Welcome Guest.   Make a donation to an author on the site July 24, 2014, 08:36:09 PM  *

Please login or register.
Or did you miss your validation email?


Login with username and password (forgot your password?)
Why not become a lifetime supporting member of the site with a one-time donation of any amount? Your donation entitles you to a ton of additional benefits, including access to exclusive discounts and downloads, the ability to enter monthly free software drawings, and a single non-expiring license key for all of our programs.


You must sign up here before you can post and access some areas of the site. Registration is totally free and confidential.
 
The N.A.N.Y. Challenge 2013! Download dozens of custom programs!
   
   Forum Home   Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register  
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3]   Go Down
  Reply  |  New Topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: Beyond Gamification. Designing up Maslow’s Pyramid.  (Read 19245 times)
IainB
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 4,536


Slartibartfarst

see users location on a map View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #50 on: June 05, 2012, 10:29:38 AM »

What I wrote here seems to be true:
Well, I'm sorry Keith, this is all very repetitive. Maybe we are talking at cross-purposes and will never be able to understand each other in this - and it's possibly because of our different and peculiar paradigms.

I do apologise for suggesting the use of "transcendent", but, as I wrote:
Quote
By suggesting "transcendent", I was only trying to be helpful and move things along.
However, we still seem to be in the state of trying to have a rational discussion whilst continuing using undefined terms, so I don't think things have moved along at all really, nor would they seem likely to do so under these continuing circumstances.

The premise seems to be along the lines of "You can move beyond gamification by designing up Maslow's pyramid." (OWTTE)
I am unsure what that means, because:
  • (a) The term "gamification" hasn't yet been assigned a precise definition.
  • (b) "Maslow's pyramind" is a relatively weak/insubstantial (unproven) theoretical construct, possibly at least partially attributable to it using an undefined term "self-actualisation" in it's own structure.

I am trying to be polite about these terms here, so as not to cause offence. The point is though that they are still apparently BS (QED), which effectively makes them useless as tools for rational thinking to develop and follow a rational argument.

The premise above therefore does not seem to be able to exist in a rationally-based form. Thus you can form no rational argument out of it for discussion - and I think we have amply demonstrated that, in this thread.

So I must confess that I feel I have been unable to suggest any helpful or useful thinking for you on this subject, and I apologise for trying nontheless. I had been wanting to communicate, but I had not realised that at root we seem to fail to communicate for some reason.
I had not realised that you might have felt that I was trying to score points or justify myself, or whatever other "bad" things you may have felt I might have been doing in this discussion, and I apologise if it seemed so. Please put it down to my natural impatience rather than any feeling of antagonism or ego-gratification on my part. I had not realised that you might consider that I had been making "cheap replies" or that I had "humped on back to an unhelpful direction just when you seem to be leaving it just so you can have a last word on how much you detest buzz words.".
That sort of thing is/was never my intention. I generally chip in if I think that what I have to say could be of humour or use/help in a discussion, or - more especially - if I wish to pursue discovery of some truth in a debate.

Please note that I have not called you irrational or made an ad hominem, and that I take exception to the ad hominem of you calling me irrational, yet I refuse to drag us into the gutter with a "Tu quoque" (Latin: "you also") in response to your ad hominem. What I might think of you as a person is irrelevant to our discussion.

Quote from: Paul Keith
...life does not end at all...
Quote from: IainB
Can be neither proven nor disproven, except presumably by individual experience.
Transcendence.
Uhh...no... I'm not talking about just individual life but the impact of individual life. The things left behind by a dead person like memories, influence, contributions, legacies.

This is a good example of a failure to communicate. I had been unable to understand, from that statement of yours about life, that it might have implied so much more/different than what I had supposed.

So, if "Maybe we are talking at cross-purposes and will never be able to understand each other...", and if we are starting to call each other names or ad hominem, then - if you don't mind - I really think it would be best if I withdraw from this particular discussion. At this juncture, it ceases to be possible for me to find it enjoyable or rewarding, it seems to antagonise you, and I don't think I am able to contribute any more of use/help than the little I might have done so far.

Thankyou for some thought-provoking discussion.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2012, 10:35:04 AM by IainB » Logged
Paul Keith
Member
**
Posts: 1,965


see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #51 on: June 06, 2012, 07:59:04 AM »

Sorry, I don't see it. How did it seem like the discussion was:

Quote
"You can move beyond gamification by designing up Maslow's pyramid." (OWTTE)

When did this happen???

Plus the example above wasn't a proof of failing to communicate IMO.

It was more of a proof of failing to clip quotes correctly.

You omitted and ignore all the supporting elements of ...life does not end at all... took it into isolation and therefore by replying to it in isolation, you easily misunderstood it.

How can this compare to the above where suddenly you've combined gamification with designing up Maslow's pyramid?

If you do an entire search for the posts in this thread, you'll find that this came out of nowhere. It's an entirely new context that you've seen yet cannot be substantiated by any direct quotes, clipped or not clipped.

Worse, how can you turn this back on me and say:

Quote
yet I refuse to drag us into the gutter with a "Tu quoque" (Latin: "you also") in response to your ad hominem.

When the very reason you're post is not as antagonistic is because you removed/did not include the part about how I sunk into a state of ahamkara?

I don't mind people leaving as I still haven't improved my communication skills but right now, you're not doing a neutral service. By leaving at this juncture after having raised an entirely new direction yet again out of nowhere, you're basically dragging me into the gutter by portraying me as the one who offended you by mistakenly assuming you for being antagonistic yet instead of clearing up those misconceptions, you omit them entirely and bring up a new line of statement without any indication where you ended up having this conclusion with the exception of bolding up seems.

Then you continue to spend your time both repeating what you said (after once again repeating that there's no point in discussing because we seems to come off like we're repeating ourselves) and then railing on this new context that you saw. Sir, I don't mean no offense, but just stating that you don't intend to drag us into gutter is not a keyword for a spell that won't drag us into the gutter especially when it is only you that isn't dragged beneath your last words.
Logged

<reserve space for the day DC can auto-generate your signature from your personal PopUp Wisdom quotes>
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3]   Go Up
  Reply  |  New Topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  
   Forum Home   Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register  

DonationCoder.com | About Us
DonationCoder.com Forum | Powered by SMF
[ Page time: 0.033s | Server load: 0.02 ]