Earlier this year, ‘Grandad’, my maternal grandfather, died at the age of 82.

His death leaves my Nana as the only surviving grandparent. The funeral, and wake, gave my small family time to be together, and after talking at length, I volunteered to research our family history.

Whilst I go by ‘Mac’, my full last name is actually ‘Macdonald’. My Father’s side is largely from Aberdeenshire, and my Mother’s side a mix of Cornish and Welsh. While I never met my paternal Grandfather (another William) due to his death 3 years before my birth, ‘Nan’ (his wife, my Father’s Mother, Pamela) is a woman I respected a great deal growing up. She lived in an annex in my parent’s house and her continual presence will forever be a big part of my childhood. The 10 years I knew my Nan were happy ones; but her death is one of the most painful and enduring memories of my childhood.

‘Nana and Grandad’ – my mother’s parents – lived about 30 minutes drive away while I was growing up and while I was still in primary school, we’d see each other every other week. Grandad would pick me up from school and give me sweets that I wasn’t supposed to tell my mum about, this and his truly terrible jokes, and love of cricket are what I will choose to remember him by, rather than the shell that was left once his Alzheimer’s had forced us to watch him lose himself.

Nana’s lunches, ‘the garden of moss’ and red pie; that – and so much more – is what they as people will always be to me.

But what that doesn’t answer how they got here, and for that, what follows is what I’ve found so far.

Dad is an only child, and Mum is one of two, so the first few layers of the tree were simple. My Nan…well…this is where it gets complicated.

Nan was a bastard child, born in rural Aberdeenshire in 1925 to a 20 year old ‘Lillias Williamina Philip Craig Ironside’ – which has to be one of the most impressive farmer’s daughter’s names I have ever heard. Nan’s birth certificate lists her father as a ‘George Peter Horne’, however he has been impossible to find anywhere. Nan never spoke about her family, and what she knew about them, or otherwise, went with her to the grave. We do know that she was adopted by her Grandparents – ‘William Mitchell Ironside’ (one of two) and ‘Lillias Davidson Craig’ (one of ten) – and had friends (and probable relations, including possible Uncles James and Adam) in New Deer, Aberdeenshire, and would visit annually. Lillias W.P.C. Ironside died in 1999, at the age of 94, a year and 6 days before, and 523 miles away from, her daughter.

I believe I have been able to trace Lillias’ side approximately 4 additional generations to her Mother’s Father’s, Father’s, Father (my Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandfather) ‘David Craig’, born in Arbroath, Forfarshire, in approx 1779, death unknown, and his wife ‘Elizabeth Middleton’ born 3rd September, 1774 in Brechin, Angus – and dying there on 29th May 1862.

Paternally, we have her Grandfather, ‘James Ironside’, (b. 31.07.1851, d. 10.03.1923, New Deer), the youngest of 5, his parents were ‘William Ironside’ (b. approx. 1810, d. 15.10.1886, New Deer) and ‘Jane Milne’ (b. 27.1.1807, d. 23.05.1869, New Deer). He married ‘Jane Mitchell’  (b. 25.04.1847, d. 02.12.1933, New Deer) – the 5th of 7, and eldest of two girls, her parents being ‘William Mitchell’ (b. 08.09.1814, d. 07.03.1877, New Deer) and ‘Jane Murray’ (b. approx. 1813, Tyrie, Aberdeenshire, d. 28.01.1882 Monquhitter Parish, Aberdeenshire (near what is now Ellon)).

My Paternal Grandfather, ‘William Macdonald’, (b. 1923, d.1986) was the elder of two – however his Father, yet another ‘William Macdonald’ (b. 27.08.1880, Aberdeen, d. 1962, Maryculter, Aberdeenshire) was one of nine, and his Mother, ‘Annabella Barclay’ (b. 10.12.1903, Slains, Aberdeenshire, d. 1987), was one of five. This ‘William Macdonald’s parents were ‘John Macdonald’ (b. 1845, d.1923) and ‘Jane Gerrard Forbes’ (b. 1852, d. 1926), I mention Jane (my Father’s, Father’s, Father’s, Mother) here for reference later.

The Macdonald line would appear to begin with a ‘George Macdonald’ (exact dates unknown, but approx 1780-1790, born in Dunvegan, Isle of Skye), who married an unknown ‘Stewart’ (dates also unknown) – they are parents to another ‘George Macdonald’ (b. 22.02.1813, d. 17.04.1887, Glenrinnes, Banffshire). If this is correct, then it would seemingly align with my Grandfather’s belief that we are ‘Clan Macdonald of Sleat‘ and the reason for George’s relocation from Dunvegan to Glenrinnes would most likely be due to the Highland Clearances.

While not directly down the Macdonald line, the furthest I’ve been able to trace Dad’s ancestry is to ‘John Forbes’ and ‘Mary Tulloch’ (exact dates unknown, approx mid-1700’s). They are the aforementioned Jane’s Father’s, Father’s, Father’s, Parents – and/or My Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandparents.

My Mum’s side has a similar progression, one of two born to John (b. 1930, Dawlish, Devon, d. 2013) and Margaret (b. 1930), the family members quickly stack up once John is the youngest of four born to ‘Cecil Harry Downing’ (b. 12.03.1897, Dawlish, d. 1987, Slough) and ‘Florance Honor Trewin’ (b. 08.09.1898, Launceston, Cornwall, d. 1970) and Margaret is the middle of five born to ‘Maurice George Jefferis’ (b. 1899, Wareham, Dorset, d. 1958, Portsmouth) and ‘Fanny Lydia Cooper’ (b. 07.09.1899, Pontypridd, d. 1981, Basingstoke).

It is unknown how many siblings John’s father Cecil had – little is known about his parents ‘Henry Downing’ and ‘Elizabeth’ (maiden name unknown), except that they were born approx. 1876 and approx. 1874 respectively. John’s mother Florance was 7th of 9, but again little is known of her parents ‘Thomas H. Trewin’ and ‘Mary Ann’ (again, maiden name unknown), and again born approx. 1858 and approx. 1859 respectively.

Sadly, this is where the Downing ancestry appears to end.

The Jefferis side still has some interest. While my Nana may ‘only’ have been the middle of five, and her father Maurice the middle of three born to ‘Thomas James Jefferis’ (b. 1849, Ellingham, Hampshire, d. unknown) and ‘Caroline Mary King’ (b. 1863, Whiteparish, Whitshire, d. unknown). Thomas was the youngest of 6 to ‘John Jefferis’ (b. approx. 1806, d. approx. 1891, Ellingham) and ‘Catherine’ (b. approx 1811, d. approx. 1887) (again, maiden name unknown), while Caroline was also the youngest, but of 5, born to ‘George King’ (b. approx. 1829, d. unknown) and ‘Rachel’ (b. approx. 1827, d. unknown) (and yet again, maiden name also unknown). This would mean that, as well as John and Catherine, and George and Rachel being my Great-Great-Great-Grand Parents, they were also alive at approximately the same time as the aforementioned George Macdonald (b. 1813, etc) and only a mere 550 miles apart.

Nana’s mother Fanny was the eldest of 12 – yes, twelve – to be born to ‘Walter James Cooper’ (b. approx. 1874, Cardiff, d. 1951, Talywain) and ‘Lousia  Kate Summers’ (b. 1881, d.1961), but little of their ancestry is known to me at this time, beyond Walter being one of five, and his parents name’s being ‘John Cooper’ (b. approx 1829, d. unknown) and ‘Maria’ (b. 1837, d. unknown).

Gamification: Game Playing and Fiero

This is part two of the series, to start from the beginning, click here.

Humans have enjoyed playing games for thousands of years; archaeologists have found extensive evidence of dice-like games being played in region of South Eastern Iran approximately 3,000 years ago, and board games – like senet – being enjoyed by the Ancient Egyptians some 5,000 years ago.

Considered by some to be an early form of escapism, and a simple way of coping with the harsh realities of life, games such as Jacks (or Knucklebones) were invented by the Lydians and theorised to have been utilised to cope during times of famine.

But games are not limited to this simplistic, traditional view. Most human interaction within any society involves many aspects of game playing. Eric Berne‘s 1964 book “Games People Play: The Psychology of Human Relationships” extensively details many different types of human interaction from a variety of perspectives, such as how differing power dynamics, or roles such as adult to adult, or adult to child, affect each players strategy in the game. Gamification seems to stand to confirm Kurt Vonnegut’s review of Games People Play, where he stated that; “…the good Doctor has provided story lines that hacks will not exhaust in the next 10,000 years”. The identification of these games provided an early insight in to what would eventually become the basis for Palringo’s Reputation and Achievements System, and how a competitive system based on these principles can be a very powerful engine for growth.

In the introduction I briefly mention the concept of fiero. Fiero is a defined by Jane McGonigal in her book “Reality is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World” as a word to:

“…describe an emotional high we don’t have a good word for in English [Fiero being Italian for ‘Pride’]. Fiero is what we feel when we triumph over adversity. You know when you feel it – and when you feel it […] we all express fiero in exactly the same way: we throw our arms over our head and yell.”

Fiero is the basis for all game systems. You win, you feel good, you lose, you feel bad…and then you’re annoyed by the obvious display of fiero by the victor, and you try even harder to win – after all, everybody loves to win.

Simply put, fiero breads competition and powers our innate urge to win.

A key consideration that must be made when designing any game system is the difficulty to achieve fiero. While no-one actually likes losing, always winning also quickly becomes bland – after the initial hits of fiero dissipate.

Casino Poker has a number of variables, but to simplify this example we will focus on two factors;

  1. Skill of the Player
  2. Disposable Cash

Casinos spend significant time and resources to ensure their players are sitting at tables where they all have a similar level of skill and cash to ensure the best game experience for everyone. There is little fun when there is no challenge, and easily winning (or always losing) causes the same level of disenfranchisement as never having any risk. A multi-millionaire winning a $100 bet feels much less fiero than a student on minimum wage winning the same bet. This is also true for the other players, if you are at a table with a person that simply doesn’t care about the wagers that are being made, then the fiero you experience when winning is massively reduced.

These systems require the players to “buy-in”, much like the social contract that exists stating that participants should not lie when playing ‘Truth or Dare”. Managing this belief in the system – in the poker example, promoting good player to higher tables – is important to ensure continued competition.

Foursquare operates a system that distributes points to users when they check-in to bars, clubs, restaurants, and so on. These check-ins are also supported by a series of achievements: checking in to a bar on a week day evening, or going to the gym 10 times in a month. Xbox LIVE (XBL) Gamerscore – often considered to be the first and best video game meta-scoring system – has a similar system of points and achievements.

The big difference between the two however is that a player’s XBL Gamerscore is counted forever, where Achievements you unlocked in 2007 are still counted towards your score in 2013, and can never reduce. In contrast, Foursquare only counts points for a rolling 7 days, where points I earn today will be counted towards my score until next Monday. In this regard Palringo Reputation is closer to Gamerscore, where points are counted forever, but with the added complexity of being able to lose reputation by losing achievements.

Foursquare is tailored to be much more competitive, constantly informing you of your friends activity – with notifications when they check in – as well as any new achievements they unlock. You can always see how you rate against your friends, in a simple leaderboard system where having the most points means you’re #1. Competing on a 7 days basis, where simply being inactive takes you out of the running, means that the challenge is always fresh, in an ever changing landscape, where victory is only temporary, and must be continually fought for.

The Palringo Reputation and Achievements system primarily serves two types of fiero. The first (bigger, and rarer) via Reputation, and the second (smaller and more frequent) via Achievements. To build on the previous two examples, Reputation is a meta-score to provide a quick, clean, and cross-culture mechanic to compare two or more users. Our users use their Reputation as their primary means to compare, compete and brag about their standing within the Palringo Community. Achievements are used as guides to inform users on how to increase their Reputation, as well as encourage behaviour that we deem is suitable for Palringo – for example, running multiple groups, with a high number of users, as detailed by our “Crowd Sorcerer” achievement.

In the next part of this series, I will expand on just how Palringo uses gamification, and fiero, to guide user behaviour and cement our place as the de-facto massive Group Messaging Application in the world.

Gamification: An Introduction

Gamification is a buzzword for the application of various aspects of positive psychology in conjunction with game-like elements used to guide people’s behaviours when performing tasks. While this is by no means solely utilised by software, many modern software applications have utilised its theories extensively, especially video games such as World of Warcraft.

We have an entire generation that grew up playing video games, being born in 1989 I have played games my entire life, and have seen first hand their progression from side-scrollers like Super Mario to the insanely complex high-end graphics of series such as Half Life. Even with the massive increases in processing power, memory and storage, gameplay has same stayed roughly the same. Most games follow the same pattern, you start a level, you play, you fail, you try again, you fail, you try again, you fail, you try again, and again, and again, and then you succeed. Then you start the next level.

This wash-rinse-repeat style of gameplay coupled with regular praise creates a very tight feedback loop and is even in some of the oldest video games.

Jane McGonigal in her book “Reality is Broken” frequently states that praise (or fiero), coupled with an increasing difficulty and frequent testing, creates a quickly addictive environment. It is the sense of accomplishment, traceable progression, and an attainable next step that keeps people coming back for more.

Tetris has a very simple premise. You score points by completing a row of blocks using various shapes that are generated (fall) in a pseudo-random order to progress. Every time you complete a row you are awarded points, the row flashes and then disappears (your small-reward), allowing you to use the re-claimed space to complete more rows. When you have scored enough points by removing enough rows you advance to the next level (traceable progression), which clears the whole screen (your big reward), and increases the difficulty (genuine testing). Tetris is perhaps one of the most obviously repetitive games in existence but Tetris combats this with two further sub-systems. A high-score leaderboard displaying the number of points you have earnt, allowing you to track your progress between sessions, and increasing the number of points you earn for each successful clearance of a line on the harder levels (genuine accomplishment), making a clearance much more satisfying on Level 9, than on Level 1.

It is the supply of praise – specifically the management of craving vs. frequency of genuine accomplishments – that must be utilised if you wish to create a system that truly works.

B. F. Skinner, an Edgar Pierce Professor of Psychology at Harvard University devised the “Operant Conditioning Chamber” – commonly, and for the rest of this series, referred to as the “Skinner Box” – whilst a Masters student at Harvard in 1930. An extremely simplified example of this could be a rat in a box, with only a red light and a button. When the red light flashes, the rat has a few seconds to press the button and be dispensed food. If the light has not flashed, then pressing the button does nothing. Over time, the rat learns to associate the feedback loop of Light => Press Button => Food and will act accordingly, and it is this basic premise that fuels most gamified systems.

User performs desired action -> User gains reward
User performs undesired action -> User receives nothing, or is punished.

Using this premise within a video game environment is simple – games as a whole are by their very nature built around similar constructs which most are familiar with, be it from playing Tag in the playground at school as a child, to card games like Poker – and so polishing these functions requires less relative effort.

Applying these theories to a software application is considerably harder and requires the application to be suitable. A word processor, for example, is unlikely to benefit – although one could argue that even Word has many of these elements. It is my belief that the more social an application is, the more suitable and powerful gamification mechanisms are.

Palringo utilises two complementary systems. A points-based scoring system referred to as “Reputation” or “Rep” which is displayed to all as a Level (for example, “Level 1”) and a goal-based system called “Achievements“; these are badges that you earn, and again are displayed to everyone. At a conceptual level, users receive points based on behaviour that we deem appropriate, and are deducted points for behaviour we do not. Various achievements are used as both long and short term goals to give users a guide as to what to aim for next, thus further helping shape their behaviour.

I will go in to more detail about how Palringo has continues to successfully operate and expand this system as this series progresses but before I continue I feel I must explicitly state what this series is not, and will not cover. It will not cover any detail of the Palringo system that is contained within a black-box – i.e. it does not describe all factors of our Reputation system. Some factors however will be mentioned explicitly, many may be alluded to, lots will be omitted in their entirety, and there may be the occasional false flag. This is to protect the integrity of our system, and reduce the possibilities for exploitation. This series will also not contain any detailed technical descriptions, or examples of code.

What this series will cover are the themes, behaviours, and insights that are required to create a successfully gamified system – one that can, if required, save a company.

Part Two of this series: Game Playing and Fiero.

Bookshelf I – Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think

After months of trying to finish off my Christmas Reading List – success eventually arriving in late February – I finally read “Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think” by Steven Kotler and Peter Diamandis. For those that haven’t yet read it, ‘Abundance’ extols – to a manifestoesque degree – a new hybrid of ‘Philanthrocapitalism’ and ‘Technophilantropy’, promoting – and in many cases, providing convincing proof – that using technology a rising tide really can lift all boats.

Health Care (23andMe), Energy (Elon Musk’s SolarCity, et al), Food (Vertical Farms and hydroponics), Freedom of Speech and Association (Twitter, Facebook, etc – Palringo being a noted absence), and Micro-finance ( being just a few of the wide range of topics covered; ‘Abundance’ makes the claim that with a new way of thinking, with a focus on global rather than local solutions, and providing technology that stands to save us all, we may have the ability to not just provide food, water, and shelter to 9 billion people – but to provide these at a standard that would befit the average European today. This can be accomplished, ‘Abundance’ claims, by utilising the rate of growth associated with exponential technologies.

‘Abundance’ proposes a new model, based heavily on Maslow’s ‘Hierarchy of Needs‘ named – cunningly – the ‘Abundance Pyramid’. Each part of the book relates to each of the levels in the Pyramid and how existing companies are working towards providing each of the requirements. I won’t replicate the Pyramid in full here, however ‘Part 3: Building the Base of the Pyramid’ is focused on how to provide: Communication (via smartphones, and unfiltered universally accessible internet access); clean, reliable, and accessible water; and a sustainable food supply, with a heavy focus on GMOs.

While ‘Abundance’ does pay lip service to the potential problems that may arise with smarter technology, it is written – like any manifesto – from an optimistic view point, and largely downplays any of the potential problems. This is in stark contrast to ‘The Net Delusion: How Not to Liberate the World‘, by Evgeny Morozov that extols the view that smarter technology, whilst providing many positives, also gives corrupt regimes access to very highly targeted data and that it is only a matter of time before these regimes utilise technology similar to that which runs Google’s AdSense platform for less-than-good purposes.

As the book progresses, Peter Diamandis’ influence becomes more prevalent, with many mentions of both his ‘Singularity University‘ and the ‘X-Prize‘ culminating in his belief that incentive prizes, like the X-Prize, are the only way to accelerate the progress that we are currently making. He very may well be correct, however the proof provided – there have, so far, only been 3 completed X-Prizes – seemed to be lacking for a statement of that calibre. However, given Dr Diamandis’ track record, I don’t expect him to be far off the mark.

Overall, the book is a very interesting read, highlighting some key areas, and has definitely challenged – and indeed changed – some of my previously held perceptions, and for that reason alone, I’d highly recommend it.