I know it's only semantics, but it kind of bugs me how the saying "level up your [regular life skills]" has become so prevalent the past few years.
Mainly because it give this illusion that once you've "leveled up" in something, you'll stay at that level forever - like in video games. But the truth is that all skills need to be honed and maintained, or else they will falter. Anyone that's been active in sports, music, art, etc. know that maintenance is the key, and that even then, you will not stay at the same level forever.
Gamification can be good for people that need structure, clear goals, and measurable progression. But it can also lead to sacrificing understanding for the sake of speed and execution - if that makes any sense? And also false expectations of what it takes to become the very best at something.
The leetcode/technical interview "grinding" culture is full of this.
I never really noticed it as a key component to their success, but some of my favorite games model the degradation of skill over time. Both CDDA and Rimworld do this, and as a result, you end up with characters that are more nuanced and specialized, but also moldable into the “next right thing,” whatever you think that might be. Maybe it is the thing that makes these games fundamentally compelling over a longer time span
Depends on the type of problem being solved. You need different kinds of ppl at different phases. Similar to the Explore-Exploit Tradeoff.
Once you find a gold mine in the jungle, you dont need undisciplined creative explorers, you only need people who dig. And dig well. Night and Day. Obediently. With nothing else going on in their head. The non diggers become excess baggage.
Then the system flips once the gold mine runs dry (Exploit phase completed). Its the turn of the army of mindless diggers to turn useless. And now you bring back the explorers to go search the deep dark jungles to find the next gold mine.
> Anyone that's been active in sports, music, art, etc. know that maintenance is the key
I agree with you, but would add some nuance. There are things that you'll keep a long time. For instance, sports, if you're a good skier for instance (or any technical sport), you'll always be a good skier (at least compared to a beginner which is years behind you). Same thing for music.
That being said, I feel the people who need gamification are also those who will not really learn any real, long-lasting, skills. Going back to the example of music or sport : you need years of dedicated practice to be more than a beginner. If you don't enjoy the process enough to be motivated for years, I doubt you'll achieve your goal.
Fun fact, not many games model the loss of skills and XP over time, but RimWorld does. Colonists need to actively use the skill in order to not lose XP and the level they already have.
I think it's not just gamification but it's also commodification. It's substitute acquisition for the process and goal. This approach would have you believe that if you accumulate enough life Pro tips you will have a happy and productive life. If you accumulate enough hot takes and quips, it will make you a philosopher or intelligent.
It feeds into and propagates a consumerist mindset. Human Experience in learning reduced to a process of shopping and acquisition.
Mainly because it give this illusion that once you've "leveled up" in something, you'll stay at that level forever - like in video games. But the truth is that all skills need to be honed and maintained, or else they will falter. Anyone that's been active in sports, music, art, etc. know that maintenance is the key, and that even then, you will not stay at the same level forever.
Gamification can be good for people that need structure, clear goals, and measurable progression. But it can also lead to sacrificing understanding for the sake of speed and execution - if that makes any sense? And also false expectations of what it takes to become the very best at something.
The leetcode/technical interview "grinding" culture is full of this.