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
Replies
-
So it’s downfall-of-society wrong if someone else gives me something for doing the basics, but absolutely OK if I give myself something for doing the basics?
If I set an app to give me a reward, which is that?
Yes you are absolutely right...that thing that I said was stupid and that thing you said was completely correct in some sort of objective way. You have won, I am defeated...gasp. Moving on...5 -
I am hereby awarding everyone who has made it this far in the thread a gold star for participation. Especially those who do not want one. You guys get double stars!!!
(And then I'm out, because I have got some rewards to earn for doing basic, otherwise-boring adult stuff, and wasting time on this thread reading a bunch of other people's meaningless opinions is cutting into those activities.)
7 -
So it’s downfall-of-society wrong if someone else gives me something for doing the basics, but absolutely OK if I give myself something for doing the basics?
If I set an app to give me a reward, which is that?
Just keep it out of public view. No point in rewarding general society for doing the basics.4 -
Packerjohn wrote: »They are organizing a step challenge at work, Some of my group was going to do it so I took a look. It involves measuring steps with a tracker or phone app. Since I don't have a tracker, I looked at the recommended phone app.
When I looked at the app, this "challenge/award opportunity" came up. WTF, some app developer feels the need to "award" adult behavior (2nd or 3rd shift workers not included in this rant)?
So exactly what is the issue that made this something to put in the debate forum?
Do you:- Object to gamification as a technique for modifying behaviour?
- Object to people subscribing to something related to establishing consistent habits?
- Object to the classification of 0900 as early?
2 -
I am hereby awarding everyone who has made it this far in the thread a gold star for participation. Especially those who do not want one. You guys get double stars!!!
(And then I'm out, because I have got some rewards to earn for doing basic, otherwise-boring adult stuff, and wasting time on this thread reading a bunch of other people's meaningless opinions is cutting into those activities.)
I think this might be a better star for this thread
13 -
Packerjohn wrote: »So it’s downfall-of-society wrong if someone else gives me something for doing the basics, but absolutely OK if I give myself something for doing the basics?
If I set an app to give me a reward, which is that?
Just keep it out of public view. No point in rewarding general society for doing the basics.
I don't really understand this. Is it meant to imply that the basic human psychology of enjoying good feelings is shameful and needs to be done in private so it doesn't infect others, that random apps made for profit which utilizes this psychology are secretly plotting to destroy society, that everyone has the same goals and what's basic is dictated by the opinions of individuals, that there should be a ban on pointless things, or that something people do for fun or to help focus on their goals is the downfall of humanity? No matter how I read this, I can't see how it would serve the desired outcome.
What would serve the desired outcome is keeping it an option, which is what it currently is. This way, those who don't find it helpful simply ignore it, and those who enjoy utilizing these tools for whatever goal (including the goal of a virtual reward) have access to it.4 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »So it’s downfall-of-society wrong if someone else gives me something for doing the basics, but absolutely OK if I give myself something for doing the basics?
If I set an app to give me a reward, which is that?
Just keep it out of public view. No point in rewarding general society for doing the basics.
I don't really understand this. Is it meant to imply that the basic human psychology of enjoying good feelings is shameful and needs to be done in private so it doesn't infect others, that random apps made for profit which utilizes this psychology are secretly plotting to destroy society, that everyone has the same goals and what's basic is dictated by the opinions of individuals, that there should be a ban on pointless things, or that something people do for fun or to help focus on their goals is the downfall of humanity? No matter how I read this, I can't see how it would serve the desired outcome.
What would serve the desired outcome is keeping it an option, which is what it currently is. This way, those who don't find it helpful simply ignore it, and those who enjoy utilizing these tools for whatever goal (including the goal of a virtual reward) have access to it.
I must have missed the call for a ban.
It's not a matter of "secretly plotting to destroy society". It's a matter of encouraging behavior to maximize status in the marketplace. Every company employs some variant of behavioral psychologist for this purpose.
The pushback is to inform consumers that this is occurring and that lowering the bar on expectations has consequences.3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »So it’s downfall-of-society wrong if someone else gives me something for doing the basics, but absolutely OK if I give myself something for doing the basics?
If I set an app to give me a reward, which is that?
Just keep it out of public view. No point in rewarding general society for doing the basics.
Given the alarming number of people who neglect their driving because of something in their phones, I can't agree that people have the basics down.5 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »They are organizing a step challenge at work, Some of my group was going to do it so I took a look. It involves measuring steps with a tracker or phone app. Since I don't have a tracker, I looked at the recommended phone app.
When I looked at the app, this "challenge/award opportunity" came up. WTF, some app developer feels the need to "award" adult behavior (2nd or 3rd shift workers not included in this rant)?
So exactly what is the issue that made this something to put in the debate forum?
Do you:- Object to gamification as a technique for modifying behaviour?
- Object to people subscribing to something related to establishing consistent habits?
- Object to the classification of 0900 as early?
As stated in my original post:
Some app developer (or someone paying him/her) feels the need to "award" adult2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »They are organizing a step challenge at work, Some of my group was going to do it so I took a look. It involves measuring steps with a tracker or phone app. Since I don't have a tracker, I looked at the recommended phone app.
When I looked at the app, this "challenge/award opportunity" came up. WTF, some app developer feels the need to "award" adult behavior (2nd or 3rd shift workers not included in this rant)?
So exactly what is the issue that made this something to put in the debate forum?
Do you:- Object to gamification as a technique for modifying behaviour?
- Object to people subscribing to something related to establishing consistent habits?
- Object to the classification of 0900 as early?
As stated in my original post:
Some app developer (or someone paying him/her) feels the need to "award" adult
So the first point then?
I'm still not sure why this is in the debate forum. Doesn't seem to be any debate going on.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »They are organizing a step challenge at work, Some of my group was going to do it so I took a look. It involves measuring steps with a tracker or phone app. Since I don't have a tracker, I looked at the recommended phone app.
When I looked at the app, this "challenge/award opportunity" came up. WTF, some app developer feels the need to "award" adult behavior (2nd or 3rd shift workers not included in this rant)?
So exactly what is the issue that made this something to put in the debate forum?
Do you:- Object to gamification as a technique for modifying behaviour?
- Object to people subscribing to something related to establishing consistent habits?
- Object to the classification of 0900 as early?
As stated in my original post:
Some app developer (or someone paying him/her) feels the need to "award" adult
So the first point then?
I'm still not sure why this is in the debate forum. Doesn't seem to be any debate going on.
If you read some of the posts, some posters say things that reward typical adult behaviors are not good, some are saying they are good. Each are stating their reasons.
Isn't that debate?3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »They are organizing a step challenge at work, Some of my group was going to do it so I took a look. It involves measuring steps with a tracker or phone app. Since I don't have a tracker, I looked at the recommended phone app.
When I looked at the app, this "challenge/award opportunity" came up. WTF, some app developer feels the need to "award" adult behavior (2nd or 3rd shift workers not included in this rant)?
So exactly what is the issue that made this something to put in the debate forum?
Do you:- Object to gamification as a technique for modifying behaviour?
- Object to people subscribing to something related to establishing consistent habits?
- Object to the classification of 0900 as early?
As stated in my original post:
Some app developer (or someone paying him/her) feels the need to "award" adult
I guarantee it was a PM who made that decision. The dev just coded what was in the spec. People blame devs for annoying and quirky features, but devs don't decide this stuff, it's like hiring a contractor to build a house according to blueprints.5 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »They are organizing a step challenge at work, Some of my group was going to do it so I took a look. It involves measuring steps with a tracker or phone app. Since I don't have a tracker, I looked at the recommended phone app.
When I looked at the app, this "challenge/award opportunity" came up. WTF, some app developer feels the need to "award" adult behavior (2nd or 3rd shift workers not included in this rant)?
So exactly what is the issue that made this something to put in the debate forum?
Do you:- Object to gamification as a technique for modifying behaviour?
- Object to people subscribing to something related to establishing consistent habits?
- Object to the classification of 0900 as early?
As stated in my original post:
Some app developer (or someone paying him/her) feels the need to "award" adult
I guarantee it was a PM who made that decision. The dev just coded what was in the spec. People blame devs for annoying and quirky features, but devs don't decide this stuff, it's like hiring a contractor to build a house according to blueprints.
QFT0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »I hate participation trophies for one simple reason, and it has nothing to do with any grand ideas. I remember this one event as a kid where they gave participation medals. I got one. Kids aren't stupid and they know that it's not the same as a winner's medal. It felt condescending and I hated it. It didn't encourage me to continue pursuing that activity, but at the same time, it didn't discourage me. I was just mad at that particular event.
This, on the other hand, is different. You aren't entering a competition against others, you choose to do something which may or may not result in a badge or a reward (depending on the design of the app). It's more like getting a mug or a pen at an event than getting a trophy.
I think many people perceive life as a competition and rewards for basic participation (like getting up in the morning as an adult) being rather condescending at best and at worst instilling some pretty poor values (one should expect praise for carrying out basic functions of an adult). Personally my gut reaction to an app rewarding me for waking up in the morning is about the same as my reaction to receiving a participation trophy. Does that mean I view life as a competition? I guess, although not sure I would normally phrase it that way.
To have winners, in sport or in life, you have to have losers. We can't just all win because if we just hand out winners badges to everyone then winning has no meaning. Where we place the bar for "winning" in society does have an influence on competition and on how much we strive to excel. Call me silly but I do get a bit concerned when I see the bar being set lower and lower and lower over time.
Ugh, it ate my comment. Well, let's see if I can manage this again.
I'm an incredibly competitive person, and as a result, I prefer and seek out activities that reward (and thus encourage) participation rather than competition. When there's a focus on competition, it layers on top of my competitive nature and it's more stressful and less pleasant. When participation is rewarded, I am more likely to explore, play around, or try something that might not work. Taking risks is incentivized if the penalty for failure is reduced.
I disagree with the apparent assumption that competition is the only - or even just the primary - factor that causes people to strive for excellence. I can take pride in what I do without comparing my work to someone else's. It's the difference, in education, between norm-referenced and criterion-referenced tests. (Full disclosure: teacher here!) While it seems like education is getting more and more competitive, as a teacher, I want to know where students' skills are at, regardless of how their peers are doing.
Finally, many games are "leveled" and increase in difficulty as the player progresses. Early "badges" or "achievements" often serve as much to demonstrate game interface as to reward play.3 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »So it’s downfall-of-society wrong if someone else gives me something for doing the basics, but absolutely OK if I give myself something for doing the basics?
If I set an app to give me a reward, which is that?
Just keep it out of public view. No point in rewarding general society for doing the basics.
I don't really understand this. Is it meant to imply that the basic human psychology of enjoying good feelings is shameful and needs to be done in private so it doesn't infect others, that random apps made for profit which utilizes this psychology are secretly plotting to destroy society, that everyone has the same goals and what's basic is dictated by the opinions of individuals, that there should be a ban on pointless things, or that something people do for fun or to help focus on their goals is the downfall of humanity? No matter how I read this, I can't see how it would serve the desired outcome.
What would serve the desired outcome is keeping it an option, which is what it currently is. This way, those who don't find it helpful simply ignore it, and those who enjoy utilizing these tools for whatever goal (including the goal of a virtual reward) have access to it.
I must have missed the call for a ban.
It's not a matter of "secretly plotting to destroy society". It's a matter of encouraging behavior to maximize status in the marketplace. Every company employs some variant of behavioral psychologist for this purpose.
The pushback is to inform consumers that this is occurring and that lowering the bar on expectations has consequences.
I find it interesting that we see the context in some areas but not others. When a new user asks for advice, we often suggest they log their intake without controlling calories or that they gradually reduce their intake of some food/drink they tend to overconsume. No one jumps out accusing people of being condescending because they're setting the bar so low.
Lowering the bar is sometimes necessary. When I first started, my bar was to walk briskly 5 minutes a day. It was challenging and your bet I rewarded myself for it by being proud of my achievement and feeling like I accomplished something. Now 5 minutes is a drop in the bucket. Who gets to decide what's basic and for whom? Someone who needs 2 or more hours to get ready and reach their workplace may utilize this challenge to focus on not hitting the snooze button, or someone who stays up late often may utilize it to focus on not staying up as late.
If you've ever seen these kinds of apps, you will see challenges that gamify actions of varying levels. A line of running challenges, for example, could be anything from running 5 seconds to running an ultra. People here are acting as if it's an app out of Idiocracy where only the most basic actions are offered.3 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »So it’s downfall-of-society wrong if someone else gives me something for doing the basics, but absolutely OK if I give myself something for doing the basics?
If I set an app to give me a reward, which is that?
Just keep it out of public view. No point in rewarding general society for doing the basics.
I don't really understand this. Is it meant to imply that the basic human psychology of enjoying good feelings is shameful and needs to be done in private so it doesn't infect others, that random apps made for profit which utilizes this psychology are secretly plotting to destroy society, that everyone has the same goals and what's basic is dictated by the opinions of individuals, that there should be a ban on pointless things, or that something people do for fun or to help focus on their goals is the downfall of humanity? No matter how I read this, I can't see how it would serve the desired outcome.
What would serve the desired outcome is keeping it an option, which is what it currently is. This way, those who don't find it helpful simply ignore it, and those who enjoy utilizing these tools for whatever goal (including the goal of a virtual reward) have access to it.
I must have missed the call for a ban.
It's not a matter of "secretly plotting to destroy society". It's a matter of encouraging behavior to maximize status in the marketplace. Every company employs some variant of behavioral psychologist for this purpose.
The pushback is to inform consumers that this is occurring and that lowering the bar on expectations has consequences.
I find it interesting that we see the context in some areas but not others. When a new user asks for advice, we often suggest they log their intake without controlling calories or that they gradually reduce their intake of some food/drink they tend to overconsume. No one jumps out accusing people of being condescending because they're setting the bar so low.
Lowering the bar is sometimes necessary. When I first started, my bar was to walk briskly 5 minutes a day. It was challenging and your bet I rewarded myself for it by being proud of my achievement and feeling like I accomplished something. Now 5 minutes is a drop in the bucket. Who gets to decide what's basic and for whom? Someone who needs 2 or more hours to get ready and reach their workplace may utilize this challenge to focus on not hitting the snooze button, or someone who stays up late often may utilize it to focus on not staying up as late.
If you've ever seen these kinds of apps, you will see challenges that gamify actions of varying levels. A line of running challenges, for example, could be anything from running 5 seconds to running an ultra. People here are acting as if it's an app out of Idiocracy where only the most basic actions are offered.
The difference is in the goal and purpose and to a certain extent acknowledging ramifications.
If your goal is happiness and compassion - then lowering expectations is logical.
If your goal is achievement and success - then raising expectations is logical.
The golden mean is going to be somewhere between the two extremes and different at the individual level. The origin of the rant I suspect would be the perception that society is drifting towards the lower end of the extreme.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »So it’s downfall-of-society wrong if someone else gives me something for doing the basics, but absolutely OK if I give myself something for doing the basics?
If I set an app to give me a reward, which is that?
Just keep it out of public view. No point in rewarding general society for doing the basics.
I don't really understand this. Is it meant to imply that the basic human psychology of enjoying good feelings is shameful and needs to be done in private so it doesn't infect others, that random apps made for profit which utilizes this psychology are secretly plotting to destroy society, that everyone has the same goals and what's basic is dictated by the opinions of individuals, that there should be a ban on pointless things, or that something people do for fun or to help focus on their goals is the downfall of humanity? No matter how I read this, I can't see how it would serve the desired outcome.
What would serve the desired outcome is keeping it an option, which is what it currently is. This way, those who don't find it helpful simply ignore it, and those who enjoy utilizing these tools for whatever goal (including the goal of a virtual reward) have access to it.
I must have missed the call for a ban.
It's not a matter of "secretly plotting to destroy society". It's a matter of encouraging behavior to maximize status in the marketplace. Every company employs some variant of behavioral psychologist for this purpose.
The pushback is to inform consumers that this is occurring and that lowering the bar on expectations has consequences.
I find it interesting that we see the context in some areas but not others. When a new user asks for advice, we often suggest they log their intake without controlling calories or that they gradually reduce their intake of some food/drink they tend to overconsume. No one jumps out accusing people of being condescending because they're setting the bar so low.
Lowering the bar is sometimes necessary. When I first started, my bar was to walk briskly 5 minutes a day. It was challenging and your bet I rewarded myself for it by being proud of my achievement and feeling like I accomplished something. Now 5 minutes is a drop in the bucket. Who gets to decide what's basic and for whom? Someone who needs 2 or more hours to get ready and reach their workplace may utilize this challenge to focus on not hitting the snooze button, or someone who stays up late often may utilize it to focus on not staying up as late.
If you've ever seen these kinds of apps, you will see challenges that gamify actions of varying levels. A line of running challenges, for example, could be anything from running 5 seconds to running an ultra. People here are acting as if it's an app out of Idiocracy where only the most basic actions are offered.
The difference is in the goal and purpose and to a certain extent acknowledging ramifications.
If your goal is happiness and compassion - then lowering expectations is logical.
If your goal is achievement and success - then raising expectations is logical.
The golden mean is going to be somewhere between the two extremes and different at the individual level. The origin of the rant I suspect would be the perception that society is drifting towards the lower end of the extreme.
I suspect the opposite is true, although I don't have a definitive proof. In the past, people used to be content that they could jog around the block. Now more and more people are becoming amateur athletes and training for events. Training and improving has become the norm, not the exception. There is more pressure than ever to be labled "successful". Everything is being quantified from sleep to cups of water in order to "maximize your score in life". Children are enrolled in more and more activities that build skills. The trend towards measuring a person's value by their food, activity, health, choices, and everything else under the sun has made it harder for people to do something for something's sake, there definitely is pressure to compete with yourself or others and be as perfect as you can be.
I think it's just the novelty of this whole thing that makes it harder to accept the concept of gamification. When "likes" started being a thing, people did not like that. How narcissistic to expect attention for mundane things. Now "likes" are more accepted, and even expected in social apps. A person may not care for them, but they're not as vocal against them and accept them as a fact of social media. There was a time when "books make people stupid because using your memory is superior" was an argument that could occur to someone. It is what it is.3 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »So it’s downfall-of-society wrong if someone else gives me something for doing the basics, but absolutely OK if I give myself something for doing the basics?
If I set an app to give me a reward, which is that?
Just keep it out of public view. No point in rewarding general society for doing the basics.
I don't really understand this. Is it meant to imply that the basic human psychology of enjoying good feelings is shameful and needs to be done in private so it doesn't infect others, that random apps made for profit which utilizes this psychology are secretly plotting to destroy society, that everyone has the same goals and what's basic is dictated by the opinions of individuals, that there should be a ban on pointless things, or that something people do for fun or to help focus on their goals is the downfall of humanity? No matter how I read this, I can't see how it would serve the desired outcome.
What would serve the desired outcome is keeping it an option, which is what it currently is. This way, those who don't find it helpful simply ignore it, and those who enjoy utilizing these tools for whatever goal (including the goal of a virtual reward) have access to it.
I must have missed the call for a ban.
It's not a matter of "secretly plotting to destroy society". It's a matter of encouraging behavior to maximize status in the marketplace. Every company employs some variant of behavioral psychologist for this purpose.
The pushback is to inform consumers that this is occurring and that lowering the bar on expectations has consequences.
I find it interesting that we see the context in some areas but not others. When a new user asks for advice, we often suggest they log their intake without controlling calories or that they gradually reduce their intake of some food/drink they tend to overconsume. No one jumps out accusing people of being condescending because they're setting the bar so low.
Lowering the bar is sometimes necessary. When I first started, my bar was to walk briskly 5 minutes a day. It was challenging and your bet I rewarded myself for it by being proud of my achievement and feeling like I accomplished something. Now 5 minutes is a drop in the bucket. Who gets to decide what's basic and for whom? Someone who needs 2 or more hours to get ready and reach their workplace may utilize this challenge to focus on not hitting the snooze button, or someone who stays up late often may utilize it to focus on not staying up as late.
If you've ever seen these kinds of apps, you will see challenges that gamify actions of varying levels. A line of running challenges, for example, could be anything from running 5 seconds to running an ultra. People here are acting as if it's an app out of Idiocracy where only the most basic actions are offered.
The difference is in the goal and purpose and to a certain extent acknowledging ramifications.
If your goal is happiness and compassion - then lowering expectations is logical.
If your goal is achievement and success - then raising expectations is logical.
The golden mean is going to be somewhere between the two extremes and different at the individual level. The origin of the rant I suspect would be the perception that society is drifting towards the lower end of the extreme.
I suspect the opposite is true, although I don't have a definitive proof. In the past, people used to be content that they could jog around the block. Now more and more people are becoming amateur athletes and training for events. Training and improving has become the norm, not the exception. There is more pressure than ever to be labeled "successful". Everything is being quantified from sleep to cups of water in order to "maximize your score in life". Children are enrolled in more and more activities that build skills. The trend towards measuring a person's value by their food, activity, health, choices, and everything else under the sun has made it harder for people to do something for something's sake, there definitely is pressure to compete with yourself or others and be as perfect as you can be.
I think what is perceived are those individuals on the outskirts of the bell curve. So there are a larger number of individual athletes and competitors. The rise of events such as Spartan Race, Tough Mudder, ultra marathons, etc. are solid evidence of this. I would mark these examples of raising the bar and people rising to this.
I don't think this is true reviewing the percentages of the population just in reviewing the growing mental health and obesity crisis.
There is growing evidence in sociology and social psychology on how the gamification in child development is having disastrous consequences. I point to the research of Jonathan Haidt in The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure. By overstructuring the lives of children we are doing them a disservice. They are developing new skills at the expense of fundamental coping skills.
The perfection sought is not as useful as expected.3 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »So it’s downfall-of-society wrong if someone else gives me something for doing the basics, but absolutely OK if I give myself something for doing the basics?
If I set an app to give me a reward, which is that?
Just keep it out of public view. No point in rewarding general society for doing the basics.
I don't really understand this. Is it meant to imply that the basic human psychology of enjoying good feelings is shameful and needs to be done in private so it doesn't infect others, that random apps made for profit which utilizes this psychology are secretly plotting to destroy society, that everyone has the same goals and what's basic is dictated by the opinions of individuals, that there should be a ban on pointless things, or that something people do for fun or to help focus on their goals is the downfall of humanity? No matter how I read this, I can't see how it would serve the desired outcome.
What would serve the desired outcome is keeping it an option, which is what it currently is. This way, those who don't find it helpful simply ignore it, and those who enjoy utilizing these tools for whatever goal (including the goal of a virtual reward) have access to it.
I must have missed the call for a ban.
It's not a matter of "secretly plotting to destroy society". It's a matter of encouraging behavior to maximize status in the marketplace. Every company employs some variant of behavioral psychologist for this purpose.
The pushback is to inform consumers that this is occurring and that lowering the bar on expectations has consequences.
I find it interesting that we see the context in some areas but not others. When a new user asks for advice, we often suggest they log their intake without controlling calories or that they gradually reduce their intake of some food/drink they tend to overconsume. No one jumps out accusing people of being condescending because they're setting the bar so low.
Lowering the bar is sometimes necessary. When I first started, my bar was to walk briskly 5 minutes a day. It was challenging and your bet I rewarded myself for it by being proud of my achievement and feeling like I accomplished something. Now 5 minutes is a drop in the bucket. Who gets to decide what's basic and for whom? Someone who needs 2 or more hours to get ready and reach their workplace may utilize this challenge to focus on not hitting the snooze button, or someone who stays up late often may utilize it to focus on not staying up as late.
If you've ever seen these kinds of apps, you will see challenges that gamify actions of varying levels. A line of running challenges, for example, could be anything from running 5 seconds to running an ultra. People here are acting as if it's an app out of Idiocracy where only the most basic actions are offered.
The idea that continuing once started is often easier than getting started in the first place is pretty well documented. Mary Poppins phrases it as "Well Begun Is Half Done." So setting the bar REALLY low in the beginning is actually a pretty sound strategy.6 -
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.
This isn't related to the thread. I just think your profile picture is awesome @Carlos_421 (edit for typo)2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K 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
- 388 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions