The user's verbal ability and rationality: The borders of humans with computers

What is the difference between experiencing the game and what comes out a discussion about it? How far goes the rationality of the user? What is his responsibility in his blunders, and what should be considered as a consequence fate? All these topics are tackled by Lacan, and the psychologists of psychoanalysis, and we may apply the findings of his school of thought to game design and HCI. Stephane Donikian believes that we need to go further within language as we consider the user, and Lacan happens to be the most appropriate to that task Others schools could be closer to the Wittgensteinian views as in Hutto, and consider the user as a game theory player, while we want to show that they are wrong: the experience of HCI is hard to speak of we lack the words, and it varies greatly from person to person. Computers are rational machines while humans are not. Cognitive science has tried to find ways that are below language, while Lacan searches the subject in language. Hence telling the story of an HCI experience is more of a matter of a narrative event and contrasts with the unspeakable reality of the interaction. We used the concepts of symbolization and reality to discuss what is within human grasp in the experience, and what remains too far from our reach.