Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
"Awards" Rant
Options
Replies
-
quiksylver296 wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »
The ability to eat all the foodz without gaining!
That prize is currently unavailable. How about the ability to pay your electric bill and mortgage for another month instead?
Wait. My paycheck is supposed to cover a mortgage?!?
Dammit. At least I have my "Awake by 9AM" badge.
You have to complete the "low cost of living" challenge first, THEN you do the "solid paycheck" challenge. These challenges are only available in certain areas. Void where prohibited.5 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I think digital "awards" are dumb. I don't care if a little trophy pops up on my phone because I finished today's C25k run.
That said, this app seems to me to be no different than a fitbit reminding someone to get up and walk every so often. A reminder/encouragement to get up and get going is fine, IMO.
But 9 AM? What normal functioning adult isn't up by 9 AM 5 days a week (shift workers excluded).
I start work at 7:30am0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I think digital "awards" are dumb. I don't care if a little trophy pops up on my phone because I finished today's C25k run.
That said, this app seems to me to be no different than a fitbit reminding someone to get up and walk every so often. A reminder/encouragement to get up and get going is fine, IMO.
But 9 AM? What normal functioning adult isn't up by 9 AM 5 days a week (shift workers excluded).
I start work at 7:30am
Yeah I start at 7 AM and have a 40 mile drive.to get there. Sometimes work out before going0 -
My first fitness tracker tried to give me awards for waking up on time. I turned that feature off pronto! I am not a product of the 'everyone gets a trophy' mentality, and a program rewarding me for doing what I've done on my own since I was 13 isn't motivating.
ETA also, 9am? Is that really some kind of achievement? I've been up for 3 hours chasing kids off my lawn by then :laugh:
To be fair I interpreted this as starting work before 9 am, not waking up (it says clock-in before 9).
I work from home three days a week and my work gives me broad latitude to set my own hours those days. Not proud that I have slept in until 10 am on a Wednesday before (followed by an 11-7 day).0 -
#!$% Why wasn't this available 20 years ago when I had to be to work at 4:00am and needed computer generated graphics in my life?2
-
happytree923 wrote: »My first fitness tracker tried to give me awards for waking up on time. I turned that feature off pronto! I am not a product of the 'everyone gets a trophy' mentality, and a program rewarding me for doing what I've done on my own since I was 13 isn't motivating.
ETA also, 9am? Is that really some kind of achievement? I've been up for 3 hours chasing kids off my lawn by then :laugh:
To be fair I interpreted this as starting work before 9 am, not waking up (it says clock-in before 9).
I work from home three days a week and my work gives me broad latitude to set my own hours those days. Not proud that I have slept in until 10 am on a Wednesday before (followed by an 11-7 day).
Not ashamed that I regularly sleep in past 10 am. I couldn't care less what other people's schedules are. I make my own. I sleep in. I'm cool with that. I don't think getting up early makes you an adult. As long as I meet my responsibilities, I'm good.9 -
happytree923 wrote: »My first fitness tracker tried to give me awards for waking up on time. I turned that feature off pronto! I am not a product of the 'everyone gets a trophy' mentality, and a program rewarding me for doing what I've done on my own since I was 13 isn't motivating.
ETA also, 9am? Is that really some kind of achievement? I've been up for 3 hours chasing kids off my lawn by then :laugh:
To be fair I interpreted this as starting work before 9 am, not waking up (it says clock-in before 9).
I work from home three days a week and my work gives me broad latitude to set my own hours those days. Not proud that I have slept in until 10 am on a Wednesday before (followed by an 11-7 day).
Not ashamed that I regularly sleep in past 10 am. I couldn't care less what other people's schedules are. I make my own. I sleep in. I'm cool with that. I don't think getting up early makes you an adult. As long as I meet my responsibilities, I'm good.
Intellectually I totally agree, but for me personally I have morning person envy. I love the feeling of finishing work for the day and having no responsibilities left but I don't get up early enough for that to be a reality most days.0 -
This sort of attitude is easy to laugh at but is actually really detrimental to society. That we should applaud ourselves or others for the most basic responsibilities of adulthood. Seems like at some point society shifted in a way where "difficult" became synonymous with "bad" and "work" was something you should try to stop doing as soon as you could. The idea that you work just as long as until you have enough to retire and not run out of money by the time you die is a depressingly self-centered view of life. What happened to work for works sake and/or work for the sake of society as a whole.9
-
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »This sort of attitude is easy to laugh at but is actually really detrimental to society. That we should applaud ourselves or others for the most basic responsibilities of adulthood. Seems like at some point society shifted in a way where "difficult" became synonymous with "bad" and "work" was something you should try to stop doing as soon as you could. The idea that you work just as long as until you have enough to retire and not run out of money by the time you die is a depressingly self-centered view of life. What happened to work for works sake and/or work for the sake of society as a whole.
A lot of work ethic went out the window with company changes. Remember when people worked at the same company or job for their entire life and considered the people they worked with and for, a second family? Remember decent pensions and working hours and vacations? That's why people can't wait to leave most jobs.4 -
snowflake954 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »This sort of attitude is easy to laugh at but is actually really detrimental to society. That we should applaud ourselves or others for the most basic responsibilities of adulthood. Seems like at some point society shifted in a way where "difficult" became synonymous with "bad" and "work" was something you should try to stop doing as soon as you could. The idea that you work just as long as until you have enough to retire and not run out of money by the time you die is a depressingly self-centered view of life. What happened to work for works sake and/or work for the sake of society as a whole.
A lot of work ethic went out the window with company changes. Remember when people worked at the same company or job for their entire life and considered the people they worked with and for, a second family? Remember decent pensions and working hours and vacations? That's why people can't wait to leave most jobs.
Yeah, toxic work enviornments and high turnover certainly have a share in the blame. I just think society as a whole has just sort of gone with that as the new norm and that seems unsustainable if we are to succeed.1 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Since it seems optional to choose this challenge/reward in that app I wonder how many are doing it? I wonder why they selected 9 am?
I could see a dumb reward thing like that maybe helping someone who is a bit depressed or who struggles to maintain routines. Sometimes little things can help someone feel like they did one thing so maybe they can do more. I've seen advice encouraging depressed people to make their beds every day to help them. That is something many would not think was a big deal to do. Maybe this is similar. What is nothing for some adults is an accomplishment for others.
I wake up most days by 7 am without an alarm clock without a reason to be awake at any particular time of day. I've struggled with insomnia and have gotten 8 hours of sleep a few nights this week at last. I'd like the sleep tracker I am using to help me celebrate this minor accomplishment of sleeping all night with a dumb "reward" but it does nothing.
It's a hook. Something achievable by most people so the barrier to engagement is low, and once you're "caught" you're more likely to do more, and probably even enter a compulsion loop where you want more and more of that gratification, except tasks are now harder to achieve so you need to work harder. Having put effort into it, you're less likely to leave.
Or you're an outlier like me and decide it's an incredibly stupid waste and get turned off from the app.
That's why these kinds of apps advertise towards the majority but try to accommodate the outliers by presenting other choices of challenges. Judging by the number of people who joined, it's working.
Personally, I like badges because they are fun and I'm a "collector". I don't like challenges because unless I'm already doing or planning to do something, joining a challenge will make me do the opposite just because. I have a character flaw in that I value my autonomy above all else. I would join this challenge to collect the badge, though.
Just personally can't understand a "challenge" and "awards" for something with a level of difficulty just above breathing for a healthy individual.
Sometimes disproportionate awards for trivial things keep things engaging. Part of enforcing psychological tricks is knowing that different players would respond differently to different types of reinforcement. If you're interested in the subject, look for articles about reinforcement psychology in gaming. It's fascinating. Things that may not appeal to us or we may not understand are actually well thought out, not arbitrary design decisions because the game designer thought it would be cool.
An example of these tactics is MFP's streak. It has the three types of engagement reinforcement: reward motivation (acquiring the streak), social motivation (posting the streak), and loss aversion (losing the streak after having put effort into building it). Of course, not everyone will care for every aspect of the design. I don't even pay attention to my streak and I have posting disabled. Doesn't mean the streak is stupid or useless, it just means that this particular feature doesn't interest me.
One of my favorite collection games is KleptoCats! Completely pointless and yet oddly soothing.
I dunno, I might not bother with the app, but if I did, that low barrier to involvement might help remind me to be grateful. I’m up. I'm out of bed. I’ve started the day. It’s easy to take that for granted.2 -
The published research on Fitbits and similar devices, however, has yet to uncover a clear link between fitness tracking and fitness, to say nothing of longevity and mortality, or of insurance companies' profits. But there is some solid evidence that if the use of the devices is paired with incentives like rewards, challenges and leaderboards (“gamified,” in social science parlance) people can see real health benefits. It’s probably no accident, then, that the John Hancock policies lean heavily on those kinds of incentives.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/09/25/an-insurance-company-wants-you-hand-over-your-fitbit-data-so-they-can-make-more-money-should-you/6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »This sort of attitude is easy to laugh at but is actually really detrimental to society. That we should applaud ourselves or others for the most basic responsibilities of adulthood. Seems like at some point society shifted in a way where "difficult" became synonymous with "bad" and "work" was something you should try to stop doing as soon as you could. The idea that you work just as long as until you have enough to retire and not run out of money by the time you die is a depressingly self-centered view of life. What happened to work for works sake and/or work for the sake of society as a whole.
Nothing.
Can you point to a period in history where that was a widespread reason why people worked? I’ll wait.9 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »This sort of attitude is easy to laugh at but is actually really detrimental to society. That we should applaud ourselves or others for the most basic responsibilities of adulthood. Seems like at some point society shifted in a way where "difficult" became synonymous with "bad" and "work" was something you should try to stop doing as soon as you could. The idea that you work just as long as until you have enough to retire and not run out of money by the time you die is a depressingly self-centered view of life. What happened to work for works sake and/or work for the sake of society as a whole.
Nothing.
Can you point to a period in history where that was a widespread reason why people worked? I’ll wait.
That is a depressing thought.
I wasnt claiming that now all people work for money while previously all people worked for society or for passion. I'm saying it seems like the distribution is skewed a bit towards it being about money and how that isnt a good thing.
I'd point to the fact that certain professions tend to be about interests (sciences) and.passions (teachers and artists) while others tend to be about the paycheck (financial sector, day trader, hedge fund manager). I'd say look at the distribution of those sectors over time.
I think we should encourage and favor attitudes that work the generate new wealth by improving society health and education rather than just pushing the existing money around and making sure in the end you end up with a bigger pile. If people work because they want to improve things it will favor the creation of wealth...if they go in for the pay back it will tend to favor just pushing wealth around because that is the quicker way to personal wealth.
And to adopt your rather snarky tone can you point to a research scientist or teacher who is in it for the money? I'll wait.0 -
During most of human history, the overwhelming majority of people worked because they literally had no alternative, other than to starve. It was about food, shelter, and the opportunity to reproduce. The idea of "work for work's sake or for the good of society as a whole," as a realistic option for any significant fraction of people, seems pretty new . . . couple of hundred years or so, generously, maybe? It's still not a realistic option in large sweeps of the globe.
I don't know that it's so much that it's more skewed to "all about the money" now, as it being more clear that an ultra small fraction of people have had the "all about the money" option for longer, and people who are on the margin of it wanting more of it for themselves . . . a continuation of the historical trend toward scrabbling for needful things, but expanding their scrabbling to included desired things.
It may even be that more people are idealistic now in their career choices now, because more people can afford it. Yes, there are teachers who need food stamps (dunno about research scientists), but many of those in the industrialized world do have the lowest foundations of Maslow's hierarchy covered, compared to most people in history and most of the rest of the world.
Just my opinion, but it seems to me that a larger fraction of people working "for work's sake or for the good of society as a whole" would be the thing that would be a modern paradigm shift, in contrast to working for survival and (if lucky) some additional comforts.
If work ethic went out the window, I think it's because more people are able to get away with that kind of attitude, yet not starve.8 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »This sort of attitude is easy to laugh at but is actually really detrimental to society. That we should applaud ourselves or others for the most basic responsibilities of adulthood. Seems like at some point society shifted in a way where "difficult" became synonymous with "bad" and "work" was something you should try to stop doing as soon as you could. The idea that you work just as long as until you have enough to retire and not run out of money by the time you die is a depressingly self-centered view of life. What happened to work for works sake and/or work for the sake of society as a whole.
Nothing.
Can you point to a period in history where that was a widespread reason why people worked? I’ll wait.
That is a depressing thought.
I wasnt claiming that now all people work for money while previously all people worked for society or for passion. I'm saying it seems like the distribution is skewed a bit towards it being about money and how that isnt a good thing.
I'd point to the fact that certain professions tend to be about interests (sciences) and.passions (teachers and artists) while others tend to be about the paycheck (financial sector, day trader, hedge fund manager). I'd say look at the distribution of those sectors over time.
I think we should encourage and favor attitudes that work the generate new wealth by improving society health and education rather than just pushing the existing money around and making sure in the end you end up with a bigger pile. If people work because they want to improve things it will favor the creation of wealth...if they go in for the pay back it will tend to favor just pushing wealth around because that is the quicker way to personal wealth.
And to adopt your rather snarky tone can you point to a research scientist or teacher who is in it for the money? I'll wait.
I can point to a number of such people who have burned out but can’t afford to change professions.
I’m interested in the bin men, sewer workers, fruit pickers etc who work for work’s sake and/or for the good of society, though?1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »This sort of attitude is easy to laugh at but is actually really detrimental to society. That we should applaud ourselves or others for the most basic responsibilities of adulthood. Seems like at some point society shifted in a way where "difficult" became synonymous with "bad" and "work" was something you should try to stop doing as soon as you could. The idea that you work just as long as until you have enough to retire and not run out of money by the time you die is a depressingly self-centered view of life. What happened to work for works sake and/or work for the sake of society as a whole.
Nothing.
Can you point to a period in history where that was a widespread reason why people worked? I’ll wait.
Truth.
1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »This sort of attitude is easy to laugh at but is actually really detrimental to society. That we should applaud ourselves or others for the most basic responsibilities of adulthood. Seems like at some point society shifted in a way where "difficult" became synonymous with "bad" and "work" was something you should try to stop doing as soon as you could. The idea that you work just as long as until you have enough to retire and not run out of money by the time you die is a depressingly self-centered view of life. What happened to work for works sake and/or work for the sake of society as a whole.
Nothing.
Can you point to a period in history where that was a widespread reason why people worked? I’ll wait.
That is a depressing thought.
I wasnt claiming that now all people work for money while previously all people worked for society or for passion. I'm saying it seems like the distribution is skewed a bit towards it being about money and how that isnt a good thing.
I'd point to the fact that certain professions tend to be about interests (sciences) and.passions (teachers and artists) while others tend to be about the paycheck (financial sector, day trader, hedge fund manager). I'd say look at the distribution of those sectors over time.
I think we should encourage and favor attitudes that work the generate new wealth by improving society health and education rather than just pushing the existing money around and making sure in the end you end up with a bigger pile. If people work because they want to improve things it will favor the creation of wealth...if they go in for the pay back it will tend to favor just pushing wealth around because that is the quicker way to personal wealth.
And to adopt your rather snarky tone can you point to a research scientist or teacher who is in it for the money? I'll wait.
I can point to a number of such people who have burned out but can’t afford to change professions.
I’m interested in the bin men, sewer workers, fruit pickers etc who work for work’s sake and/or for the good of society, though?
Maybe work ethic is a more appropriate term? Doing you best, taking pride in whatever product or service you provide instead of doing the minimum to get by and draw a paycheck until you can move on to the next company for a salary bump and added benefits like a fancy coffee bar. (I think this is a two-way street, though. Loyalty begets loyalty, and I'd like to think happy employees are more motivated to do quality work.)4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »This sort of attitude is easy to laugh at but is actually really detrimental to society. That we should applaud ourselves or others for the most basic responsibilities of adulthood. Seems like at some point society shifted in a way where "difficult" became synonymous with "bad" and "work" was something you should try to stop doing as soon as you could. The idea that you work just as long as until you have enough to retire and not run out of money by the time you die is a depressingly self-centered view of life. What happened to work for works sake and/or work for the sake of society as a whole.
Nothing.
Can you point to a period in history where that was a widespread reason why people worked? I’ll wait.
That is a depressing thought.
I wasnt claiming that now all people work for money while previously all people worked for society or for passion. I'm saying it seems like the distribution is skewed a bit towards it being about money and how that isnt a good thing.
I'd point to the fact that certain professions tend to be about interests (sciences) and.passions (teachers and artists) while others tend to be about the paycheck (financial sector, day trader, hedge fund manager). I'd say look at the distribution of those sectors over time.
I think we should encourage and favor attitudes that work the generate new wealth by improving society health and education rather than just pushing the existing money around and making sure in the end you end up with a bigger pile. If people work because they want to improve things it will favor the creation of wealth...if they go in for the pay back it will tend to favor just pushing wealth around because that is the quicker way to personal wealth.
And to adopt your rather snarky tone can you point to a research scientist or teacher who is in it for the money? I'll wait.
I can point to a number of such people who have burned out but can’t afford to change professions.
I’m interested in the bin men, sewer workers, fruit pickers etc who work for work’s sake and/or for the good of society, though?
Was there somewhere where I claimed it was a black or white or either/or dirt of situation? If I at all implied that then allow me to say that isn't my meaning. I never claimed everyone works for work sake or that no one does. Honestly I'm not sure why you seem to be taking offense to what I am saying like I am being elitist or something so let me clear something up...
Absolutely being in a position where you can work for the benefit of society or for the love of what you do is a position of extreme privelage relative to the majority of the world....I work in global health, I do realize this.
That said it is a problem if those who are in that position of privelage are taught that they should expect a pat on the back or a reward for every little positive thing even getting up in the morning because that just breeds entitlement. If all of them just work for themselves then who is going to work a hard job for less pay for the sake of interest or passion? Who is going to be a teacher? Who is going to do research for diseases of poverty where there is no profit in it financially?
If I was claiming everyone should work for the sake of society you are right that would be a ridiculous thing to ask. Thing is I'm not saying that and you repeatedly insisting that I am saying that isnt really engaging with me at all. I feel like you are taking the other extreme to balance what you feel is an extreme position I am taking and I can't help but feel you are being overly cynical and the view you are giving is just depressing and defeatist.
Yes I realize there are people stuck in jobs they aren't happy with including teachers and scientists...but that is unfortunate, that isnt good...that isnt an ideal to aspire to. Is the world you describe the one you want to live in? Because the one we want to live in is the one we should aspire to and push society in the direction of. This "gamification" of adult responsibility isnt helping.3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E0LaFRt19E
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions