Everything Bad is Good for You

The book 'Everything Bad is Good for You' by Steven Johnson contains some interesting arguments that support the notion that video games (along with other media forms) are making people smarter. This argument is composed of the premise that video games encourage 'probing' and 'telescoping' as compared to activities such as reading which encourages following a story. Therefore, video games can teach people how to solve problems by setting goals and objectives. Another interesting point is that most complex video games are hard. They are not mindless escapes as they are typically portrayed, and they can teach patience. Also, smaller puzzles are embedded into the game. Probing was defined by a 4 step process of 'probing', 'hypothesis', 'reprobing' and 'rethinking'.

The lure of the video game relys upon rewards. The reward system is critical to game design. Incremental incentives keep players in the game. This reward system involves the same physiological response as other addictions.

Games contain a game 'physics' which describe how things function within the game (or simulation). The physics can include physical properties (e.g., gravity), but also includes different simulation variables such as the economy, political environment, etc.

Another argument within this book focuses on the fact that television programs are becoming more complex with more threads and fewer pointers. They force viewers to fill in the blanks and follow many threads of a story at the same time, therefore invoking more thinking during the viewing.

Some general thoughts on the application of these ideas to Computer Integrated Construction Research:

First, the argument supports the justification that games (or advanced computer simulations) assist in developing learning capabilities. The book does not focus on content, but instead on the development of learning skills.

Second, there is a need to develop a game 'physics' that will support more advanced simulation applications within the construction fields. This physics should look at different levels within the construction environment. For example, the physics associated with detailed planning and execution on a site could differ (yet be related to) the physics of operating a construction business and the higher level project development / delivery decisions for a project. Dr. Toole's initial efforts to model the physics of a construction project within iThink could be one interesting initiative to investigate. On a company level, the efforts by the developers of the Arousal simulation application also provides a reference point.