Gamification

So, I heard this story on NPR this morning about "gamification." The idea is to apply principles of games to everyday problems and situations. The example given was an effort in Sweden to control speeding. In addition to issuing tickets and fines for those who exceed the speed limit, drivers who were caught driving at or under the limit were entered into a lottery with the chance to win a portion of the fines. It is an apparent success. The argument is that positive incentives, a key feature of games, are more powerful than negative sanctions.

What I found more interesting in the story was the SAPS model described by a marketing guru. SAPS stands for status, access, power and stuff. The guy, Gabe Zicherman, argues that these are the things that motivate people, and in that order.

I know in academia we often talk about needing to show someone the love--that faculty members like to be recognized, made to feel important, thanked for their efforts. Sure, we all like money, but money is not all that we need or want. Isn't it the same in most business and personal relationships? What we want is to be recognized, to have access to another person, to feel powerful? "Stuff" is way down the list.

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/27/134866003/gamifying-the-system-to-create-better-behavior

Work-Family Boundary issues

The most recent issue of the Journal of Health and Social Behavior has an interesting article about the stresses created by the blurring of the work-family boundary. The study looked at the effect of the frequency of work-related contact outside of normal work hours on feelings of guilt and distress. They measured things like taking work-related calls at home or bringing work home. The use of cell phones and email make such contact increasingly likely. I would say there isn't a day that I receive work related emails after 5 pm or a weekend day in which I receive no work-related emails. And, the expectation usually is that I will respond to those that evening or on the weekend.

The study concludes that this "boundary spanning" between work and family has a negative psychological effect on women, but not men. This distress is exhibited mainly through feelings of guilt by women. This guilt tends to persist even when the actual performance of the role is controlled. That is, women feel guilty even if they are not diminshing their performance at either work or home.

I have set aside one full week a year in which I don't look at email and don't answer the phone. There is a little bit of withdrawal, but overall, I find it quite liberating.

Living longer

In my population class last week we were talking about aging and longer lives. I asked whether any of them would be interested in extending their life by 50 years, and got few takers. (I did ask this, though, just as we are approaching midterms, the March doldrums, and have had over 150 inches of snow. Still, my class has me a little worried and I've decided we need to lighten things up a little in there...)

By chance, I was just reading a NY Times article about David Murdock and his quest to live to 125. That is the about the oldest age ever recorded, and about where many scientists put the maximum human life span. His efforts have led him to adopt a diet rich in vegetables and whole grains. He has cut out dairy products, red meat, and sugar.

There is considerable doubt that such a plan will really work. But, it will be interesting to see how well he does. So far, he is looking pretty healthy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/magazine/06murdock-t.html?src=me&ref=homepage

Apodictic

ἀποδεικτικός

I learned a new word the other day...apodictic. It means "clearly established, incontrovertible, beyond dispute." I love it! I only wish I could apply it to some real world situation.

I ran across the word while reading an article on immortality to prepare for class. The article talks about some of the potential drawbacks for long life. One of these, perhaps, could be the inability for us to remember our earlier "self."

I usually ask my class about their earliest memory. For most it is around age 4 or 5. If I think back about my childhood my earliest memory seems impossible. It involves taking my older sister to nursery school. I imagine it was in the spring, so the year would have been 1959 and I would be just 2 years old. On the road to the nursery school water has covered a large section, it is flooded. My mother tries to drive through the area and our car stalls in the middle. Here she is with 3 young girls, stuck in the flooded road. A farmer comes with a tractor and pulls us out. Do I really remember that event? I think I do. I know I remember being in the nursery school building before I myself went there. On the other hand, I always tell my class I remember virtually nothing of third grade. I don’t remember where my classroom was in the building, although I remember every other one. I don’t remember the name of my teacher. The only thing I remember from that year was being kept in from recess one day to be tested to see if I should skip to fourth grade. I failed, and stayed a third grader.

Does it matter if we can remember things from our earlier life? One theory is that the brain has limited capacity for storage and so "trivial" events are jettisoned. At the same time, the memories we keep may not be very reliable over time. They are shaped by later events, by changes in feelings and the stories of others.

So, here is the quote that caught my attention: "Whether or not that 'memory' is veridical is probably impossible to determine, but its role in giving coherence and continuity to existence does not depend on the memory being apodictic." My interpretation: It doesn't matter if what you remember is an accurate recall of reality. It only matters that it means something to you.