@TotalNoob69 said in #30:
> Good article, but I can't help associating the Skinner "[pigeon religion](https://www.all-about-psychology.com/superstition-in-the-pigeon.html)" experiments with a recent blog post here on Lichess about how professional chess players are very superstitious. I mean, sure, I hate chesscom as much as the next guy, but they are only exacerbating a problem that already exists.
Professional chess players being superstitious and the gamification described here seem like different things all together. Superstition just makes you cling on to pens, while gamification is designed to turn you into a drone to extract some cash.
> I believe that it's important to understand one's own motivations for playing chess, or doing anything really, and in that case gamification loses a lot of its power. And yes, exposing the tricks they use to lure you in is important for that process.
Very true.
@RuyLopez1000 said in #31:
> Professional chess players being superstitious and the gamification described here seem like different things all together. Superstition just makes you cling on to pens, while gamification is designed to turn you into a drone to extract some cash.
You have to admit there is something spooky about the supposedly most rational planners in the world hoping to win because they wear a specific pair of stinky socks.
Yes, gamification is something else, it's mind hacking based on manipulating very primal brain functionality. But it's a lot easier to do to people who are already primed for it.