Mainstream failure of SL & Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

[Sammy Huntsman]

1 hour ago, diamond Marchant said:

I even edited it AGAIN... the B.F. Skinner thing

Um what does nature vs nurture, and behavioural modification have to do with user retention?

[Prokofy Neva]

15 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

==============

Quoting the transcript:

it more I'm looking forward to that okay so my next question is kind of long but I really liked this question it's from
1:00:42
one of our community members and it's a little bit philosophical so and take a deep breath and here we go so when you
1:00:48
look at Second Life you see a community that is constantly seeking to do good with charitable fundraisers awareness
1:00:55
campaigns and helping each other in moments of personal crisis so considering Maslow's hierarchy of
1:01:02
needs and that an Avatar's physiological and safety needs are met when they first
1:01:08
res and how this Baseline of security frees them to focus on the needs for love and
1:01:14
esteem and self-actualization this is not like in real life or in most games
1:01:19
which requires some sort of struggle to survive and thrive what do you think Second Life says about human nature
1:01:28
epic one Philip you want to go first yeah I first of all whoever said that if
1:01:34
they're out there well said yes um I think it's wonderful and I hadn't I
1:01:40
hadn't thought about that philosophical question specifically with this idea of
1:01:46
eliminating Maslow's you know low two needs basically or which whichever way you want to flip the pyramid but uh I do
1:01:54
think it's a lovely point that you know restating it that we because we do not
1:01:59
need to uh worry about our physical safety or the need to eat you know
1:02:06
um like we do when we're playing The Sims haha but you know because we don't worry about those things when we come into second life
1:02:12
we are freed to exhibit greater action
1:02:18
in other layers of that hierarchy so going back that I think what that says
1:02:24
about human nature what Second Life says about human nature is it it reinforces
1:02:31
how social and collaborative and
1:02:37
uh how supportive of each other it is in
1:02:43
our nature to be that is to say right uh as soon as we are freed from those base needs we immediately want to connect
1:02:50
with others everybody knows and there's many people in the room you know listening to this that the most introverted
1:02:57
uh you know you know the the the person who is farthest over on the side of wanting
1:03:04
to be alone and wanting to read a book you know will tell you that the magic of
1:03:10
second life was that they made a friend right and I think that that is what
1:03:16
Second Life shows us it shows us that if we remove these basic problems you know
1:03:21
from uh from ourselves what we all do is seek to connect with each other we seek
1:03:26
to Delight in finding and creating different types of human connection and that is what we're all about and second
1:03:33
life yep by kind of turning off those basic needs it does show us that and
1:03:39
it's very beautiful and I think that you know in these times of you know in these dark times right where we worry that the
1:03:46
world is falling apart we would be wise to look at things like second life and remember it is not in
1:03:53
our nature to hurt each other or to ignore each other or to turn away from each other it's
1:03:59
you know what's in our nature is the opposite of that to be good and to take care of each other and that's what you
1:04:05
see in Second Life it's like how you go in and people want to help you as a new Resident you know the for the first
1:04:11
thing is you know people are like hey I can help you out here everybody's right we've all we've all had that we've all been on probably both sides many people
1:04:17
here have been on both sides of that equation right and that's that there it is right we want to help each other
1:04:22
that's that's the way people are almost all of the time so I love that and I
1:04:28
think that was a wonderful question yeah I have to agree because I mean I'm a 16 year resident now and what keeps me
1:04:33
logging in are the connections that I've made with people on day one I still speak to people that I've met on day one
1:04:39
and second life so it's it just it's wonderful uh overwolf do you want to add anything to that
1:04:46
oh come on strawberry I'm not following that one give give me the next question give me give me the next uh question
1:04:53
okay that was a long one I have to admit but it was it was a it was a wonderful question so I definitely wanted to put
1:04:59
it in there wonderful answer yes Philip's answer just blows everybody out
1:05:05
of the water for sure um so okay so the next question is actually pretty great so I want to know overwolf do you log

==============

I highlighted the relevant part of the question and response in the Transcript above.

I suppose that having re-read the Transcript carefully, I agree with Coffee's quote above with reservations that Coffee completely left out the main part of Phillip's response - that (yes!), people seek connections when not burdened with those lower needs.  I agree that this seemed to be the main point Phillip made.

However, to say that Phillip "got it wrong" is pure personal opinion based on one's interpretation of games, people's motivations, and how Maslow's Hierarchy could be applied to "non-Real Life" things such as Second Life.  So, obviously anyone is free to agree or disagree.

 

 

Philip is such an idealist! But that's a good thing. So few tech leaders are, any more. They are grasping and unapologetic about it. Philip still Believes. I guess I will always continue to follow Philip although I think he's wrong about land, money, economies, etc. But he does speak to what is the very best about Second Life.

 

[Prokofy Neva]

On 7/2/2023 at 1:45 PM, Coffee Pancake said:

No one cares someone stuck a train in a field with a skybox a decade ago, yes it;s pretty .. but no one cares enough to join in or go visit.

 

I wish they'd get over their fascination with that particular train in that particular field. There have actually been other more interesting trains and fields not to mention many other amazing art works. They keep harking back to that and hawking it as if under contract due to the corporate connection, I guess. 

[Love Zhaoying]

..Maslow's Hierarchy has nothing to do with "Game Theory".

[Drayke Newall]

3 hours ago, diamond Marchant said:

My point is that Maslow is an unsound idea and there are better alternatives. That is the position of the HBR article.

But what does that point have to do with the topic? The topic isn't if Maslow's theory is relevant, unsounded or outdated. It is how that theory impacts game design and could impact and help second life. As yet, no person in this thread has countered the OP.

Posting a link to an article about how a Harvard business school says it is unsound or there are better alternatives because it doesn't work in a workplace, is not an argument when we are talking about the theory in relation to a game, or as a comparison between game developers using it in games and how that can be utilised in SL for retention.

Just like saying we dont eat in SL also isn't a counter as once again evidence has been provided showing that Maslow's theory and its adaption can apply to tutorials, e-learning, game design, etc.

The only way to counter it is to prove that game developers do not use it in games or the theory of it isn't adapted in some form to a game in an effort to help user retention, engagement, investment, etc.

47 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

..Maslow's Hierarchy has nothing to do with "Game Theory".

The problem with 'game theory' is that it can be applied to any form of field. Marketing, business, phycology, biology, Philosophy, etc. Don't believe me look here showing that it can apply to all fields of sciences, business etc. Game theory - Wikipedia

What people in this thread are basically saying is gamification, game theory or using those ideas in an effort to retain players (be it tutorial etc) cant apply to Maslow's Hierarchy as Maslow's Hierarchy is about 'RL stuff' and the RL human condition.

If, game theory per the wiki entry shows that it can be used in all form of sciences, then why cant the reverse, using those sciences to improve a users engagement, investment, fun, retention, help, etc be true?

[Love Zhaoying]

3 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

4 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Maslow's Hierarchy has nothing to do with "Game Theory".

The problem with 'game theory' is that it can be applied to any form of field. Marketing, business, phycology, biology, Philosophy, etc. Don't believe me look here showing that it can apply to all fields of sciences, business etc. Game theory - Wikipedia

What people in this thread are basically saying is gamification, game theory or using those ideas in an effort to retain players (be it tutorial etc) cant apply to Maslow's Hierarchy as Maslow's Hierarchy is about 'RL stuff' and the RL human condition.

If, game theory per the wiki entry shows that it can be used in all form of sciences, then why cant the reverse, using those sciences to improve a users engagement, investment, fun, retention, help, etc be true?

This is a good question. Thank you for asking.

The short answer is, because "that's now how Science works".  You cannot take scientific theory / model "A" from one scientific discipline which applies to theory / model "B" from another scientific discipline, and then say "therefore, I must be able to apply "B" to "A" also.

- Gamification can be applied to many different things. It was designed to be applied to many different things including different disciplines and human behaviors.

- Maslow's Hierarchy is a model from Psychology. It was only designed to be applied in Psychology as it describes human behavior.

I have noticed in this thread that some posters are putting different entries, into Maslow's Hierarchy pyramid levels: adding entries to levels, moving entries between levels, and tellingly - even (jokingly) adding levels.  The minute you do that, it is no longer "Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Needs".  It is just some model which you are "making fit".  

Yes - everything is a "hierarchy".  Human needs are a "hierarchy".  But Maslow's Hierarchy is a SPECIFIC list of Human Needs, laid out in a specific way.

Using one scientific theory or model - created for one purpose - for another purpose would be like:

- Using the "Quantum theory of waves and particles" - that matter is both particles and waves -  to explain that "since matter is also waves", all waves are the same (microwaves are bad, matter is made of waves, so matter is bad for you).  ("Windmills cause cancer."

- Using "dark matter" theory (dark matter is everywhere and fills up "empty space") to explain unseen and otherwise unexplained occurrences in our lives. 

I hope these examples and my answer help explain why I wrote what I did.

Again, thank you for asking!

 

[Luna Bliss]

39 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

- Maslow's Hierarchy is a model from Psychology. It was only designed to be applied in Psychology as it describes human behavior.

Theories about how the mind operates (Psychology) can be applied anywhere  the human mind is, and so it can be applied to games.

Not that I agree totally with Maslow's theory or how any particular gamer interprets a theory in Psychology and motivation studies.

[Love Zhaoying]

38 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Theories about how the mind operates (Psychology) can be applied anywhere  the human mind is, and so it can be applied to games.

Not that I agree totally with Maslow's theory or how any particular gamer interprets a theory in Psychology and motivation studies.

 

.. It's easier not to explain why I disagree at this point, but consider that Psychology does not operate "everywhere".

Psychology provides a series of models that describe human behavior, etc.  Those models can't be applied to everything, but to the human behavior in that thing.

We can agree to disagree.

But then again, I may easily misunderstand.

Can we just give up and call it even?

Edited July 4, 2023 by Love Zhaoying

[Drayke Newall]

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

The short answer is, because "that's now how Science works".  You cannot take scientific theory / model "A" from one scientific discipline which applies to theory / model "B" from another scientific discipline, and then say "therefore, I must be able to apply "B" to "A" also.

Ah, yes you can. Take DNA hard drives. Their entire construction and theory is based from taking the theory of how DNA stores data in the body (biological science) and replicating that in a nanotechnological way to create a mechanical storage device that can store as much data as a human dna strand can (mechanical science). It was also by creating and using hard drives (mechanical science) that it was seen similar to DNA storage (biological science) that enabled them to use the theory to create the DNA hard drive (mechanical science).

But putting that aside, we are not talking about using Maslow's theory in conjunction with another field of science. We are talking about using his theory of human condition to create a system/tutorial or, dare I say it, game for the same human condition. To put it another way, the person plays a game because they want the middle of the pyramid, a sense of belonging, but to achieve that they first need to know how to survive in the game (navigation, abilities, etc) and feel safe so that they can achieve that.

I just cant understand how people are not getting this.

I was even taught how Maslow's theory relates to an architectural structure - a building, and that's Architectural theory not even game theory. For example at quick search here is an article of Maslow's updated Theory relating to architecture and interior design. You can even search for how it is used in architecture in the original hierarchy.

Are people going to suggest now that I can't apply Maslow's theory to a house or building design because a building doesn't need to 'eat' or the theory is out dated so doesn't apply? Despite the very theory being used in building design for decades?

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I have noticed in this thread that some posters are putting different entries, into Maslow's Hierarchy pyramid levels: adding entries to levels, moving entries between levels, and tellingly - even (jokingly) adding levels.  The minute you do that, it is no longer "Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Needs".  It is just some model which you are "making fit".  

Yet, my examples do not do that, nor am I saying to do that. I have not suggested that anywhere in my posts. Nor did the OP or those arguing in favour of the OP.

As a different example, this pyramid uses the same Maslow's hierarchy, yet just words them differently yet still meaning the same. I.e. physiological needs is just another word for survival etc. They then provide a description on what each mean as far as a game goes.

I personally would have used safety instead of progress as it still works in relation to a game or system or in this case second life as a user still needs to feel safe, identity etc as previously mentioned.

By rewording the segments, it doesn't change (should be kept as safety) the fact that it is still Maslow's Hierarchy. It also keeps the theory that you need the lower sections to keep the higher ones. If a person can not navigate/survive the world, they can not improve gear (or feel the need for safety) as without the former the game/system/program and user couldn't advance, and so on.

Edited July 4, 2023 by Drayke Newall

[Luna Bliss]

5 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

.. It's easier not to explain why I disagree at this point, but consider that Psychology does not operate "everywhere".

Psychology provides a series of models that describe human behavior, etc.  Those models can't be applied to everything, but to the human behavior in that thing.

We can agree to disagree.

But then again, I may easily misunderstand.

Can we just give up and call it even?

Sure, no need to discuss if you don't want to.

But I need to point out that you are mischaracterizing what I said -- I did not say Psychology operates "everywhere" -- I said:

"Theories about how the mind operates (Psychology) can be applied anywhere  the human mind is, and so it can be applied to games".

In other words, anywhere humans operate there is a psychological process occurring.

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Sure, no need to discuss if you don't want to.

But I need to point out that you are mischaracterizing what I said -- I did not say Psychology operates "everywhere" -- I said:

"Theories about how the mind operates (Psychology) can be applied anywhere  the human mind is, and so it can be applied to games".

In other words, anywhere humans operate there is a psychological process occurring.

Ok, yes. Sure!

But..that does not mean that every psychological theory or model can be applied everywhere that humans operate.

You see? It is what I tried to explain earlier.

Another way of putting it is this:  

Just because there is a situation where humans operate, does not mean there is an appropriate psychological model for that situation.

Applied to the current situation:  If "game theory" / gamification were invented TODAY, then "all psychological theories" would not necessarily be appropriate to the concept of gamification.  NEW and/or MODIFIED models may need to be used for the new theory.  That's why new models exist; that's how new models are used.  You can't squeeze an old model into a new theory and vice/versa, otherwise we would never need new models!

New situations lead to new theories of human behavior to describe those situations.

New theories lead to new models.

New models cannot necessarily be applied retroactively to old theories and models, and vice-versa.

Not every box is a shoe-box, even if shoes fit into it.

 

 

[Luna Bliss]

7 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Ok, yes. Sure!

But..that does not mean that every psychological theory or model can be applied everywhere that humans operate.

You see? It is what I tried to explain earlier.

Another way of putting it is this:  

Just because there is a situation where humans operate, does not mean there is an appropriate psychological model for that situation.

Applied to the current situation:  If "game theory" / gamification were invented TODAY, then "all psychological theories" would not necessarily be appropriate to the concept of gamification.  NEW and/or MODIFIED models may need to be used for the new theory.  That's why new models exist; that's how new models are used.  You can't squeeze an old model into a new theory and vice/versa, otherwise we would never need new models!

New situations lead to new theories of human behavior to describe those situations.

New theories lead to new models.

New models cannot necessarily be applied retroactively to old theories and models, and vice-versa.

Not every box is a shoe-box, even if shoes fit into it.

 

 

Agreed, and a wise game theorist would study all models in Psychology, and to the best of their ability choose the ones that ring true for them regarding human motivation, and appropriately apply that to any game they are considering.

The problem we're running into here is that Arielle and Drayke see SL as a game and seem to want to make it into one to a greater degree, whereas I see SL as a platform and would want to incorporate human motivation as applied to the goals a platform would have.

[Love Zhaoying]

21 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

I just cant understand how people are not getting this.

You are conflating "disagreeing" with "not getting this".

That's OK! 

I had my say, you had yours. 

[Drayke Newall]

10 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Just because there is a situation where humans operate, does not mean there is an appropriate psychological model for that situation.

Why not? As I mentioned above in my last post Maslow's Hierarchy has been used in Architectural theory for decades.

10 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

New models cannot necessarily be applied retroactively to old theories and models, and vice-versa.

You do know that Maslow updated his theory. As have other more recent phycologists further updated it. Maslow added additional segments to his original 5 eventually becoming 8 and some have further updated it to 13.

[Drayke Newall]

2 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

The problem we're running into here is that Arielle and Drayke see SL as a game and seem to want to make it into one to a greater degree

I have asked you this before and you simply put a laugh emoji on it, which I guess is your attempt to bypass it as you cant find any evidence as such. So I will ask you again, WHERE have I stated in this thread I want to make SL more game like using this theory?

[Love Zhaoying]

Just now, Drayke Newall said:

14 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Just because there is a situation where humans operate, does not mean there is an appropriate psychological model for that situation.

Why not? As I mentioned above in my last post Maslow's Hierarchy has been used in Architectural theory for decades.

Restated: Just because there is a situation where humans operate, does not mean there is an appropriate psychological model YET for that situation.  New human behaviors (like virtual world games) may require new models to describe those behaviors.

2 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

You do know that Maslow updated his theory. As have other more recent phycologists further updated it. Maslow added additional segments to his original 5 eventually becoming 8 and some have further updated it to 13.

Just because theories and models "have been updated", does not mean they "still do" and "always do" apply to every situation.

Virtual worlds did not exist when Maslow wrote or updated his theories.

OTHER people may have applied Maslow's theories to virtual worlds and gaming theories. Fine. I am saying, unequivocally, that "Just because Maslow's ORIGINAL theory existed and still exists, does not mean it applies".

See? We are beginning to see eye-to-eye.

This is dreadfully boring.  I hope you tire of the topic soon!

 

[Love Zhaoying]

@Drayke Newall - please just allow people to disagree with you. 

If you think people disagreeing with you is "unfair" or "unjust", or if you are in the mode of "OMG Someone on the Internet is WRONG, I better beat them up until they agree"..that's OK too.

If you want to have "the last word", that's OK too.

I'm just tired of it. 🙂

 

[Silent Mistwalker]

9 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

Seeing as you edited your post after I responded...

I know it is, never suggested it wasn't. I even, in my post, conveniently stated it was data for marking games.

My point was in that example was that the hierarchy can be used elsewhere not a literal translation like you are interpreting it as.

Still missing mine and others points.

Welp. That explains why most game marketing and the games themselves rarely appeal to me. That and all the violence, blood and gore.

[Silent Mistwalker]

Personally, I don't see how Maslow's Hierarchy applies to SL anyway since it wasn't used when creating the platform.

[Silent Mistwalker]

49 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

In nearly 20 years I have never gotten to the third tier in SL. It has been somewhat rewarding in as much as I can have a nice home instead of living in a tin can. If anyone in SL has any modicum of respect for me, they never show it. As for the top one, don't make me laugh cry.

This particular one applies to survival games. SL isn't a survival game, much less a game in itself so it really can't be applied to SL as SL isn't in the early stages of development.

[Katherine Heartsong]

Further to many above, psychology is not actually a "science" in the formal meaning of the word, any more than economics isn't one. Science requires us to modify (or completely re-think) a theory from the ground up when a single point of failure falsifies the hypothesis a theory is based on. When we try to jam human behaviour into this framework we inevitably fail, although sometimes we see that a theory might broadly apply, but not universally, hence our theory is wrong.

Human being are not rationale actors and can be easily manipulated to work against their own best interests, and have no real adequate means of thinking well much beyond the near future, because evolution hasn't designed us to do that.

To one point above, @Drayke Newall you said ...

Quote

The topic isn't if Maslow's theory is relevant, unsounded or outdated. It is how that theory impacts game design and could impact and help second life. As yet, no person in this thread has countered the OP.

The question fundamentally assumes that Maslow's theory is correct. I'm saying it's not, in any meaningful way, at anything more than a broad generalization, so the answer might be that it doesn't impact or help SL in any way at all. So the OP's question itself is irrational and can't be answered.

There are many more thoughtful user experience theories for gaming that SL could look at to increase retention, engagement, and create growth. Maslow may not be the best way to approach the issue.

[Drayke Newall]

6 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

@Drayke Newall - please just allow people to disagree with you. 

If you think people disagreeing with you is "unfair" or "unjust", or if you are in the mode of "OMG Someone on the Internet is WRONG, I better beat them up until they agree"..that's OK too.

If you want to have "the last word", that's OK too.

I'm just tired of it. 🙂

So you can post in an effort to refute my claims without saying you disagree (until now) yet I cant post refuting your claims? Its a discussion forum expect discussion if you post.

If you disagree with a post I have posted, say as such and move on, as will I. Just like both Scylla and I agreed to disagree and left it as that. Otherwise expect me or any other person to try and have a discussion with you.

That said, you cant also expect someone not to reply when you keep coming back to the topic and reposting over and over trying to refute them or post short posts like  "..Maslow's Hierarchy has nothing to do with "Game Theory".

Then to say that I have an issue with allowing people disagreeing with me because you continue to come into the thread posting lines like the aforementioned. If you post something expect a response. If you disagree say you do and move on.

It is a forum, people can reply to your posts. If you disagree with the entire notion of the thread, with all due respect, leave it and dont post.

No wonder Coffee got fed up with the responses and attitudes in this thread and quit the entire forums.

That all said, fine agree to disagree.

[Drayke Newall]

8 minutes ago, Katherine Heartsong said:

To one point above, @Drayke Newall you said ...

The question fundamentally assumes that Maslow's theory is correct. I'm saying it's not, in any meaningful way, at anything more than a broad generalization, so the answer might be that it doesn't impact or help SL in any way at all. So the OP's question itself is irrational and can't be answered.

Fair enough and that's your prerogative to say as such.

8 minutes ago, Katherine Heartsong said:

There are many more thoughtful user experience theories for gaming that SL could look at to increase retention, engagement, and create growth. Maslow may not be the best way to approach the issue.

Fully understand and agree that other theories should be looked at. I, coffee and others think differently on Maslow, which is probably very clear by now.

ETA

Perhaps it is a matter of whether a person has used or referenced Maslow's hierarchy before makes them believe it is correct. I have used it a lot in architecture and other fields, so of course I will believe it works and is correct.

That doesn't mean to say I will try to force someone to think the same way, however, in the case of these forums, I as, I believe you do, have the right to at least contribute to the discussion in an effort to edify ourselves on the matter. Who knows through such discussion someone could change my mind.

Sadly, it seems this thread is not discussion or learning of the topic but more about outright scorn of others ideas or personalities.

So as just like Coffee, I've had enough. Between certain individuals refusing to respond yet continue to tell lies about what I have said when they reply to others, and now some suggesting that I have an mental issue or a mental condition of liking to "beat them up until they agree" it just not worth it.

I feel sorry for those that only seem to think such negative things about others.

So after this edit, I'm out.

Edited July 4, 2023 by Drayke Newall

[Love Zhaoying]

15 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

So you can post in an effort to refute my claims without saying you disagree (until now) yet I cant post refuting your claims? Its a discussion forum expect discussion if you post.

Quite the opposite! I was inviting you to respond. Once again, you misunderstand. I merely hope you are replying "with purpose", and not merely "to be right" or have the last word. Better to be kind, than to be "right" is my personal approach.

 

[Love Zhaoying]

18 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

That said, you cant also expect someone not to reply when you keep coming back to the topic and reposting over and over trying to refute them or post short posts like  "..Maslow's Hierarchy has nothing to do with "Game Theory".

Then to say that I have an issue with allowing people disagreeing with me because you continue to come into the thread posting lines like the aforementioned. If you post something expect a response. If you disagree say you do and move on.

Once again, not the case at all. Once Dyna Mole "reset the discussion" to get us on topic, that was my personal cue to restate my position, to which you restated your argument and we had a discussion. 

Sorry, you miss all the points of the discussion!

All I'm asking is - if you can, please try and let people be wrong. That's all! 👍🏾