Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
Video games and the paradox of failure
The paradox of failure explains why even a healthy rage-quit won't keep a good gamer down.
- When we fail at video games, we discover an inadequacy (however small) in ourselves — yet a growing number of people continue to seek out these digital challenges.
- Game designer Jesper Juul calls this the paradox of failure and argues it offers a unique space for personal growth.
- By using the paradox of failure as a tool, video games could teach us to develop open mindsets and evade the pitfalls of learned helplessness.
Ask someone why they play video games, and they'll likely say it's a fun way to spend an evening. Watch that same person as they play, and you'll doubt they possess an inkling of self-understanding.
Fully engaged, a player's face doesn't register mirth but the focused eyes and pursed lips of deep mental exertion. Losing one round may result in an exasperated sigh, but as the losses stack up, you can see the teeth-gnashing, controller-smashing scrublord begin to emerge. Push some people far enough, and the rage-quits are truly a sight to behold.
And players submit themselves to this for fun? As a way to chill out? Really?
Danish game designer Jesper Juul doesn't think so. While enjoyment certainly plays a part, it is failure, not fun, Juul argues, that ultimately keeps players returning to the battle royale or going another round against a baleful boss.
The paradox of failure
Before playing a game in the Portal series, we probably did not consider the possibility that we would have problems solving the warp-based spatial puzzles.
(Photo from Valve)
Failure feels awful, so people avoid it as often as they can. Even when we fail out of sight from others, our minds try to maintain our self-image by elaborating excuses for why the failure either wasn't our fault or was completely unavoidable (i.e., motivated reasoning).
It's interesting then that players seek out a pastime in which they are guaranteed to fail and willingly pay the price for that failure—whether it's another quarter, lost time, or being forced to reassess one's skills. In his short book The Art of Failure, Juul labels this phenomenon the paradox of failure, the clash between a player's desire to avoid failure and their drive to seek it out.
When failing a game's challenge, Juul notes, a player discovers a deficiency in their ability or approach. Although having little importance outside the game, these deficiencies, like all inadequacies, are unpleasant to discover. Ironically, a player is never required to explore these personal inadequacies as they relate to a skill set they would never need had they not pressed start:
Before playing a game in the Portal series, we probably did not consider the possibility that we would have problems solving the warp-based spatial puzzles that the game is based on—we had never seen such puzzles before! This is what games do: they promise us that we can repair a personal inadequacy that they produce in us in the first place.
The same goes for slaying dragons, commanding hordes of space marines, or discovering our princess is in another castle.
Have game players simply learned to not mind failure? Not at all. Many players engage in vocal motivational reasoning after choking the win, complaining about lag, controls, or hacks in blatant attempts to save face. And let's not forget the aforementioned rage-quits.
Rather, failure is a key part of the experience. A survey performed by Juul found that players prefer games where they feel responsible for failure, not games in which success is guaranteed. In fact, many handicap themselves, either by selecting a higher difficulty or creating self-imposed rules, should a game's challenge grow too stale.
The psychology of failure
Dark Souls is the epitome of Juul's failure-improvement cycle.
(Photo from Bandai Namco Entertainment)
One reason players crave failure is that success without that possibility is tasteless. "Failure," states Julie Muncy at Wired, "offers texture, complexity, and a chance for growth on the part of the player and character alike." Games that can beat you are worth engaging with.
Imagine playing a game that only requires you to move a virtual avatar from one side of the screen to the other. "You win," the game exclaims. A pointless victory, no?
Conversely, a game that does not offer the player a fair chance—either by presenting an insurmountable obstacle or by not informing the player of its internal rules—is considered broken. E.T. the Extraterrestrial for the Atari 2600 is disparaged as one of the worst games of all time, because it dropped players into the experience with no understanding of its goals, how to achieve them, or how to learn its mechanics (short of blind luck).
Between these extremes, Juul posits a psychological loop in which players engage fruitfully with failure. In this loop, a player is first introduced to a goal, fails at the goal to reveal an inadequacy, and then searches for a solution. The player tries various approaches until discovering the solution, at which point the cycle resets. Juul calls this the failure-improvement cycle.
"Failure in games tells us that we are flawed and deficient," Juul writes. "As such, video games are the art of failure, the singular art form that sets us up for failure and allows us to experience and experiment with failure." [Emphasis original]
A good example of the failure-improvement cycle is Dark Souls, a game that garnered a cult following for providing players many, many opportunities to fail. (The game's tagline is "Prepare to die.") Here's Mark Serrels of Kotaku describing his victory over the game's most notoriously difficult sections, Ornstein and Smough:
The most common reaction, for me at least, is the calm, zen-like focus of understanding. You've fought this boss many times. You are now aware of his/her/its patterns and you know how to react to each one. You are currently in the zone. You are having the dream run of dream runs and you feel utterly invincible. [Emphasis original]
Notice Serrels' and Juul's emphasis on the concept of understanding. The point of improving at Ornstein and Smough is not that Dark Souls teaches hard skills to be used in some profession. The point is simply to prove that improvement is possible. Success in a game is fun, true, but more importantly it shows us that failure can be overcome.
"This basic trick of learning and improvement is that we have to accept the painful answer (this is my fault, and a failure of me [not] being who I want to be) in order to be motivated to become who we want to be," Juul writes. "This is how each moment-to-moment attempt to avoid failure has existential significance for us."
The mindset of failure
With video games, children can see measurable improvement in real time and learn that skills, knowledge, and abilities are not fixed but open to growth.
(Photo from Nintendo of America)
By embracing the failure-improvement cycle, we may be able to extract real-world advantages from the paradox of failure. As Juul notes, a well-designed video game provides us with clear goals, a fair chance at success, and rewards us for achieving, such as a triumphant tune for winning a battle or revealing more of the narrative. The real world, in contrast, makes no such promises. Goals can be opaque, success perpetually out of reach, and rewards ill-defined.
Still, we need to engage with the real world in productive ways, and through games we can help develop growth mindsets within ourselves. Children in particular can see their improvement in real time and may be taught to understand that skills, knowledge, and abilities are not fixed but open to growth.
A study by Dr. Kurt Squire, former director of Games, Learning and Society Initiative at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, found that video games may be able to counter the sense of "learned helplessness" among students.
"In my study, failure was not only a 'problem' but also a critical precondition for learning. Failure forced students to confront gaps or flaws in their current understandings through cycles of recursive play," Dr. Squire writes. [Emphasis original.]
This is why people play video games to fail: because they provide us a safe space with which to experiment with failure. And learning how to fail is a necessary step in learning to succeed.
A new study finds that dogs fed fresh human-grade food don't need to eat—or do their business—as much.
- Most dogs eat a diet that's primarily kibble.
- When fed a fresh-food diet, however, they don't need to consume as much.
- Dogs on fresh-food diets have healthier gut biomes.
Four diets were tested<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTU5ODI1MS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NjY0NjIxMn0._w0k-qFOC86AqmtPHJBK_i-9F5oVyVYsYtUrdvfUxWQ/img.jpg?width=980" id="1b1e4" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="87937436a81c700a8ab3b1d763354843" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1440" data-height="960" />
Credit: AntonioDiaz/Adobe Stock<p>The researchers tested refrigerated and fresh human-grade foods against kibble, the food most dogs live on. The <a href="https://frontierpets.com.au/blogs/news/how-kibble-or-dry-dog-food-is-made" target="_blank">ingredients</a> of kibble are mashed into a dough and then extruded, forced through a die of some kind into the desired shape — think a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_extrusion" target="_blank">pasta maker</a>. The resulting pellets are sprayed with additional flavor and color.</p><p>For four weeks, researchers fed 12 beagles one of four diets:</p><ol><li>a extruded diet — Blue Buffalo Chicken and Brown Rice Recipe</li><li>a fresh refrigerated diet — Freshpet Roasted Meals Tender Chicken Recipe</li><li>a fresh diet — JustFoodforDogs Beef & Russet Potato Recipe</li><li>another fresh diet — JustFoodforDogs Chicken & White Rice Recipe.</li></ol><p>The two fresh diets contained minimally processed beef, chicken, broccoli, rice, carrots, and various food chunks in a canine casserole of sorts. </p><p>(One can't help but think how hard it would be to get finicky cats to test new diets. As if.)</p><p>Senior author <a href="https://ansc.illinois.edu/directory/ksswanso" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kelly S. Swanson</a> of U of I's Department of Animal Sciences and the Division of Nutritional Sciences, was a bit surprised at how much better dogs did on people food than even refrigerated dog chow. "Based on past research we've conducted I'm not surprised with the results when feeding human-grade compared to an extruded dry diet," he <a href="https://aces.illinois.edu/news/feed-fido-fresh-human-grade-dog-food-scoop-less-poop" target="_blank">says</a>, adding, "However, I did not expect to see how well the human-grade fresh food performed, even compared to a fresh commercial processed brand."</p>
Tracking the effect of each diet<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTU5ODI1OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY3NjY1NTgyOX0.AdyMb8OEcjCD6iWYnXjToDmcnjfTSn-0-dfG96SIpUA/img.jpg?width=980" id="da892" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="880d952420679aeccd1eaf32b5339810" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1440" data-height="960" />
Credit: Patryk Kosmider/Adobe Stock<p>The researchers tracked the dogs' weights and analyzed the microbiota in their fecal matter.</p><p>It turned out that the dogs on kibble had to eat more to maintain their body weight. This resulted in their producing 1.5 to 2.9 times the amount of poop produced by dogs on the fresh diets.</p><p>Says Swanson, "This is consistent with a 2019 National Institute of Health study in humans that found people eating a fresh whole food diet consumed on average 500 less calories per day, and reported being more satisfied, than people eating a more processed diet."</p><p>Maybe even more interesting was the effect of fresh food on the gut biome. Though there remains much we don't yet know about microbiota, it was nonetheless the case that the microbial communities found in fresh-food poo was different.</p><p>"Because a healthy gut means a healthy mutt," says Swanson, "fecal microbial and metabolite profiles are important readouts of diet assessment. As we have shown in <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jas/article/92/9/3781/4702209#110855647" target="_blank">previous studies</a>, the fecal microbial communities of healthy dogs fed fresh diets were different than those fed kibble. These unique microbial profiles were likely due to differences in diet processing, ingredient source, and the concentration and type of dietary fibers, proteins, and fats that are known to influence what is digested by the dog and what reaches the colon for fermentation."</p>
How did kibble take over canine diets?<p>Historically, dogs ate scraps left over by humans. It has only been <a href="https://www.thefarmersdog.com/digest/the-history-of-commercial-pet-food-a-great-american-marketing-story/" target="_blank">since 1870</a>, with the arrival of the luxe Spratt's Meat Fibrine Dog Cakes—made from "the dried unsalted gelatinous parts of Prairie Beef", mmm—that commercial dog food began to take hold. Dog bone-shaped biscuits first appeared in 1907. Ken-L Ration dates from 1922. Kibble was first extruded in 1956. Pet food had become a great way to turn <a href="https://www.dogfoodadvisor.com/choosing-dog-food/animal-by-products/" target="_blank">human-food waste</a> into profit.</p><p>Commercial dog food became the norm for most household canines only after a massive marketing campaign led by a group of dog-food industry lobbyists called the Pet Food Institute in 1964. Over time, for most households, dog food was what dogs ate — what else? Human food? These days more than half of U.S. dogs are <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/magazine/who-made-that-dog-biscuit.html" target="_blank">overweight or obese</a>, and certainly their diet is a factor.<span></span></p><p>We're not so special among animals after all. If something's healthy for us to eat—we're <em>not</em> looking at you, chocolate—maybe we should remember to share with our canine compatriots. Not from the table, though.</p>
What makes some people more likely to shiver than others?
Some people just aren't bothered by the cold, no matter how low the temperature dips. And the reason for this may be in a person's genes.
Eating veggies is good for you. Now we can stop debating how much we should eat.
- A massive new study confirms that five servings of fruit and veggies a day can lower the risk of death.
- The maximum benefit is found at two servings of fruit and three of veggies—anything more offers no extra benefit according to the researchers.
- Not all fruits and veggies are equal. Leafy greens are better for you than starchy corn and potatoes.