrible experience because, like, it's, like, the violin just sounds terrible for the first five years you do it. And I remember, like, coming up with an idea for a game. I was like, I think I could, like, design a game called violin hero that would, like, make that would, like, make learning the violin, like, way more fun. And and and, you know, the issue is that it would be difficult to sort of, like, go go and, like, how do you make money from it? Like, it'll be hard to sort of find the people that that that would like it. But I think for the people who do like it, it would be transformative. And so it's a you know, all of this comes down to a question of scale, which is just like we're trying to do things at massive scale because it's easier and cheaper than trying to be specific to, you know, different people, to different subjects, you know, to to, you know, different learning styles or whatever we call it now. And so I think that that, you know, the the good news is that people really like making games. I mean, you know, like, you know, game designers love making games, and and they often do it for, like, you know, for the love of it rather than for money. And so, you know, I I would you know, like, I I see, like, a great future, you know, within grasp where, you know, we we go and you know, I don't know how this would work, but we go and say, like, we would like there to exist games that that would sort of help people get excited about, you know, certain educational things. And and we we want to sort of, like, help those things find an audience. You know? And there are some games like that. There are games that, you know, better than Duolingo or more interesting Duolingo, like massively multiplayer games or or three d immersive games where you learn like, you get sort of, like, dropped into some mystery, you know, environment, and and they're only speaking in French, and you have to sort of go and, like, figure things out in that way. That sounds like great. You know? But there's kind of a mismatch because, you know, the kids certainly don't have the money to go and pay for these games. You know? And god knows, like, trying to sell games to schools is impossible. I remember we we made these, like, health and fitness games, and people would always say, why don't you go and talk to the NHS, you know, the National Health Service in The UK and try and try and get these games, you know, in front of in front of people who who could, you know, help you know, who they could help. And, like, it's just I'm not even gonna, like, explore that because that would be a good idea, but, like, there's there's no way I can convince, you know, the NHS to to give us a time of day. And and that's partly because of scale and partly because of just cultural issues where I think they think games are a bit silly and probably they would think a zombie game is is just, like, absolutely insane. And so you know? But and that and that would change eventually, That that I just wish it would happen faster.

Speaker 1 Are there are there areas of policy that you see being influenced by, you know, my earlier question about macro effects? Do you see government officials in different places, the NHS, elsewhere actually, like, buying into the gamified parts and implementing them into policy writ large?

Speaker 3 I mean, you know, I I I used to I mean, I I sort of searched for, like, gamification, you know, on Google News, you know, all the time. And and, like, you know, you will see, like I think there's, like, a UK local authority that was trying to use gamification to encourage people to, for example, you know, use public transport or walk, you know, instead of driving. But then I looked into it, and it was like another generic gamification thing where I was like, well, 10 points if you walk today. And I was like, this sucks. You know, put in the bin. You know? And and so that is where they are, which is very kind of nudge based, you know, quantified experience where where, again, it's it's a it's an issue of scale where if you're a local council or local government, you know, like, well, we want to, like, achieve this thing. What is a piece of software which we can deploy, you know, quickly that costs, like, £20,000 that that we, you know, may or may not work, but we, like and we hope it works. I'm I'm sure they hope it works. But but, you know, involves, you know, that can be used by literally everyone and involves no change of any other services whatsoever. You know? Basically, a silver bullet. And so I don't see. I don't actually see any change happening there at the moment. I I think that the change will come generationally, you know, when when you have kind of, like, policymakers, you know, who and legislators who have, like, grown up with games And to some extent, they have. But, also, I I kind of think, unfortunately, that a lot of policymakers and legislators just really boring people or really busy people, and they've never really, like, actually played games. And so they just they've never really kinda connected that, you know, the dots there. Like, I wrote the book to try and get people to think about this and to to, you know, and to think about the harms of gamification, but also the the positive aspects. And people are, you know, like, people some people are thinking about it. It it is happening, but it's just happening, you know, very slowly. And I think that it's it's if if I were, like, a different person or or we we you know, I was, like, more motivated by making money a different way, I guess I would be sort paying some pressure groups to sort of get promote on these rather than our fitness products as, I guess, a local government intervention. And, like and then I would be like, oh, can I go and get, like, £50,000,000 or $50,000,000 from the US government to, like, do an experiment? Like, I could do that. I just find that, like, soul destroying, basically. So so so I don't do that. I'd rather just go and sell it directly to people even though, you know, I sort of agree that that it would be nice if if, you know, that there were sort of more, you know, you know, government to support it.

Speaker 2 Right. There's there's two things that you're bringing up, and they're they're very different from each other. But it's interesting to note, I I think about how the EU has relatively recently implemented those regulations on games regarding gambling and loot boxes, and how we know that, like, gambling and loot boxes are big deal to young people. You have kids that are becoming addicted to these things. They spend their parents' credit card. And now, it's it's fairly difficult for game creators that operate in those countries, and even now in The United States, to do those things because they they want to be able to sell their product. And the form of regulation actually is working even though they are always trying to find different ways to get around it. That's the first thing. But the second thing, that I I I think highly relates to all this is, I I was just recently at ostensibly an EdTech conference like yesterday. And I saw Thomas linked in the chat there one of these softwares that are are often sold. I've never seen PBIS Rewards, but it's like they're always the same story. You you assign kids a number. You scan them. You you say if they're doing something right or wrong or you track them, you surveil them. Right now, what's really hot are the, like, student tracking apps for the hallway so that you can prevent meetups and so kids, like, can't go to the restroom for too long. And it's it's really creepy, honestly, when you start really thinking about it.

Speaker 3 I I I think that that's like I I have a list of bad gamification, and so, like, thank you for for that. I'm I'm putting it in my list.

Speaker 2 And it it what's what's interesting to me is, one, obviously, like the the EdTech version of this is very black mirror ish. EdTech has historically been, and I'm I'm sure you're probably familiar with, like, Audrey Waters' work with Hack Education. EdTech has always historically been like some of the worst possible examples of Black Mirror esque technology, because they all are designed through a tool of compliance. So that's kind of like the the first thread. But the second thread, I don't know if a chance to get to it, but we're always interested with our org talking about beyond ag tech. Like what does gamification look like when it comes to a meta component of school, for example, grades and testing? Because there's an element there of, you call the scalar effect, is that what it's called, where you're taking a very complicated issue and simplifying it. For example, like wine tasters where they'll give it a grade or a score, but realistically it's very hard to distill something that's that complicated down to that. And at the end of the day, it means nothing. So to rephrase that, first thread is like what this looks like in ed tech and tracking and and behaviorism and all that kind of stuff, like a virtual, Taylorism, digital Taylorism. Second thread is, like, what are your thoughts about school in general? I don't know if you have kids, but, like, just, like, the idea of grades and testing and how that relates.

Speaker 3 Yeah. So, I mean, you know, the first thread, I I think with edtech, you know, edtech is the same as tech, you know, which is basically it it's like peep people trying to create a system, you know, the the you know, in that you know, like, it's easier to make the design sort of technological system that that try sort of treats everyone the same and that that, you know, just throws kind of people into database. And, you know, it doesn't, you know, that that doesn't sort of cater for edge cases or things like that. And so the same sort of issues that you see with with technology that that tries to sort of monitor employees, you know, that tries to maximize certain, you know, outputs or number is the same problem you see at Red Tech, which is just like and and, you know, the reasons why it gets adopted are are the same, which is just like, well, you know, institutions would would prefer just to, like, have one piece of software, you know, to use even if it's not very good because it's just, like, easy to do it that way and and to administer. And so I think that one can hope for better versions of edtech. You know? And and and I think that certainly one can hope for for edtech that that is, you know, one thing I can sort of talk about is, at the very least, if a school is going to adopt ClassDojo, can we not come up with an open source version of ClassDojo that schools can, like, customize? Like, we you know, like, you know, we we should do that. Right? And I've seen this technology. None of it is really that hard to make. Like, going through, like, $50,000,000 at some, like, team of crack government programmers, and they will be able like, replicate and improve on all the stuff open source. Like, they would love to do it. Like, programmers love to do you know, would love to sort of do something that is, like, good for people. Just go and pay them a decent wage, and, like, then we can wipe out all these companies. It'd be amazing. The second thread about I don't have kids, you know, but I think that, you know, we probably all know about Afiko and, you know, and punished by rewards and stuff. And and, like, I found his book, you know, arguing against, you know, grades and and scores and values incredibly, like, persuasive. I I I thought it was a little bit you know, I was I, you know, I I sort of I, you know, like, I admire the fact that he's kind of so, I was gonna say dogmatic. I think that's unfair. He's just, like, so he's just so, like you know, he's not willing to kind of give an inch. He's like, I don't think you should go and, you know, praise people at all. Like, stop praising people. I was like, I don't know, man. Like, I I praise people, but, like, maybe I should stop doing that. Like, you know, I I sort of admire that way. It's like, well, like, he knows what he thinks. That's for sure. I you know, like, I think that that you know? Yeah. Look. I think, again, grades are the product of the of the system, which is just trying to I'm sympathetic with it because it's just like, wow. We're just trying to, like, figure out a way of dealing with all these students, and we don't have enough resources, and we're just trying to, like, identify people who need more help. Right? That that is what, you know, like, I think if you, like, go go if you give them, like, the most sympathetic, you know, lead of grades, it's like, well, we don't need to use grades to go and screen people in different things. But but, you know, like, if someone gets an f, then then we know who who needs more help. But then it I would say that I think that there are ways of achieving this all without without without using grades just cost more money. And so, you know, it it sort of comes down to that. If we if if teachers had more time and had more money, then then they wouldn't need to do it this way. They can give more personalized feedback, which would better I think we all sort of understand that. You know? But but it's just like we we're we're in a situation where people or or governments sort of know you know, don't value, you know, that that kind of a you know? Well, they they don't believe that it's going to have benefits, which I think is a shame. You know? That, you know, they they so, you know, that's you know, I run a I run a games company, and we have, like, 30 people, and we hire a lot of people. And I see a lot of I see a lot of, you know, CEOs complaining about, like, how difficult this is gonna hire people. And they say, oh, we, you know, we advertise this job position. I I promise this is gonna this is relevant. And we get, like, all these in and out CDs in and job applications in. And I just don't have time to I don't have time to go and to go and read them. So I just go and, like, see which university they went to. I just go and apply this automatic grading procedure to the job applications. And so that is how I deal with it. And I just I look at that. I think, I just think you're not doing your job. I like I like like, you know, I think you're just being really lazy. Like, I you know, like and and when we have people who apply to our our company, we redo every job application. Like, it's not that hard. Like, you know, that that's literally what we're here for. And it allows us to identify people who, you know, maybe would not pass through, like, an automated, you know, grading process. Right? Who maybe didn't go to the right university or who didn't have the right grades or things like that. And I don't know how we would be able to go and formalize, like, our our criteria for for for that. Because in in the in some ways, it's you know, you know it when you see it, when you you kinda see someone who's kind of interesting. And so I think that this sort of, like, reliance on grades and and, is is a product of just people being like, I don't know. I just don't wanna I just don't wanna have to, like, make the decision myself. I'd rather, like, someone else do that for me faster.

Speaker 2 Yeah. I think that there's there's so many different threads to explore, and I I I really honestly think that this book is is influential for educators in the exact same way that, like, Alfie Kohn's work is or or many of the other folks that are talking about the ways at which well, corporate structures and schooling structures are very similar in terms of their culture and ways that they interact with students and with employees, but also just the concepts of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, ed tech. Mean, there's a lot of different themes to explore that I think are very powerful. So, Adrian, again, I appreciate you being here. All of us, I think, are learning a lot. Your book, is You've How Corporations, Governments, and Schools Use Games to Control Us All. Definitely check that out. Anything else that we should know that's coming up, Adrian, that folks should check out?

Speaker 3 I just started a new newsletter because I have too much spare time apparently where I am trying to it's at Adrian hong.substack.com. And, basically, I'm trying to talk about games and essentially review games in a kind of more critical lens but in a way that is not really boring to read. And because I think that that games are really important, that they're probably this century's most important form of art. And I wish people would take it more seriously. I wish gamers would take it more seriously. I want to take it more seriously. And so if you're interested in not not educational games. I mean, although some of the ones I will talk about are kind of educational. And, like, okay. The way I would sell it to people is like, okay. You probably don't have enough time to play all these games, but you're probably, like, interested in knowing what to think about them. Well, this is this is, the news that to be. So that's what I'm pitching at the moment.

Speaker 2 Awesome. We'll definitely link it in the, the notes. Final question, just out of curiosity, quick quick response. What's your favorite game of all time? Video game? You

Speaker 3 know, I I think that, I don't know why you would say this because I didn't really play it that much, but, like, I really love this game into the breach, which is kind of like a puzzle game. Yeah. Yeah. And, like, I I played it for, like, several hours, and I kind of like, I loved it so much. I don't wanna play the game in case I don't like it as much as I used to. But, basically, it's it's a bit like bit like chess in some ways, but with, like, you know, robots and aliens. And I usually hate those kinds of games, actually. Like, that's why I love it so much. I I'm not really very patient. I'm not very patient like gamer. I get bored very quickly, and I don't like playing chess. And so when I when I got there, I was like, oh my god. This is, like, so it it's so amazingly done. And I think if you're kind of interested in game design, I would actually really look at it. I think it's one of the game design design games I've ever seen because it managed to get me to play, like, a tactical turn based game when I hate those games. And and it it's also a great game because it's not really that addictive. You know. And and I think I think actually good games probably shouldn't be addictive. I know people like to say that. It's like a kind of compliment. We should be careful what what we praise. Sure. Factorio is a good example of

Speaker 2 addictive games. Yeah. But yeah, at risk of this becoming like another hour about talking about indie games, thank you again, Adrian. It's been incredible. Thank you. We'll be in touch soon and the recording will be live on YouTube shortly.