2022-11-18 Fri 09:58 AM ![[Pasted image 20221118104547.png]] > [!names]- [[Provisional-placeholder-stand-in name]](s) > - Dual engagemenet loop > - Elastic engagement loop > - Accommodating engagement loops > - Adaptive engagement loops > - Elastic engagement depth > - Scalable engagement loops Create dual/elastic engagement loops to maximize retention. This nugget from the gaming world came to me via [[Ref. Katkoff 2013 - Mid-core success part 1 - core loops]]. This can be applied to lots of things. Eg: - You want to exercise more - You want to eat well - You want to write more ([[What is my writing process]], [[Hub. Experimental writing process techniques (list)]]) - You're building a product and you want people to use it - You're producing writing and you want people to read it The basic idea is that: - Intentional behaviors fade when inspiration, beliefs, or salience changes. Inspiration is famously fickle; beliefs and salience are little better. ***Intentional behavior is unstable over time.* - Habit-driven behaviors persist over time. Discipline and emotional excitement are ephemeral, and behaviors driven by these will tend to lapse. ***Habits drive retention.*** - If you want to build a habit you need to repeat the behavior regularly in some regularly-recurring context. ***Regular repetition builds habits.*** - Your life is already full. You don't have time set aside for some new behavior to come in and occupy. If you want to add a new habit-based behavior into your life, it's best to start small. What's the engagement loop that can be completed in 30 seconds or less? The better if it can be completed in a variety of circumstances — waiting in line, taking a pee, etc. ***Tiny moments for tiny actions.*** - Tiny actions are valuable, but their value is probably proportionate to their size. Flossing one tooth is good; flossing all your teeth is better. Sometimes, when you come in to complete a tiny action, you'll find that you have the time and motivation to engage more deeply. These deeper engagement sessions should be cherished and supported. ***Land and expand.*** - But stay flexible. Life circumstances vary by day and by season. Sometimes you'll have lots of time to engage deeply. Sometimes you won't. If tiny actions cease to count, then when doesn't allow the large action you'll have nothing to fall back to, and the behavior will be at risk of lapsing. ***Don't become rigid.*** It's called a dual loop because in a gaming context the designers have set up the core engagement loop of the game to have two (or more) distinct loops that can be completed within a session: one quite short (eg, tap a few icons to collect your resources: ~15 seconds) and one longer (eg, battle another player: ~3 minutes). Clash of Clans has a third engagement loop which is much longer: reconfigure your base: ~15 minutes. In order to promote long-term persistance of a desired behavior, build an engagement model that is adaptable and scalable according to the user's available time and interest level. # [[Journal section]] ### 2023-09-20 Wed 13.12pm What's the [[The name of the thing]]? I want to improve the name of this concept. Currently the name is "dual engagement loop" because that's what was given by game designers and used by the product manager Katkoff whose article [[Ref. Katkoff 2013 - Mid-core success part 1 - core loops]] about Clash of Clans I liked. But "dual" isn't exactly right — dual implies specifically 2, and the concept is not limited to 2. It's definitely more than 1, but it could be 3, 4, 10, etc. Core the concept is that there are engagement loops available to the user that are as big/deep as the user wants to go in that moment. So if they only have time for a 10-second engagement loop, there's a path for that. If after they complete that they want to do a 30-second loop, there's a path for that. If when they get home that evening they want to settle in and do a 30-minute loop, there's a path for that. So it's something like...adaptive, receptive, personalized, adjustable...what's the word here....responsive to the present needs, flexible, variable... Marvin, do you know what I'm trying to say? > [!ai]+ AI > > Marvin: Yes, I understand what you're trying to convey. You're describing an engagement model that is adaptable and scalable according to the user's available time and interest level. Some possible terms could be "Scalable Engagement Loops," "Adaptable Engagement Pathways," or "Flexible Interaction Circuits." These names suggest a system that can adjust in size and depth to accommodate different levels of user engagement. Let's brainstorm words, concepts, and phrases that can capture the adaptable/flexible/receptive/variable part. I want you to give me new ideas with pros and cons for each. For example: - Dynamic - Pros: Captures the sense that they can and do change based on current circumstances - Cons: Implies, to me at least, a sense that the software itself is changing, rather than that it is receptive to a variety of variable user needs Start by giving me pros and cons for: adaptable, adaptive, flexible, elastic, incremental, and fluid. Then give me 7 new ones. > [!ai]+ AI > > Marvin: Sure! Here are the pros and cons for the words you've asked for: > 1. Adaptable > - Pros: Suggests that the system can adjust to different circumstances, fitting a variety of user needs. > - Cons: Might imply that the system is constantly changing, which could be seen as unpredictable or unstable. > 2. Adaptive > - Pros: Similar to 'adaptable', it suggests that the system is capable of adjusting according to user needs. > - Cons: Could be confused with adaptive learning algorithms, which might not be accurate. > 3. Flexible > - Pros: Implies a sense of versatility and resilience, able to bend without breaking. > - Cons: Could suggest lack of structure, making it seem like there are no set paths or loops. > 4. Elastic > - Pros: Suggests ability to expand and contract in response to user behavior. > - Cons: Might imply a level of stretching and distortion that might not accurately reflect the concept. > 5. Incremental > - Pros: Igives a sense of progression, building up step by step. > - Cons: Might suggest a linear progression rather than flexible looping pathways. > 6. Fluid > - Pros: Implies smoothness and continuity, suggesting seamless transitions between loops. > - Cons: Lacks the implication of structure that 'loop' provides; could suggest shapelessness. > > Here are 7 new words with some pros and cons: > 1. Modifiable > - Pros: Conveys an idea of control given to the user to affect change according to their needs. > - Cons: Might imply complex customization options which could divert from the simplicity of engagement loops. > 2. Scalable > - Pros: Implies ability for growth or reduction based on user engagement levels. > - Cons : May suggest scalability in terms of user base size rather than individual interaction depth. > 3. Extensible > - Pros: Suggests the idea of expansion according to user's available time or engagement. > - Cons: Could imply a need for user input to extend the system. > 4. Dynamic > - Pros: Clearly communicates ability to change with user needs. > - Cons: Might suggest volatility or unpredictability. > 5. Responsive > - Pros: Implies a quick adaptability to changes in user behavior or circumstances. > - Cons: Could be confused with responsive design in web development. > 6. Versatile > - Pros: Suggests capability for multiple uses or applications. > - Cons: May not specifically convey the idea of adjustable depth of engagement. > 7. Customizable > - Pros: Very clearly indicates user control over the level of engagement. > - Cons: May suggest a requirement for users to constantly make adjustments, which could be overwhelming. I like elastic engagement loops a lot. But "elastic" implies - at any given time there's a single thing that is expanded or contracted to a certain size. But actually, the picture in my head, for Clash of Clans at least, is that the system has many paths that all exist simultaneously; it's just up to the user to decide which one to use. It's kinda like you've gone to a park, and there are a variety of hiking trails/loops you can choose from, some shorter and some longer. - "elastic" also implies that there's a homeostatic set point that the system can stretch from but will tend to return to. It's not clear to me that any of the hiking trails is the 'default' one. Can you come up with some more words that capture these senses? > [!ai]+ AI > > Marvin: Sure, I understand the nuances you're aiming to capture. Here are some more words and phrases along with their pros and cons: > 1. Multilevel > - Pros: Suggests a variety of paths or loops at different levels of engagement or complexity. > - Cons: May imply a hierarchical structure where one level is superior to another. > 2. Diversified > - Pros: Implies a broad assortment of options catering to different needs or preferences. > - Cons: May suggest instead an unrelated assortment rather than a cohesive experience. > 3. Spectrum > - Pros: Suggests a continuous range of engagement opportunities. > - Cons: May imply an undefined number of engagement levels rather than clearly delineated loops. > 4. Tiered > - Pros: Suggests structured and sorted layers of engagements, much like hiking trails with varying difficulties. > - Cons: Could be perceived as hierarchy, which might deter some users from accessing higher "tiers". > 5. Prolific > - Pros: Implies abundance, reflecting the multitude of paths available. > - Cons: More commonly associated with productivity and might give off a sense of being overwhelmed due to excessive choices. > 6. Comprehensive > - Pros: Indicates thoroughness, suggesting availability at all levels of depth. > - Cons: Might come off as complex or too detailed to some users. > 7. Assorted > - Pros: Implies variation and range in the loops available. > - Cons: In some contexts, it may connote lack of coherence or structure. > 8. Interconnected > - Pros: Suggests that every path is linked—a user can switch between different loops without losing progress or continuity. > - Cons: Might imply complexity, suggesting that users need to understand how each loop connects to others. > 9. Polyvalent > - Pros: Indicates versatility and multiplicity in engagement loops available. > - Cons: Not a commonly used term, might be unclear to some users what it means. > 10. Multifaceted > - Pros: Communicates the idea of many different aspects or paths being available. > - Cons: Might suggest complexity, indicating users need to understand multiple aspects simultaneously. Ah. I thesaurused it. I like the word "accommodating" - willing to fit in with someone's wishes or needs. Give me a few more ideas like that. > [!ai]+ AI > > > Marvin: I see, you're looking for a word that suggests an accommodating nature, a system that adjusts according to user preferences. Here are a few more words along those lines: > 1. Compliant: > - Pros: Suggests the system's willingness to adjust to the user's needs. > - Cons: May carry connotations of passivity, lack of initiative. > 2. Agreeable: > - Pros: Gives off a sense of being pleasing and satisfactory to users. > - Cons: It's generally associated with pleasantness and might not fully capture the concept of adaptive engagement loops. > 3. Conforming: > - Pros: Suggests adaptability as per user requirements or behavior. > - Cons: Might imply lack of uniqueness or individuality in design. > 4. Obliging: >- Pros: Conveys a readiness or eagerness to adjust and adapt as per user wishes. >- Cons: Often used in interpersonal contexts and might not translate well into product design terminology. >5. Amenable: >- Pros: Suggests a willingness to yield or adjust in response to someone else’s suggestions which perfectly suits your context here. >- Cons: Could imply overly docile or submissive behavior which may not be appropriate for all situations. Okay. Favorites: - Elastic engagement loops - Accommodating engagement loops. What's the [[The name of the thing]]? Elastic has a better ring. Accommodating maybe has the semantic edge. Let's do both and make one the alias. ### 2023-11-02 Thu 11.28am Assistant: I want a better way to state that first bullet, "Inspiration-driven behaviors fade when inspiration fades. And inspiration is famously fickle. ***Inspiration is fleeting.***". I'm not sure "inspiration" fully captures the notion. What's the right psychological concept here? Call it X until we find the word. The alternative to "habit" as a reason that a person does a thing. X can be inspiration, or it could be that they have a felt reason, perhaps they have some thing they're excited to get and the behavior is instrumental to getting the thing. Habit is like automatic, engrained, they just do it on autopilot. X is not automatic. It's bespoke. There's either instrumental reasoning, or passion, or something like that involved. Assistant, brainstorm for me a set of concepts from psychology, economics, neuroscience, cognitive science, or other fields that might be relevant to capturing this concept and this distinction. > [!ai]+ AI > > Sure, here are several concepts that might capture the distinction between habitual actions and the more goal-oriented, passionate drive that might inspire a new behavior: > 1. Intrinsic vs Extrinsic Motivation: In the context of psychology, intrinsic motivation refers to doing something because it is personally rewarding (e.g., playing a game because you find it enjoyable), while extrinsic motivation refers to doing something because you want to earn a reward or avoid punishment (e.g., studying in order to get good grades). > 2. Goal-Driven Behavior: This refers to activities that are motivated by some sort of aim or objective, whether that's short-term (e.g., I want to finish this chapter today) or long-term (I want to write a book). > 3. Passion: A strong feeling of enthusiasm or excitement about doing something can be called passion. Passion can drive behavior, but unlike habits, it often requires emotional energy. > 4. Volition and Self-Determination: These concepts refer to an individual's ability and motivation to make their own decisions and take action. They may be relevant for situations where someone intentionally decides to start a new habit or engage in a new behavior. > 5. Utility Maximization: This is an economic concept that suggests individuals make decisions with the goal of maximizing their satisfaction or 'utility'. It might be used as an underlying assumption when someone decides to start a new behavior because they believe it will increase their overall happiness or fulfillment. > 6. Reinforcement Learning: This is a concept from neuroscience and psychology that involves learning behaviors through positive rewards or negative consequences. This can be relevant when someone starts a new behavior in response to some sort of feedback loop. > 7. Desire: In contrast with automatic habits, desire-driven behaviors are those where there is a strong want or need for something – this desire motivates action. > 8. Affective Forecasting: This psychological concept refers to people's predictions about how they will feel in the future as a result of their present decisions. This could potentially be a factor in whether someone decides to start a new behavior. > 9. Self-efficacy: This is a person's belief in their ability to succeed in specific situations or accomplish a task. Higher levels of self-efficacy could potentially lead to increased likelihood of engaging in new behaviors. > 10. Drive Theory: This suggests that our behavior is motivated by 'drives' - innate biological needs (like hunger or thirst). In this context, it may motivate behaviors necessary for survival, rather than habits. > In short, there are many potential factors that could influence the initiation and maintenance of new behaviors beyond just habit formation and inspiration. The most appropriate concept would depend on the specific circumstances and individual involved. None of these concepts captures the critical distinction here. The distinction is between behaviors that are automatic, and behaviors that are not. Habit versus X. Try again please. > [!ai]+ AI > > Apologies for the confusion earlier. Let's reframe these concepts: > 1. Automatic Processing vs Controlled Processing: Automatic processing refers to cognitive activities that require little effort or attention, much like habits. On the other hand, controlled processing involves consciously directing our thoughts and actions. > 2. Implicit vs Explicit Memory: Implicit memory is unconscious and affects our thoughts and behaviors without our awareness, similar to how habits operate. Explicit memory is conscious and requires effort to recall. > 3. Stimulus-Response (S-R) Theory vs Goal-Directed Behavior: S-R theory posits that behavior is automatic and triggered by environmental cues (like a habit), while goal-directed behavior involves conscious intention and planning. > 4. System 1 vs System 2 Thinking: In Daniel Kahneman's model of cognition, System 1 thinking is fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic, subconscious (like habits), while System 2 thinking is slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, conscious. > 5. Reflexive vs Reflective Responses: Reflexive responses are automatic reactions (like pulling your hand away from a hot stove) whereas reflective responses involve thoughtful deliberation. > 6. Bottom-Up vs Top-Down Processing: Bottom-up processing involves reacting to stimuli in an automatic manner (as habits do), while top-down processing requires active interpretation of information based on context. > 7. Heuristics vs Deliberate Decision-Making: Heuristics are mental shortcuts or "rules of thumb" that allow us to make decisions quickly and automatically; deliberate decision-making requires conscious effort and careful consideration. > 8. Associative Learning (like Classical Conditioning or Operant Conditioning) versus Cognitive Learning which relies more on conscious thought and active participation in the learning process. > In all these pairs, the first refers to automatic behaviors akin to habits while the second encompasses behaviors that are not automatic - they require more cognitive resources or active intentionality. - Automatic processing vs controlled processing - this seems to be roughly the right distinction, but "controlled processing" doesn't quote capture the connotation I want. Who's doing the control? It's not like in the non-automatic, controlled stance you have full control over your processing. You are a thing that processes. - Stimulus-response and goal directed — yeah this is pretty close to it. - [[System 1]] versus [[System 2]] — not quite right. System 1 seems to include both habit driven behavior and passion/[[Libido]]-driven behavior. I want to keep habit driven to one side, but moe passition-driven behavior over to the side occupied by system 2. - [[Bottom-up processing]] vs [[Top-down processing]] — yeah kinda gets it, but again it feels like passion-driven behavior is somewhat bottom-up, but I don't want to lump it taht way. - Habit vs choice - (cf [[Ref. H.C. Cole 2002 - Habit versus choice- the process of decision-making in health-related behaviour]]) Also pretty close. Though "choice" implies deliberateness and rational-agent-ness, and this concept needs also to capture passion-driven behavior. - Habit vs planned behavior - same problem as above - Automatic vs agentic behavior - yeah better, but agentic still is kinda tilted toward the analytic-instrumental motivation versus the passion motivation. - This whole thing reminds me of the shift in advertising philosophy over the last ~70 years. Look at an ad from the 1930s: it will probably talk about the features and benefits of the product, speaking to you as if you're [[Homo Economicus]]. Later ads will be more like [[It's Toasted]] — they might not even use words, might just show you Snoop Dogg sitting on a beach drinking a Corona or polar bears playing in the snow before a Coca-Cola logo comes on screen. - Automatic vs autonomous behavior - Okay so one thing that's going on here is that across this distinction we're talking about two different [[Modalities of abstraction]] ([[What are the levels and modalities of explanation for a unified theory of consciousness?]]). The condition of [[Living at the conjunction of worlds]]. - On one level, the agentic, personal, [[First-person level]] ([[Denial of personhood]]) we are rational and impassioned agents, feeling [[Non-instrumental value]] ([[🐦‍⬛ Your interest in beauty is not trivial]]) and reckoning [[Instrumental value]]. [[Related notes]] [[Immersive approach to psyche]] - On another level, the [[Third-person level]], we're standing outside that system and thinking about how to modify it. [[Related notes]] [[Analytical approach to psyche]]. - And for this present distinction, I want to lump both of those modalities as X, as the opposite of automatic behavior. Maybe autonomous is good? Self-governed - Automatic behavior vs deliberate behavior - Automatic behavior vs voluntary, volitional, deliberate, purposeful, purposive, planned, intentional - I think the challenge with the latter category is that it includes at least two different kinds of things: - Deliberate, planned, intentional behavior. This is more like system 2: it - Passion-driven behavior. This is more like system 1: It's not necessarily deliberate or intentional; rather it is driven by [[Libido|libidinal]] urges that are inherently ephemeral. - Automatic vs intentional - here using intentional in the formal philosophical sense. [[Ref. Pierre Jacob 2023 - Intentionality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)]]... "‘Intentionality’ is a philosopher’s word: ever since the idea, if not the word itself, was introduced into philosophy by Franz Brentano in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, it has been used to refer to the puzzles of representation, all of which lie at the interface between the philosophy of mind and the philosophy of language." ... "in its philosophical usage, the meaning of the word ‘intentionality’ should not be confused with the ordinary meaning of the word ‘intention.’ As indicated by the meaning of the Latin word _tendere_, which is the etymology of ‘intentionality,’ the relevant idea behind intentionality is that of mental directedness towards (or attending to) objects, as if the mind were construed as a mental bow whose arrows could be properly aimed at different targets." - So this kinda captures it? In automatic, habit-driven behavior, it's not clear that the mind is in an intentional attitude in either of the two senses above (deliberate or impassioned). It's more like, routine-following. Alright. I'm going with automatic vs intentional for the moment. Gippity, I want to make a note about this concept: Automatic behaviors persist; intentional behaviors fade. Brainstorm 10 possible post titles naming in a pithy, modular way the core idea. Don't do clickbaity shit. Something like "[[Automatic behavior persists, intentional behavior fades]]". > [!ai]+ AI > > > Marvin: Absolutely, here are some potential titles encapsulating the core idea: > 1. "The Persistence of Automatic Behavior and the Ephemeral Nature of Intentionality" > 2. "Why Habitual Acts Persist: The Fleeting Lifespan of Intentional Behaviors" > 3. "Auto-Pilot vs Conscious Control: The Durability Dilemma in Behavior Patterns" > 4. "Persist or Fade: The Dichotomy Between Automatic and Intentional Actions" > 5. "The Longevity of Habits and the Transience of Intentions in Human Behavior" > 6. "On the Stability of Habitual Actions and Instability of Conscious Intentions" > 7. "Outlasting Inspiration: The Resilience of Automatic Behavior" > 8. "Habit's Hold vs Intention's Ebb: Unpacking Behavioral Persistence" > 9. "Navigating Mental Pathways: Why Automatic Routes Outlast Intentional Detours" > 10. "Setting Autopilot or Manual Steering? Exploring the Endurance Game in Behaviors" > Remember to consider your audience when choosing a title, as these suggestions range from more academic-sounding to more casual and accessible options. Going with my own. [[Automatic behavior persists, intentional behavior fades]]