Week 11 Response

Ian Bogost’s argument against Jesse Schell’s concept of putting “achievements” in real life activities raises some interesting thoughts.  On the surface, I think its a great idea to try implement something like this.  The example he used was getting kids to brush their teeth by offering achievements.  Anything we can do to get kids to brush their teeth is worth pursuing.  What concerns me: who is deciding for what we are offering achievements?  Just about everyone can agree that teeth brushing is something good.  But what about when it gets dicier?  Get an immunization, get a reward.  Some people might take issue with that.  Smoke cigarettes, get a reward.  A lot of people would take issue with that.

It comes down to what I think Bogost was trying to argue:  in some circumstances, it is more important to understand why you are doing something than actually doing it.  It is something we see everyday in our schoolwork — understanding how to do something is usually the most important part of an assignment as opposed to actually getting it done (not that this isn’t important too).  The correct method is going to yield better results long term than the easy method of getting something done.  Knowing why we get immunizations, how they work, and why it is important for everyone to have them is probably a better tool than an achievement (although lollipops do work pretty well for children).

This is sort of where Bogost was trying to go with his discussion of the Ford Fusion dash and how it was an inappropriate example for Schell to use.  By having the plants on the dash that indicate current fuel economy, Ford is getting drivers to think about how their driving affects fuel economy and how they can increase it.  If we can use an achievement type system in this manner, it is something that will be worthwhile pursuing.  If it is just a vapid achievement with no extra gain, it probably isn’t.  The hard road is sometimes the better road to take.