And surely your ideas about that are different from mine, and the games I would make left to my own devices would be very different from what you make. But what is worth while? That's a very subjective question. So, I'm encouraging all of us to make things that are worth while, or deep, or interesting. I still love games, but it's frustrating. doesn't have anything fundamentally valuable to me that any other game hasn't always given me. They haven't kept pace with me.Īs a player, I have this desire to be transformed. Games are a lot bigger but they haven't really grown. I'm a smarter, wiser, more experienced person now. I'm a designer now, because once a long time ago I was a gamer. I want to see us harness this power to transform society that Daniel also wants to see. I suspect 'game design' may become important in this respect - marketers and large corporations designing recreational or consumer driven activity that draws on cognitive surplus, immediately satisfies the irrational, selfish ego, yet somehow contributes to effecting change and benefiting society. Playing to the irrational ego toward a rational end. Ariely suggests "reward substitution" to get people to do things for global warming AS IF they care. How do we get people to care about a crisis that is more abstract, less immediate, and in the long-term future? Lame attempts at eliciting sympathy for polar bears or displaced Northern coastal communities? The problem is far more crucial than this. But when people have to 'think' about a crisis they are far less willing to do so.Ĭlimate change. When people 'feel' sympathy for a victim they care and are willing to take action. One child falls down a well and there is more news coverage in forty hours than Rwanda and Darfur put together. Stalin said "One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic." Mother Teresa said, "If I look at the masses, I will never act. In this CBC Quirks and Quarks interview, June 5: The Upside of Irrationality, Ariely addresses human empathy when it comes to large scale crisis and the 'identifiable victim effect'. We would do better to acknowledge how predictably irrational we are, and use that to our advantage. And his message is important: "man the rational animal" is a misnomer. This guy, Dan Ariely, having survived third-degree burns over seventy percent of his body and a contaminated blood transfusion that left him with liver disease, endured the medication that would eventually save his life but cause him to suffer debilitating side effects by conditioning his irrational self to associate taking the medication with his favourite past-time - watching movies.
0 kommentar(er)
