Mainstream failure of SL & Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

[Scylla Rhiadra]

6 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Most of us here have weathered numerous changes over the years.  Too many to list.    We use mesh instead of prims...people adapted or didn't.  Mesh bodies, windlight, eep, changes with Adult content, group.chat not working, etc.  Some people did leave.  I'd say most stay in spite of those changes.

However, the basic principle of the game, which is really no principle, has not changed.  A drastic change as suggested, would be to some, exactly like.taking away adult content to others.  A mass exodus.

Yes, but not just an exodus of existing residents; it would also impact on recruitment.

To repeating something I've already said, had I been forced to jump through all sorts of hoops before I could engage with the parts of SL that interested me, I wouldn't have made it past the first day or two.

I do acknowledge that there are people, lots of them, who do want some form of gamification, leveling up, goals, or however we want to express this. There is value conferred by cost and effort for many. Gamers are gamers for a reason: they like these mechanisms, and respond positively to them. And we know that there are people who subscribe to this model who are turned off SL because it doesn't have them.

So . . . this is why it might actually be a good idea to offer a choice of either stream to people. My main concern, again, is that the gamification not result in unwanted behaviours.

[Sid Nagy]

8 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Understood.  With that understanding, Phillip / Oberwolf said to "trust them", so I think that I will.

Is there another choice?
If they change direction in an unacceptable way, each and everyone can only vote with their feet individually.

[Love Zhaoying]

6 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Yes but the OP's assertions related to Maslow and Phiip's assertions so..........nvm

I guess my point is:  I could not tell from the part I copied what the actual question is. Maybe I need to look earlier in the OP.

19 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

< the debate starts here >

 

I think Philip has fundamentally misunderstood the implications of Second Life omitting the bottom two foundational tiers of 'Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs'. Yes it is a positive platform for people to explore, express themselves, be altruistic and achieve personal growth.

However, the bottom two tiers of the pyramid are the largest. They represent a defining part of the human condition, they dominate our daily lives and dictate our actions to a considerable degree.

Games will provide these tiers as part of the experience. In Minecraft one must quickly build a home to survive the night. The act of doing that informs activity long after the immediate need to survive hordes of night time monsters has passed. As the player progresses, the home gets bigger, its borders expand, the zombie threat diminishes to the point it's incidental novelty. What's left is one the biggest video game franchises in human history, fun for all ages and easily as much of a sandbox as SL.

Second Life does not present any challenge to users that quality as being psychological or survival. This is the missing piece that causes people to leave so early in their journey here. They join SL and find nothing to do. There is no challenge to be met. No purpose to set them off on their adventure. No experience that allows them to define their starting place.

The need to meet psychological and survival requirements is so baked into all of us, that when presented with its absence, most people .. move on.

This is, in my estimation, why Linden homes have been successful for growth of premium membership and retention where everything else has failed. It presents a facsimile of foundational needs for people to complete. Find a place to call home, and in the process, find a foot hold for their place in Second Life.

Edited 19 hours ago by Coffee Pancake
oh pedantry, i'm so sorry please forgive this poor dyslexic ....

So..the assertion is:  Phillip misunderstood.  That's fair for an assertion.

 

 

[Coffee Pancake]

13 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

To repeating something I've already said, had I been forced to jump through all sorts of hoops before I could engage with the parts of SL that interested me, I wouldn't have made it past the first day or two.

But did you really come here with your entire plan of action and engagement mapped out.

I didn't, and if there had been some gamification .. I would have just done it. It wouldn't have even raised an eyebrow.

 

13 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I do acknowledge that there are people, lots of them, who do want some form of gamification, leveling up, goals, or however we want to express this.

There is an expectation that there be some purpose provided. 

You log into WoW .. why am I here - to follow the story, murder critters, and be every random jerks postie. From this simplistic purpose everything else develops. Came to murder bears, met the love of my life. 

Log in SL .. and .. everything here is a means, but there is no end in sight. Lots of nebulous meaningless potentials.

Eg - You could make a cool avatar and then go clubbing! .. but why? What does clubbing actually entail from a practical perspective? what would that accomplish? what's the value? You and I have very personal ideas of what that involves and why we might do it, but to a newbie .. they have no concept at all, just that it will probably cost them a load of cash.

 

13 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Gamers are gamers for a reason: they like these mechanisms, and respond positively to them. And we know that there are people who subscribe to this model who are turned off SL because it doesn't have them.

Gamers aren't just some tiny demographic. Gamers is rising generational tide. Almost everyone under a certain age is a gamer.

 

 

Edited June 29, 2023 by Coffee Pancake

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Coffee Pancake said:

But did you really come here with your entire plan of action and engagement mapped out.

I didn't, and if there had been some gamification .. I would have just done it. It wouldn't have even raised an eyebrow.

I did, actually, have part of my "plan of action" mapped out because I was introduced to SL by people who wanted me to engage with particular communities and activities. But I accept that my experience was not "usual" in that sense.

Again, there is gamification, and gamification. "Learn how to create a prim and manipulate it in simple ways" would be, for most people, a fun, or at least relatively harmless hoop to jump through -- and a useful one too. "Learn how to dance!" similarly. "Add 2 people to your friends list!" might be more problematic, but still not a bad thing.

"Spend 3 hours searching this forest for glowy jewels that confer 'points'" on the other hand would have had me logging out after 5 minutes.

7 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Gamers aren't just some tiny demographic. Games is rising generational tide. Almost everyone under a certain age is a gamer.

I didn't say they were a tiny demographic: I think I used the words "lots." And it would be good to cater to them. But not only to them.

And there are games . . . and games. You're employing a single paradigm here, which is something like WoW. Most people who "game" aren't actually playing survival-type games, and the leveling up or goal-oriented aspect is often nebulous or actually absent. Someone playing Temple Run on their phone isn't really all that interested in their "level": the point of achievement is to get to new levels with new and more challenging content. Someone playing solitaire or Candy Crush Saga probably doesn't care at all that there is no "goal" beyond trying to win a single game.

Making generalizations about human behaviour on the basis of one particular demographic, and an ill-defined one at that, is a mistake. SL needs the flexibility to cater to those who, like you, might have preferred goals and challenges, and those who, like me, just wanted free form play and the ability to explore and socialize.

[Persephone Emerald]

47 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

The problems that are likely to arise when instituting elements that belong to the bottom of the pyramid relate to the way in which these are handled.

A great many of the ills of society -- and of SL too, arguably -- are the result of competition for a scarcity of resources. "Scarcity" in that sense doesn't just mean that there is a certain amount of corn that can be harvested, or a certain number of "jewels" that can be gathered for points or whatever: it also relates to anything that has to be "paid for" in some fashion. Something that costs L$1 is, by definition, "scarce" in the sense that not everyone can access it: you have to have Lindens. Something that requires an expenditure of non-trivial time also produces a scarcity: some people will have hours a day to expend on it, while others might be limited by RL to a few hours a week.

And all of these "scarcities" will produce competition of some form or another, and will advantage some over others. It will also produce particular behaviours that are not necessarily very desirable, like "grinding" for resources -- what we used to see in SL in the form of camping, for instance. Whatever else might be said for such resource scarcity "workarounds," they don't much confer enjoyment. Not too many people enjoy grinding as an activity, and most people who camped simply went AFK while doing so.

It's also the kind of thing that leads to people creating and then selling fully developed accounts, something not permitted by the ToS, but rife in other games.

So, I think we need to make a distinction between activities that produce these kinds of unwanted effects, and those that instead do things we'd like to see happen -- such as community building.

If something like this is to be instituted, it needs to be done in such a way as to incentivize activities that will, in and of themselves, confer enjoyment and benefit to both the person engaged, and the grid as a whole. And we need to avoid things that result in competition, inequity, and mere labour for the sake of labour.

I'm just going to address a few points here, 'cuz I'm getting tired of posting. This is a good, thoughtful post though.

Some people do enjoy grinding and finding workarounds to perceived scarcity. It makes me feel clever when I can outfit my avatars with free stuff, for instance, rather than paying for everything. Some people may enjoy chatting with others while they're fishing for lindens or sorting their inventory while camping for lindens. I'm sure some people feel clever when they're learned how to grind through a game to get its rewards. Some enjoy leaving an avatar AFK at an AFK sex place so they can make a few lindens that way. If they didn't enjoy it, they probably wouldn't do it. I don't think many people are grinding through games like this in order to support their RL survival needs, so they must enjoy it on some level.

I believe in the Capitalist view that competition helps drive the creation of better products and services. Where it fails is when the competition is an illusion - those with the most power make secret deals or influence laws to favor them over the "little guys" - when people lose their moral compass to view money and power as being more important than having respect and humanity toward others, and when they fail to see that we and everything are all interconnected. We're all confined to living on the same planet together, for instance.

I wonder how much scarcity is a created illusion at times? It's not so much that there isn't enough space or stuff in SL for anyone to enjoy it, but that our society here has placed a value on "owning" spaces and stuff that costs us money. There are Linden run spaces, free avatars, free to play games, free to join groups, etc. We choose to give more value to things that cost us money, because we believe money is an intrinsic measurement of value. If the Legacy body costs more than a free body, it must be better, right? It's a choice to assign value to things, real or virtual. How much value do we assign to clean air and water vs. fast, personal transportation or light and disposable, plastic containers?

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

Some people do enjoy grinding and finding workarounds to perceived scarcity.

Boiled down, this is why I am scripting certain long-term projects: to make scripting easier for other people in the future.

The "challenge" is the "reward" in my case (unless I manage to get either L$ or "kudos" for my hard work).

So, I am basically breaking big rocks into smaller rocks. Just like:

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

41 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

Some people do enjoy grinding and finding workarounds to perceived scarcity. It makes me feel clever when I can outfit my avatars with free stuff, for instance, rather than paying for everything. Some people may enjoy chatting with others while they're fishing for lindens or sorting their inventory while camping for lindens. I'm sure some people feel clever when they're learned how to grind through a game to get its rewards. Some enjoy leaving an avatar AFK at an AFK sex place so they can make a few lindens that way. If they didn't enjoy it, they probably wouldn't do it.

While I do take your point, I don't think I'd define these instances as "grinding." If you enjoy bargain hunting, it's usually because you enjoy the activity in and of itself. Similarly, there is definitely a small demographic within SL who likely get off on the idea that their avatar is being "used" for sex at AFK sites, and are probably watching it happen with enjoyment.

But I think most people who bargain hunt in RL and SL are doing so because they need to.

I recognize that you said "Some people," and I think you've provided a useful corrective to my admittedly reductive characterization of these activities, but I'd still maintain that most people, given an easy and painless choice between struggling with free mesh body "A," or using a Maitreya, Legacy, Reborn, or some other well supported and relatively easy-to-use body, are going to go with the latter. The "challenge" can be a factor, definitely, and some people who can afford a Maitreya are going to want to play with a freebie for the fun of it . . . but I think it's, if not a rarity, certainly not the usual case.

41 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

I don't think many people are grinding through games like this in order to support their RL survival needs, so they must enjoy it on some level.

Not their RL survival needs, likely, but quite possibly their SL enjoyment. Someone camping for Lindens wasn't doing so with the intention of cashing them out into RL money: they wanted the cash to enhance their SL experience.

I went for a couple of years at least in SL before ever actually putting RL money into the platform. Initially, I funded myself by playing trivia at a place that gave me L$2 for every correct answer (assuming I was the first to answer it . . . and I usually was). I could make anywhere from 20 to about 80 Lindens an hour doing it. What made it bearable was that 1) there were other people there with whom I was socializing, and who became friends, and 2) answering trivia itself was enjoyable.

But once I started to make money from my SL business, I stopped doing that, because I no longer need to.

41 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

I believe in the Capitalist view that competition helps drive the creation of better products and services. Where it fails is when the competition is an illusion - those with the most power make secret deals or influence laws to favor them over the "little guys" - when people lose their moral compass to view money and power as being more important than having respect and humanity toward others, and when they fail to see that we and everything are all interconnected. We're all confined to living on the same planet together, for instance.

I don't entirely disagree with much of this, but my own SL isn't driven by competition. I don't need to be "the most famous" or valued photographer in SL to enjoy producing photographs. It's nice that I've achieved the recognition and success that I have, but the value of those isn't conferred by comparison with others. There are plenty of SL photographers who are more famous, more highly regarded, and often just better than me. I don't resent them, I don't want to "unseat" them. I respect them for what they've achieved.

I don't think, to be honest, that any of my friends in SL are really much interested in this either.

41 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

I wonder how much scarcity is a created illusion at times? It's not so much that there isn't enough space or stuff in SL for anyone to enjoy it, but that our society here has placed a value on "owning" spaces and stuff that costs us money. There are Linden run spaces, free avatars, free to play games, free to join groups, etc. We choose to give more value to things that cost us money, because we believe money is an intrinsic measurement of value. If the Legacy body costs more than a free body, it must be better, right? It's a choice to assign value to things, real or virtual. How much value do we assign to clean air and water vs. fast, personal transportation or light and disposable, plastic containers?

In SL, most scarcity is at some level illusory, but it is also underpinned by real RL factors: time, money, ability, and the necessity of keeping a platform that exists in the context of a capitalist system afloat. Someone's gotta pay for those servers, and at root, that's the source of nearly all "scarcity" in SL.

I don't think SL ever can be entirely without scarcity of some sort or another. But we can selectively target certain things to make them "less scarce" because their general availability benefits the individual, the community, and the platform in ways that ultimately do produce value, i.e., money, for individual creative types, as well as LL itself.

In other words, we can reframe this in ways that make "sense" in the context of capitalism. If a grocery store reduces the "scarcity" of an item by reducing the price for a sale, they are doing so because it will ultimately generate more revenue for them. The same can be said of reducing scarcity for some things in SL: if it assists with engagement, enjoyment, and retention, then it it benefits LL, and the creators here, in entirely quantifiable ways.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Scylla Rhiadra
Spelling

[Jaylinbridges]

22 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

My point is, absolutely anyone who attended a basic college course or studied Psych 101 would be aware of Maslow's Hierarchy.

I will chime in to remind you this is not always true.  Maslow's theories on Feel Good psychology, or Humanistic psychology pretty much ignored sick people with clear physiological causes, and his therapy failed to help those with an actual bodily cause.

I took my first psychology course, Psych 101 in 1961, and the lecturing professor was Dr. Clifford T. Morgan.  Morgan was the leader in experimental and physiological causes of behavior and was a cofounder of the Psychonomic Society** in 1959.  He was a scientist who believed in experimental data, as opposed to opinions and soft "research".  Maslow's name was never mentioned or referenced in Dr. Morgan's 1961 textbook, Introduction to Psychology.  I never heard of Maslow until Strawberry read that question, since my major was engineering, not psychology. 

(** The mission of the Psychonomic Society is to foster the science of cognition through the advancement and communication of basic research in experimental psychology and allied sciences.)

On another subject, sex (raw) is in the bottom layer of the triangle.  As a few keep reminding us, you can't skip sex as an attraction in SL, by skipping the lowest layer.  I wonder why the triangle posted by the LabGab did not mention that.  I also would argue that for a significant number of present SL residents, SL does provide some of the basic needs in the second layer, at least employment and family, part of the second Security layer.  It does for me, and several people I work with every day.

 

Edited June 29, 2023 by Jaylinbridges
I always find mistakes on my first draft

[Love Zhaoying]

10 minutes ago, Jaylinbridges said:

I will chime in to remind you this is not always true.  Maslow's theories on Feel Good psychology, or Humanistic psychology pretty much ignored sick people with clear physiological causes, and his therapy failed to help those with an actual bodily cause.

I took my first psychology course, Psych 101 in 1961, and the lecturing professor was Dr. Clifford T. Morgan.  Morgan was the leader in experimental and physiological causes of behavior and was a cofounder of the Psychonomic Society** in 1959.  He was a scientist who believed in experimental data, as opposed to opinions and soft "research".  Maslow's name was never mentioned or referenced in Dr. Clifford's 1961 textbook, Introduction to Psychology.  I never heard of Maslow until Strawberry read that question, since my major was engineering, not psychology. 

(** The mission of the Psychonomic Society is to foster the science of cognition through the advancement and communication of basic research in experimental psychology and allied sciences.)

On another subject, sex is in the bottom layer of the triangle.  As a few keep reminding us, you can't skip sex as an attraction in SL, by skipping the lowest layer.  I wonder why the triangle posted by the LabGab did not mention that.  I also would argue that for a significant number of present RL residents, SL does provide some of the basic needs in the lowest layer, and at least employment and family, part of the second Security layer.  It does for me, and several people I work with every day.

 

Thanks, my memory was also that sex was at the bottom.

[Jaylinbridges]

36 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Thanks, my memory was also that sex was at the bottom

I changed it to raw sex, since sexual intimacy is also in the third layer.

Newbies looking for 1st day sex belong in the bottom layer.   And as Morgan explained, sex is a basic need determined by your hormone levels, and age.  His early research on animals, hormones, and sexual behavior was interesting.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Jaylinbridges

[Luna Bliss]

51 minutes ago, Jaylinbridges said:

Maslow's theories on Feel Good psychology, or Humanistic psychology pretty much ignored sick people with clear physiological causes, and his therapy failed to help those with an actual bodily cause.

I took my first psychology course, Psych 101 in 1961, and the lecturing professor was Dr. Clifford T. Morgan.  Morgan was the leader in experimental and physiological causes of behavior and was a cofounder of the Psychonomic Society** in 1959.  He was a scientist who believed in experimental data, as opposed to opinions and soft "research".  Maslow's name was never mentioned or referenced in Dr. Morgan's 1961 textbook, Introduction to Psychology.  I never heard of Maslow until Strawberry read that question, since my major was engineering, not psychology. 

(** The mission of the Psychonomic Society is to foster the science of cognition through the advancement and communication of basic research in experimental psychology and allied sciences.)

I don't understand why you see Humanistic Psychology as so lacking. Just because an area of Psychology focuses on other aspects besides brain or physical causes of  problems doesn't make that Psychology wrong -- it's simply a different focus and a kind of balance to what was being focused on at that particular point in time.

           HUMANISTIC PSYCHOLOGY

Humanistic psychology, a movement in psychology supporting the belief that humans, as individuals, are unique beings and should be recognized and treated as such by psychologists and psychiatrists. The movement grew in opposition to the two mainstream 20th-century trends in psychology, behaviourism and psychoanalysis. Humanistic principles attained application during the “human potential” movement, which became popular in the United States during the 1960s.

Humanistic psychologists believe that behaviourists are overconcerned with the scientific study and analysis of the actions of people as organisms (to the neglect of basic aspects of people as feeling, thinking individuals) and that too much effort is spent in laboratory research—a practice that quantifies and reduces human behaviour to its elements. Humanists also take issue with the deterministic orientation of psychoanalysis, which postulates that one’s early experiences and drives determine one’s behaviour. The humanist is concerned with the fullest growth of the individual in the areas of love, fulfillment, self-worth, and autonomy.

The American psychologist Abraham Maslow, considered one of the leading architects of humanistic psychology, proposed a hierarchy of needs or drives in order of decreasing priority or potency but increasing sophistication: physiological needs, safety, belongingness and love, esteem, and self-actualization. Only when the more primitive needs are met can the individual progress to higher levels in the hierarchy. People reaching self-actualization will have fully realized their potential.

The concept of the self is a central focal point for most humanistic psychologists. In the “personal construct” theory of American psychologist George Kelly and the “self-centred” theory of American psychotherapist Carl Rogers, individuals are said to perceive the world according to their own experiences. This perception affects their personality and leads them to direct their behaviour to satisfy the needs of the total self. Rogers stressed that, in the development of an individual’s personality, the person strives for “self-actualization (to become oneself), self-maintenance (to keep on being oneself), and self-enhancement (to transcend the status quo).”

Following the writings of Jean-Paul Sartre and other existential philosophers, many humanistic psychologists adopted the existential view of the importance of being and the meaning of life. The various “modes” of being-in-the-world were described by Swiss psychiatrist and early leader of existential psychology Ludwig Binswanger. According to Binswanger, the single mode is the individual who chooses to live within himself, the loner. The dual mode occurs when two people unite in feeling for each other. Thus, “You” and “I” become “We.” The plural mode occurs when an individual interacts with others. Finally, the mode of anonymity occurs when an individual loses himself in a crowd or disassociates his feelings from others. American existential psychologist Rollo May emphasized humans as beings who do the experiencing and to whom the experiences happen. To May, the awareness of one’s own mortality makes vitality and passion possible.

Gestalt therapy—which bears little resemblance to the experimental school of Gestalt psychology of the early 20th century—represents another humanistic approach. It has emphasized a positive view of human beings and their potential to achieve real joy. Another influential therapy of the human potential movement is the technique known as transactional analysis, developed by Eric Berne. Its goal is to build a strong state of maturity by learning to recognize the “child” and “parent” aspects of personality in oneself and others.

https://www.britannica.com/science/humanistic-psychology

Edited June 29, 2023 by Luna Bliss

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, Jaylinbridges said:

On another subject, sex (raw) is in the bottom layer of the triangle.  As a few keep reminding us, you can't skip sex as an attraction in SL, by skipping the lowest layer.  I wonder why the triangle posted by the LabGab did not mention that.  I also would argue that for a significant number of present SL residents, SL does provide some of the basic needs in the second layer, at least employment and family, part of the second Security layer.  It does for me, and several people I work with every day.

I think what was being stressed in that particular point in the talk that Coffee pointed to, was that we don't HAVE to focus on the lower levels of the pyramid (in either 1st or 2nd life) in order to experience those higher levels in SL.
It's NOT that we don't get some of those needs met from the lower levels on the pyramid (sex, security, income whatever).

For example, someone who is disabled or poor can just jump right in and be creative if they have the PC and internet to do so, whereas in 1st life they might find it too stressful to find working clothes, transportation, and deal with a demanding boss who require they work at certain times.
Or a retired person can eliminate age discrimination and work again (I know a lot of these people out at Whole Brain Health -- elderly and retired, creating beneficial classes and events for SL residents).

So yeah, 1st life creates a lot of barriers in the bottom 2 layers of Maslow's hierarchy for those who are disabled or elderly, and SL removes these barriers and allows them to partake in the levels we all want to partake in -- love, creativity, self-actualization, and even the higher transpersonal levels for some. Personally I'd prefer to leave "struggling for safety and survival" at the door before logging in, and SL makes that possible.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Luna Bliss

[Jaylinbridges]

I find this whole topic confusing. We can't tell newbies what to do first in SL, so I guess the question is should LL focus more on introducing new residents on the two lower levels of SL life needs, by advertising, mentors, and strategically placed rumors ?    

The lowest level include non-romantic sex and sleeping, which can be simulated in SL.  Fortunately food, water and excretion are optional.  I sometimes sleep in SL when I go sleep in RL, but if they removed all sleep poses, I could still survive. 

The second level seems more important, except of course morality.  Finding a home (body security), employment and property or a family are early goals but they could be at the chart top.  Nobody likes to be homeless for long. How many new residents can just jump up to the Love/belonging level and skip the lower needs?  If you are a famous rock singer or movie star, maybe.  Otherwise the lower levels come first.  

The more I think about this, the more I think this question at the LabGab was a waste of time.  Get newbies started with the basics and hope they find a buddy to mentor.  All these higher needs are academic psycho blab . 

I think Oberwolf had the best answer:  Next Question.

Edited June 30, 2023 by Jaylinbridges

[Drayke Newall]

6 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

SL needs the flexibility to cater to those who, like you, might have preferred goals and challenges, and those who, like me, just wanted free form play and the ability to explore and socialize.

Therein lies the problem though. Does Second Life really cater to all user types? Would its existing userbase allow for it?

Anyone who reads Marczewski's Gamification will see that users are no different in SL than in a game.

The reasons people play games and their user type according to him are the following:

• Socialisers (interact and socialise with people) - Same as Second Life
• Free Spirits (Explore and create)  - Same as Second Life for both explore and create
• Achievers (looking to improve, challenge themselves and overcome them)  - Same as Second Life 
• Philanthropists (help others or do things without reward)  - Same as Second Life
• Players (want games, rewards, Role Play)  - Same as Second Life
• Disruptors (grief)  - Same as Second Life (unfortunately)

All of those user types are in SL. Does SL really cater to all of those adequately? In a sense yes, but also no.

I know, for instance, the mere suggestion that Second Life cater to a gaming user is met with scorn, such as this thread where people are outright opposed to the mere suggestion that SL cater to such needs even though, and I may be wrong, Coffee's original post didn't state to 'gamify' SL (turn it into Minecraft), but to instead try and adapt the new user experience and after to something that will give engagement and direction. The desire and tools to survive the wilds of Second Life.

Does that form of engagement need to be a game. No. It could be as simple as giving a person direction with a possibility of an end goal. For example look at the current and past welcome areas. They offer the following experience:

• Create account
• Login and rez
• do tutorial
• congrats you completed a vague tutorial
• what are you still doing here?

Sure the new area has a section labelled 'Create' or 'Games' but other than offering a very basic tutorial of what to do and not to do that is where it ends. There is a harsh and abrupt end to it.

Now everyone here is saying dont gamify SL etc, but fail to realise that gamification doesn't necessarily mean quests, points, achievements etc. Gamification could simply mean not limiting the tutorial to one region. Look at the new welcome area, the tutorial is on one central region, yet everything else is split. You learn about creating yet to actually create something you need to know firstly what a 'sandbox' is and secondly need to know that one is at the starting area.

Wouldn't it be better to make the tutorial experience over the entire 9 regions. Start at central region and do your basic tutorial of wsad, etc, and from there each other region connects based on content. Go right to learn how to create, located in the sandbox and explains how to build with basic prims/mesh in the sandbox where a new user can actually experience building. Then this links them to portals that may go to Builders Brewery for 'advanced building tutorials and out of world building' or direct them to other tutorial regions like shopping and dressing, clothing creation with BoM.

Put simply, they have done the basic tutorial and then can experience the actual thing as they go through the rest of the tutorial. Such a space offers a game like experience and meets the need of that bottom section of the pyramid in the OP. They get the achievement experience by creating their first object, buying their first item, making a new clothing BoM item, etc. All that in the first hour or two of their visit. All with or without a point system.

The final region could be the Motown region where they are then invited to a party/concert at that region at night or sometime in the week that celebrates and welcomes them to SL. It doesn't need to be live, could use 'bots' that are on stage but play music through the Motown stream.

The process wouldn't be much different to Minecraft that Coffee mentioned in the OP. Tutorial, learn to build, create clothes, wear them, explore, find, etc.

All that gamifying the starting experience without making it a game. All that experience, wonder, interaction, direction without making SL a game. All that near identical to Minecraft's starting experience without actually being a game.

[Luna Bliss]

2 hours ago, Jaylinbridges said:

I find this whole topic confusing. We can't tell newbies what to do first in SL, so I guess the question is should LL focus more on introducing new residents on the two lower levels of SL life needs, by advertising, mentors, and strategically placed rumors ?    

The lowest level include non-romantic sex and sleeping, which can be simulated in SL.  Fortunately food, water and excretion are optional.  I sometimes sleep in SL when I go sleep in RL, but if they removed all sleep poses, I could still survive. 

The second level seems more important, except of course morality.  Finding a home (body security), employment and property or a family are early goals but they could be at the chart top.  Nobody likes to be homeless for long. How many new residents can just jump up to the Love/belonging level and skip the lower needs?  If you are a famous rock singer or movie star, maybe.  Otherwise the lower levels come first.  

The more I think about this, the more I think this question at the LabGab was a waste of time.  Get newbies started with the basics and hope they find a buddy to mentor.  All these higher needs are academic psycho blab . 

I think Oberwolf had the best answer:  Next Question.

SL dosn't have some plan for the masses of SL utilizing a Maslow chart.

This is all quite simple really -- SL, by it's non-physical nature, removes some of the barriers that can keep us from being creative (basic physical survival needs). Someone in the audience noted this, bringing up the Maslow theory, and Philip expanded on it, agreeing with the audience member.
When we don't have enough to eat, when we don't have shelter, it makes it very difficult to be creative as we must focus on survival.  And when people have these basic needs met they are generally kind, helpful people -- that's their nature.

Oberwolf felt Philip's answer was so good that he didn't feel competent following it or adding to it. It wasn't that he didn't like the question, nor did his eyes glaze over as Coffee said.

Coffee assumed that Philip was dissing the survival aspects we see in many games (hunt, kill, level up, whatever). Philip didn't mention this at all.

[Love Zhaoying]

5 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

I don't understand why you see Humanistic Psychology as so lacking.

You sure like to ask "why" a lot!

Different therapists will prefer different methods as per both "their training" and "what works for them".  Some therapists use many different approaches and select the one that seems best given their own experience as a therapist and the client's needs.

"Humanistic therapy sessions encompass a gestalt approach—exploring how a person feels in the here and now—rather than trying to identify past events that led to these feelings."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapy-types/humanistic

So, if an individual therapist has a) no experience with the "humanistic approach" and/or gestalt therapy, or b) knows this approach is bad for the client (based on past experience, or because it does not match with the client's specific situation), then of course they would select another approach.

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Love Zhaoying

[Love Zhaoying]

4 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

I think what was being stressed in that particular point in the talk that Coffee pointed to, was that we don't HAVE to focus on the lower levels of the pyramid (in either 1st or 2nd life) in order to experience those higher levels in SL.

But Coffee SEEMED TO ME to be saying "this is a bad thing" because it means no initial challenge, so no reason for users to stay in Second Life.  That is the part of Coffee's argument that I originally was disagreeing with.

I understand you say it is a GOOD thing. I agree with you.

 

[Love Zhaoying]

2 hours ago, Jaylinbridges said:

The more I think about this, the more I think this question at the LabGab was a waste of time.  Get newbies started with the basics and hope they find a buddy to mentor.  All these higher needs are academic psycho blab . 

YES! I agree 100%!

The entire question was side-tracking a group of non-psychotherapists into discussing whether a GAME fits into a psychological model.  These guys couldn't give a relevant answer.  If they could, we ("royal we", not YOU) would not comprehend it (their answer).

A total and complete waste of time.

Thank you!

Edited June 30, 2023 by Love Zhaoying

[Freckles Fairelander]

8 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

"Spend 3 hours searching this forest for glowy jewels that confer 'points'" on the other hand would have had me logging out after 5 minutes.

I spent MUCH of my first two years here participating in hunts for free/cheap stuff at various stores or sims. I would hate it if something like that was a requirement, but that game is there when I want to play it.

Edited June 30, 2023 by Aime Ravenhurst

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 hours ago, Aime Ravenhurst said:

I spent MUCH of my first two years here participating in hunts for free/cheap stuff at various stores or sims. I would hate it if something like that was a requirement, but that game is there when I want to play it.

Oh totally.

I also used to do hunts in my first couple of years; they were fun -- albeit, mostly because I did them with friends. I don't think I'd have done them by myself, though. But that's just me.

I'm not at all against games, and I know lots of people who enjoy them. I'm by no means suggesting they are valueless: just that they don't have the same hold over everyone and that, as you say, they shouldn't be required.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

4 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

Therein lies the problem though. Does Second Life really cater to all user types? Would its existing userbase allow for it?

Anyone who reads Marczewski's Gamification will see that users are no different in SL than in a game.

The reasons people play games and their user type according to him are the following:

• Socialisers (interact and socialise with people) - Same as Second Life
• Free Spirits (Explore and create)  - Same as Second Life for both explore and create
• Achievers (looking to improve, challenge themselves and overcome them)  - Same as Second Life 
• Philanthropists (help others or do things without reward)  - Same as Second Life
• Players (want games, rewards, Role Play)  - Same as Second Life
• Disruptors (grief)  - Same as Second Life (unfortunately)

All of those user types are in SL. Does SL really cater to all of those adequately? In a sense yes, but also no.

I know, for instance, the mere suggestion that Second Life cater to a gaming user is met with scorn, such as this thread where people are outright opposed to the mere suggestion that SL cater to such needs even though, and I may be wrong, Coffee's original post didn't state to 'gamify' SL (turn it into Minecraft), but to instead try and adapt the new user experience and after to something that will give engagement and direction. The desire and tools to survive the wilds of Second Life.

Does that form of engagement need to be a game. No. It could be as simple as giving a person direction with a possibility of an end goal. For example look at the current and past welcome areas. They offer the following experience:

• Create account
• Login and rez
• do tutorial
• congrats you completed a vague tutorial
• what are you still doing here?

Sure the new area has a section labelled 'Create' or 'Games' but other than offering a very basic tutorial of what to do and not to do that is where it ends. There is a harsh and abrupt end to it.

Now everyone here is saying dont gamify SL etc, but fail to realise that gamification doesn't necessarily mean quests, points, achievements etc. Gamification could simply mean not limiting the tutorial to one region. Look at the new welcome area, the tutorial is on one central region, yet everything else is split. You learn about creating yet to actually create something you need to know firstly what a 'sandbox' is and secondly need to know that one is at the starting area.

Wouldn't it be better to make the tutorial experience over the entire 9 regions. Start at central region and do your basic tutorial of wsad, etc, and from there each other region connects based on content. Go right to learn how to create, located in the sandbox and explains how to build with basic prims/mesh in the sandbox where a new user can actually experience building. Then this links them to portals that may go to Builders Brewery for 'advanced building tutorials and out of world building' or direct them to other tutorial regions like shopping and dressing, clothing creation with BoM.

Put simply, they have done the basic tutorial and then can experience the actual thing as they go through the rest of the tutorial. Such a space offers a game like experience and meets the need of that bottom section of the pyramid in the OP. They get the achievement experience by creating their first object, buying their first item, making a new clothing BoM item, etc. All that in the first hour or two of their visit. All with or without a point system.

The final region could be the Motown region where they are then invited to a party/concert at that region at night or sometime in the week that celebrates and welcomes them to SL. It doesn't need to be live, could use 'bots' that are on stage but play music through the Motown stream.

The process wouldn't be much different to Minecraft that Coffee mentioned in the OP. Tutorial, learn to build, create clothes, wear them, explore, find, etc.

All that gamifying the starting experience without making it a game. All that experience, wonder, interaction, direction without making SL a game. All that near identical to Minecraft's starting experience without actually being a game.

Yep, I don't really disagree with any of this. I've also suggested above that "tasks" (or, if you prefer, "goals") could be available for noobs -- things like learning basic manipulation of a prim, how to dance using animations, how to ride a bike, how to change your wardrobe, etc. They would be fun, brief, but useful -- and also, importantly, optional.

I think if the definition of "gamification" is broad enough to encompass these sorts of things, it's pretty unobjectionable.

But the OP's remarks are premised on a discussion of Maslow's hierarchy, and the idea that the lack of "needful" things -- the equivalent of food, shelter, clothing, etc. -- makes SL seem less "valuable" to noobs. And that's a very different model than what you've described here.

[elleevelyn]

10 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Not their RL survival needs, likely, but quite possibly their SL enjoyment. Someone camping for Lindens wasn't doing so with the intention of cashing them out into RL money: they wanted the cash to enhance their SL experience.

 

I went for a couple of years at least in SL before ever actually putting RL money into the platform. Initially, I funded myself by playing trivia at a place that gave me L$2 for every correct answer (assuming I was the first to answer it . . . and I usually was). I could make anywhere from 20 to about 80 Lindens an hour doing it. What made it bearable was that 1) there were other people there with whom I was socializing, and who became friends, and 2) answering trivia itself was enjoyable.

But once I started to make money from my SL business, I stopped doing that, because I no longer need to.

back in the day (as you attesting to here) many if not most new people were able to participate in the then gamification of SL.  Trivia, finding money trees, camping, freebie hunting, etc.  All of these gamified experiences (to get stuff - to get L$ - to level up) were provided by other residents

while there are still some leveling up gamification experiences (freebies) that residents provide, is nowhere near what it once was in terms of capacity provided

same with leveling up skill sets. Back in the day the public sandboxes were overflowing with residents showing new people how to build, sharing resources with the new people - scripts, textures, sounds, etc. Then there were all the building competitions and show and tells hosted by residents

the public sandboxes on the main grid are a desert now. The capacity to level up building skills inworld is a whole lot less now than it was (mesh) 

so I do have some sympathy with the idea of gamification as it was way more prevalent back in the day than it is now

the question is as you, Coffee and others here are addressing/wondering is what would today's "gamification" experiences be, if the capacity of gamification was to return to the level of availability for new persons as it was back in the day

[Drayke Newall]

52 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

But the OP's remarks are premised on a discussion of Maslow's hierarchy, and the idea that the lack of "needful" things -- the equivalent of food, shelter, clothing, etc. -- makes SL seem less "valuable" to noobs. And that's a very different model than what you've described here.

Not really as the premise is still there and those 'needful' things would indeed make SL more valuable as the investment is there, scarcity, possession, etc. Sure some cant be covered such as food, but then wouldn't that encompass stimulation of the mind in a gaming sense?

Take clothing for instance, most new players have that need or desire from the get go to get better clothes. The making of system layer clothes or tattoos as part of the clothing tutorial in some way meets those needs. As would a tutorial using the shopping region at the welcome area and marketplace to show how to buy, unpack, dress, etc.

The shelter has already been answered by the OP in the form of Linden Homes of which, whilst you cant force a person to buy a Linden Home/Premium, you can for example take them on a tour of the linden homes or even better offer a 14 day free trial of the linden homes ONLY without any other premium perks. This gives them the feel of shelter with the option to continue with it via purchasing premium or the 'plus' subscription for only mainland or look for other shelter options. Of course providing them through maybe a hud that auto attaches after their 14 days are up showing them other options such as how to navigate the land auctions, land sales search etc. This gives them the full tutorial of the whole land ownership covering all aspects and then leaves them with the option of how to proceed.

The safety and security comes as Prokofy mentioned, through ownership of land and a tutorial on how to secure your land if you want. Additionally, security and safety can also be in the form of financial security and safety. This is where they can offer places in the Games section of the tutorial on how to earn money through Linden Realms, Crystal Craze, etc. Or they can offer it as part of the tutorial where someone makes their 'tattoo' or 'object' and through the next tutorial shows them how to sell that item on marketplace.

I think Coffee is correct in that, those bottom things are essential to making SL feel more valuable to someone. Sure I wouldn't have used that specific pyramid 'as is' as it is more driven to RL psychology and needs to be adapted to 'games'. The problem is that people in the thread are taking it as a literal RL interpretation for a game which you cant do. That said, people have merged Maslow's hierarchy and the gamification idea I mentioned together for a gaming perspective.

For example: Connecting Gamification and Motivation Theory | theHRD (thehrdirector.com) . That link shows how the two and how they are relevant to 'players'. It also touches scarcity (along with possessions) which you highlighted earlier and which they place in that bottom section of the Pyramid.

Edited June 30, 2023 by Drayke Newall

[Rowan Amore]

4 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Yep, I don't really disagree with any of this. I've also suggested above that "tasks" (or, if you prefer, "goals") could be available for noobs -- things like learning basic manipulation of a prim, how to dance using animations, how to ride a bike, how to change your wardrobe, etc. They would be fun, brief, but useful -- and also, importantly, optional.

I think if the definition of "gamification" is broad enough to encompass these sorts of things, it's pretty unobjectionable.

But the OP's remarks are premised on a discussion of Maslow's hierarchy, and the idea that the lack of "needful" things -- the equivalent of food, shelter, clothing, etc. -- makes SL seem less "valuable" to noobs. And that's a very different model than what you've described here.

I suggested a few years ago that new residents could earn tokens of some kind by completing certain objectives like the ones you've mentioned.  Then, instead of purchasing Ls right away, they could spend those tokens on items in the New Resident store.  We know LL now has token capability (casino chips) so why not use those more.constructively.  

There would be goals and rewards if they choose.  They'd then learn how to buy, how to unpack, how to wear or interact with items.  No reason for others to game the experience with alts as tokens aren't Ls and can't be spent elsewhere or cashed in.

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Rowan Amore