Mainstream failure of SL & Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

[Love Zhaoying]

27 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

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

Coffee posted in other threads after this one. 

If you don't like the method of discussion, consider that it's not necessarily the other person's issue. This appears to be what you were trying to say.

Not everyone has to agree.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Maslow's Hierarchy, or the Lab Gab. Perhaps we need a thread on "Second Life Forum Etiquette"?

[diamond Marchant]

7 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

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 The topic isn't if Maslow's theory is relevant, unsounded or outdated.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.

To summarize my opinion...

In Coffee's Original Post, she briefly describes the Maslow Hierarchy and restates the question posed by Strawberry. She states that the Maslow Hierarchy is not the issue, after calling it "pure psychology nerd garbage".

Her issue is Philip's answer in which he "fundamentally misunderstood the implications of Second Life omitting the bottom two foundational tiers". She concludes by stating that "Linden homes have been successful for growth of premium membership and retention where everything else has failed", giving this as an example of "a facsimile of foundational needs for people to complete".

This OP has a lot to unpack.

My first response was to agree that V2 Linden Homes are important for user retention because they provide "object permanence".

On further reflection, I replied that the question "Considering Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. .. what do you think Second Life says about human nature?" was an instance of the false premise fallacy (that is, the premise that Maslow's paradigm applies to virtual worlds is false). So I was disagreeing with the OP over accepting the question as other than nonsense.

My reasoning is that the Maslow Hierarchy is, by definition, ascientific in that it cannot be empirically tested. Also, the requirement of completing a level before moving to the next is obviously false (as suggested in the original post). The model has evolved over 80 years to address these shortcomings but the question posed to Philip suggests the 1943 formulation.

Additionally, there is timescale to consider. The path up the pyramid to self-actualization plays out over decades. It is not a loop that is occasionally repeated, such as when you enter a virtual world.

It is great that the Maslow paradigm is of use to therapists, psychologists, and corporate organization development people. But that may be because it is an excellent framework for categorizing human needs. If game developers get some insight from it, that's great too.

To end on a constructive note (Patch prefers that we are constructive), if I were looking to behavioral psychology to aid game design, I would go with Daniel Kahneman (Thinking, Fast and Slow). Michael Lewis' backstory on Kahneman and Tversky is also a great read (The Undoing Project).

Edited July 4, 2023 by diamond Marchant
typos

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, diamond Marchant said:

To summarize my opinion...

In Coffee's Original Post, she briefly describes the Maslow Hierarchy and restates the question posed by Strawberry. She states that the Maslow Hierarchy is not the issue, after calling it "pure psychology nerd garbage".

Her issue is Philip's answer in which he "fundamentally misunderstood the implications of Second Life omitting the bottom two foundational tiers". She concludes by stating that "Linden homes have been successful for growth of premium membership and retention where everything else has failed", giving this as an example of "a facsimile of foundational needs for people to complete".

This OP has a lot to unpack.

My first response was to agree that V2 Linden Homes are important for user retention because they provide "object permanence".

On further reflection, I replied that the question "Considering Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. .. what do you think Second Life says about human nature?" was an instance of the false premise fallacy (that is, the premise that Maslow's paradigm applies to virtual worlds is false). So I was disagreeing with the OP over accepting the question as other than nonsense.

My reasoning is that the Maslow Hierarchy is, by definition, ascientific in that it cannot be empirically tested. Also, the requirement of completing a level before moving to the next is obviously false (as suggested in the original post). The model has evolved over 80 years to address these shortcoming but the question posed to Philip suggests the 1943 formulation.

Additionally, there is timescale to consider. The path up the pyramid to self-actualization plays out over decades. It is not a loop that is occasionally repeated, such as when you enter a virtual world.

It is great that the Maslow paradigm is of use to therapists, psychologists, and corporate organization development people. But that may be because it is an excellent framework for categorizing human needs. If game developers get some insight from it, that's great too.

To end on a constructive note (Patch prefers that we are constructive), if I were looking to behavioral psychology to aid game design, I would go with Daniel Kahneman (Thinking, Fast and Slow). Michael Lewis' backstory on Kahneman and Tversky is also a great read (The Undoing Project).

Awesome analysis!

Ironic that the original theory discussed could both be "pure psychology nerd garbage", yet at the same time worthy of consideration.

I agree with you 100% on the "false premise fallacy".

In my opinion, none of our objections to the underlying question invalidate the "possibility" that Maslow's Hierarchy can be applied; but the mere fact Maslow's Hierarchy "is" applied (to various modern-day scenarios far removed from anything Maslow intended in 1957) does not make that application valid.

 

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

In my opinion, none of our objections to the underlying question invalidate the "possibility" that Maslow's Hierarchy can be applied; but the mere fact Maslow's Hierarchy "is" applied (to various modern-day scenarios far removed from anything Maslow intended in 1957) does not make that application valid.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you again today!

I think we need to stick to the way in which Maslow's theory was presented in the LabGab talk, and not make it into a Scientific treatise on the validity of the theory point by point, and then disqualify it because we see it as imperfect.
The way Coffee presented it I expected to see Philip up with a pointer at a white board, instructing us on how we are to exist in the various levels...lol...when in reality the discussion utilizing Maslow's chart was discussed in an offhand way, and really it was just the essence of the theory that was mentioned.

This is a model used in many behavioral psychology applications, and is effective in producing positive outcomes (like in schools, or treatments for those needing various types of help).  The fact that every single point is not "correct" in the model referenced, or that it is debated via other models that disagree with specific points, past and current, does not make the entire model invalid as a proof in math might do. This is not a script, this is not hard Science, we're talking about a wildly popular theory (and real world and lab experiments to back up this theory) that made its way into all branches of Psychology and models used to help others.

Again, this was referenced in a general way at the LabGab talk. The premise of the theory is common sense really (the essence of it) -- when we're starving due to lack of food, or cold because we have no heat, or sick and can't afford medical help, we are less-likely to be able to partake in those things we'd rather be focusing on (creating, loving others, appreciating the beauty that can be found in life). Life is miserable when people are stuck at survival levels. Really, all models related to human motivation and achievement, both spiritual and psychological, include these observations and the the human condition and how/why humans behave as they do.

Maslow made a chart - Woohoo!  It's SCIENCE OMG, so now we can refer to it for discussions. But focus on the essence of it, and how we see it in all other models of human motivation (there are many) instead of trying to invalidate it as one would a math proof.

Philip's valid point remains -- it's great we don't need to focus on these difficult things to partake in the higher levels of human existence in SL. And wouldn't it be great if we could meet the primary needs of people in 1st life so they could focus on these higher levels as well. Perhaps virtual worlds can play a part in achieving that.

But don't forget, the OP's main point was that we should be FOCUSING on these lower levels to grow SL because that's what exists in RL games -- this 'survival stuff". I so disagree with that as a focus for SL, on so many levels, especially for a space that is a platform and not a game.

[Love Zhaoying]

33 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I'm gonna have to disagree with you again today!

I think we need to stick to the way in which Maslow's theory was presented in the LabGab talk, and not make it into a Scientific treatise on the validity of the theory point by point, and then disqualify it because we see it as imperfect.
The way Coffee presented it I expected to see Philip up with a pointer at a white board, instructing us on how we are to exist in the various levels...lol...when in reality the discussion utilizing Maslow's chart was discussed in an offhand way, and really it was just the essence of the theory that was mentioned.

This is a model used in many behavioral psychology applications, and is effective in producing positive outcomes (like in schools, or treatments for those needing various types of help).  The fact that every single point is not "correct" in the model referenced, or that it is debated via other models that disagree with specific points, past and current, does not make the entire model invalid as a proof in math might do. This is not a script, this is not hard Science, we're talking about a wildly popular theory (and real world and lab experiments to back up this theory) that made its way into all branches of Psychology and models used to help others.

Again, this was referenced in a general way at the LabGab talk. The premise of the theory is common sense really (the essence of it) -- when we're starving due to lack of food, or cold because we have no heat, or sick and can't afford medical help, we are less-likely to be able to partake in those things we'd rather be focusing on (creating, loving others, appreciating the beauty that can be found in life). Life is miserable when people are stuck at survival levels. Really, all models related to human motivation and achievement, both spiritual and psychological, include these observations and the the human condition and how/why humans behave as they do.

Maslow made a chart - Woohoo!  It's SCIENCE OMG, so now we can refer to it for discussions. But focus on the essence of it, and how we see it in all other models of human motivation (there are many) instead of trying to invalidate it as one would a math proof.

Philip's valid point remains -- it's great we don't need to focus on these difficult things to partake in the higher levels of human existence in SL. And wouldn't it be great if we could meet the primary needs of people in 1st life so they could focus on these higher levels as well. Perhaps virtual worlds can play a part in achieving that.

But don't forget, the OP's main point was that we should be FOCUSING on these lower levels to grow SL because that's what exists in RL games -- this 'survival stuff". I so disagree with that as a focus for SL, on so many levels, especially for a space that is a platform and not a game.

Which part of my quote are you disagreeing with?

I'm not saying it's my main objection - more of a summary of "is using Maslow here valid?" (sure, maybe! Also, maybe not!), not "should we care?" (probably not!).

I think we actually agree here, that the general point the OP makes is not valid.

 

[Arielle Popstar]

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I think we actually agree here, that the general point the OP makes is not valid.

Making you both wrong as proven by this post:

 

[Luna Bliss]

10 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Making you both wrong as proven by this post:

 

I know....he is known as Lord Ganesha inworld, and we eagerly await the truth he bestows on us each week.

[Love Zhaoying]

31 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Making you both wrong as proven by this post:

 

How does that post make us wrong?

[Arielle Popstar]

42 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

How does that post make us wrong?

The main thrust of the OP since you seemingly missed it is that:

Quote

 

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.

 

People who log in and are presented with a purpose are excited and raring to go to meet the challenges, whereas the ones the at the Welcome center were dazed, confused and not being given any guidance by the official Mentors because I guess the Mentors were also dazed and confused proven by their absence.

Bottom line:

"Nobody was having fun.

That's the new, improved onboarding."

Whatever it is you and Luna think is the better way which is no more then same ol' same ol', is obviously not working. No wonder SL is not growing.

[Rowan Amore]

55 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

How does that post make us wrong?

It doesn't.  The book is just another person's opinion.

[Arielle Popstar]

15 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

It doesn't.  The book is just another person's opinion.

Had nothing to do with the book but the actual lack of the onboarding process a week after all the fan fare of it being restarted.  Same ol same ol. No goals, no hope, new people leave faster than they come.

Edited July 4, 2023 by Arielle Popstar

[MissSweetViolet]

I don't know, I joined 5 years ago, after going through start up and learning to move, my first though to see what was free/cheap, found Free Dove had a real nice avi put together in hours, and found a nice ballroom hangout, and a few months later a nice community and I'm still here. So is one of the friends I met at an event who joined around the same time I did, and doing great.

[Rowan Amore]

Again, one person's observations on one day (holiday).  

Since LL doesn't publish ANY actual facts about signups and retention, we can all assume many things.  The percentage that never come back.  Of those, why they never came back.  Which part of the start up process caused them to not come back.. Was it the lack of objective, the lag, the rude people they met, the viewer, etc?

We can surmise that on-boarding was an issue since they redid that and started a mentors group again.  But is it the process, the difficulty of that process, the mentors themselves?  Was it realizing they'd have to spend money to look like that mentor?  

Could be all of the above for some people or some other reason.  It's all guessing.

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

At this point, this thread is beyond ridiculous. I could start almost randomly on any page, and read exactly the same arguments being reframed over and over and over again.

So I might just as well join in, right?

Create a goal-oriented, "gamified" on-boarding process. In fact, create several! Make one for people who like "hunts," another for people who are interested in avatar customization, and even one that is about sex. Make them fun, make them useful, and make them optional.

For others, provide clear, useful, and up-to-date guidance on finding whatever it is that they want to find, fast. Add, if it seems valuable, some relatively short and unintrusive levelling-up process as part of the on-boarding tutorial: we've already got something like that, as noobs proceed through the tutorial teaching them the UI. But don't force people who don't want to do games to do games!

Honestly, what's so hard or bizarre or contentious about appealing to different tastes, approaches, and learning methods? What is it with this tunnel-visioned, solipsistic "This-is-what-I-like-and-so-everyone-must-also-like-it-and-do-the-same-things" approach????

What on earth is good about robbing people of choice and compelling them to do things they don't want to do?

Stop. Thinking. We're. All. The. Same!

Edited July 4, 2023 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

What is it with this tunnel-visioned, solipsistic "This-is-what-I-like-and-so-everyone-must-also-like-it-and-do-the-same-things" approach????

"You must Slex with me!" - Your Alpha

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

"You must Slex with me!" - Your Alpha

"You've finished the brief tutorial? GREAT!

Next stop, "Get It On SL!," our fabulous free sex welcome hub!

Have sex with as many AFK avatars as you can! Earn points! The top earner each day will win a fabulous NUX Freenis!"

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

"You've finished the brief tutorial? GREAT!

Next stop, "Get It On SL!," our fabulous free sex welcome hub!

Have sex with as many AFK avatars as you can! Earn points! The top earner each day will win a fabulous NUX Freenis!"

How many points until I earn enough to get a toaster?

[Rowan Amore]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

"You've finished the brief tutorial? GREAT!

Next stop, "Get It On SL!," our fabulous free sex welcome hub!

Have sex with as many AFK avatars as you can! Earn points! The top earner each day will win a fabulous NUX Freenis!"

"What?!?.  My avatar has no *bleep*?". How many times did I hear that one when helping new people?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

How many points until I earn enough to get a toaster?

500 for one with amazing Adult Animations!

Just watch your lover "pop up," hot, buttered, and ready to . . . you know!

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Rowan Amore said:

"What?!?.  My avatar has no *bleep*?". How many times did I hear that one when helping new people?

We can give them a temporary one at the door of "Get It On SL." But to earn a real attachment, they've gotta put in some hard grinding!

If you know what I mean. 😏

[Arielle Popstar]

Many see R/L as a game, so how can a reasonably accurate virtualized representation of it not be seen as the same? In the real we need challenges and goals to grow up and find and enhance our talent. If a virtual world does not provide something similar, the residents will never attain all they could be and the lack of challenge and competition will result in boredom and a wasted life, virtual or real.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Arielle Popstar said:

Many see R/L as a game,

YOUR word.

[Love Zhaoying]

6 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

7 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

How many points until I earn enough to get a toaster?

500 for one with amazing Adult Animations!

Just watch your lover "pop up," hot, buttered, and ready to . . . you know!

..eat toast!

 

[Love Zhaoying]

17 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Create a goal-oriented, "gamified" on-boarding process. In fact, create several! Make one for people who like "hunts," another for people who are interested in avatar customization, and even one that is about sex. Make them fun, make them useful, and make them optional.

We can call it.."Hunts and C*nts!"

[Arielle Popstar]

8 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

YOUR word.

You have a point?