Long article, but worth reading. Interesting take as well. I never thought of the marshmallow test in terms of trusting the reward (more marshmallows) will come, but that makes a lot of sense.
I trust they'll bring more, that's why I wait and work hard.
Along similar lines, I believe that individuals can make decisions that go counter to the incentives provided to them.
But, when you take an aggregate of thousands or more of individuals, you can often predict accurately that the aggregate behaviors will align with the incentives in the system.
You'll find where there is accountability & consequences & FEEDBACK, then things improve.
This article is just one dimension of that larger concept on feedback & incentives.
FEEDBACK is always there it is not always positive. I have had two jobs where I stared out working Stupid hard, never did not get a reasonable pay raise and quickly became unmotivated.
I think this explains a lot about why corporate life (and this includes VC-istan) seems to lead to mediocrity in what is ultimately a trillion-dollar destruction of human capital.
When people start to associate work with endless subordination and minuscule reward, they're effectively conditioned for laziness (in the long term). They stop believing that anything is worth waiting more than 10 minutes for.
I think it was an interesting take on the marshmallow test, but these principles don't solely apply to Silicon Valley.
Incentives power everything -- good and bad. Looking at the financial crisis of 2009, rent seekers taking advantage of Medicaid, etc. You could come up with a million examples.
Particularly bad.. incentivisation schemes create proxies for success and inevitably get gamed. Why bother with all the hard stuff when you can shortcut your way to success?
Good incentives are life really.. look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs. I believe most people work because they have to, but most people who work hard, work hard because they want to. The pay off is growth, progress, self-actualisation.
As an aside, this is why I question the whole gamification thing. The best games life-ify the game. Why would you want to remove meaning and complexity from work?
This is an interesting read along with the article [1] where the Google Reader developer suggests that the retirement of Reader will prevent new ideas at Google for fear of the same treatment regardless of the adoption.
I would add a corollary: the lack of future reward is the root cause of the outright failure of socialism/communism. No matter what you do, in an utopian communism you'd get only what you need. The wealth you could create has no return.
Obviously, in the end everyone will be equal, equally improductive. Equally poor.
When was either of those ever implemented? How much do you even know about the theory to start with, if you talk about "utopian communism" as if you read Marx back to back? Or are trigger words like "Stalin" and "East block countries" enough to make you enter and stay in the back of just any old van?
I wish people at least spoke for themselves. Because know of a lot of examples where I went above and beyond simply because I felt good about the work and enjoyed finding out about and increasing my potential. I can work hard in a cancer ward for lodging and meals and love it; but you could hardly pay me enough to sell people something they don't need, or that actually hurts them. I know I'm not alone with that either, I am in awesome, priceless company.
Ever watched horses in the wild? Or dogs play? They exert themselves because they can. Those who need to be forced or tricked are sick.
Then there is also this: "The trouble with the rat race is, even if you win it, you're still a rat." (Lily Tomlin) Capitalism doesn't solve anything, it just shifts the problem out of the range of short-sighted people. Even those often feel it subconsciously, and cannot hide their confusion and despair trickling through the cracks of the facade.
This article essentially points out that humans have defensive strategies in situations of uncertainty and distrust. The suggested reaction is not to reflect on what causes them, where they might be justified and where they might not -- but simply assumes as given that "life isn't fair" and that it would help to better deceive people into thinking it was. I'm making another connection to marshmallows here: "white and spineless, without any traces of intellectual honesty".
Problem: People don't trust Facebook and are less engaged because they either feel it's just a thinly veiled mechanism to shove them into marketing segements, or because they're uncomfortable with the cooperation with snoops.
Solution: PR campaign. Yeah, Facebook is "just a company", and "needs" to make money at whatever cost, so all of this and worse would be to expected in utopian capitalism, but Skinner showed us ways around that.
Instead of, you know, having a decent society, this article is about the tools we are supposed to use in broken one. It's sweet, but no thanks, because it just sticks between the teeth and makes you fat. Can't think well with a fat brain.
Against this analysis, however, is the empirical fact that plenty of people did work hard and take risks under Communism - the Soviet space program is one obvious example.
It seems that in practice, a reward does not need to be an economic return in order to be an incentive. There are other kinds of rewards: eg awards, prizes, or honours. Most militaries use rewards of this kind.
If you agree with the premise of the article, social agreements which can be trusted are vital when an individual is deciding to take risks. One side of this is ensuring rewards for successful risk-taking. A 100% 'tax' as you describe in utopian communism, or widespread corruption, or a bad legal system, etc, all redue the possibility of seeing possible rewards.
The other side of the coin is risk limiting. Healthcare, retirement, children's education, bankruptcy protections, unemployment, etc, all affect risk-taking decisions in a similar way.
'Socialist' protections can thus strengthen capitalistic behavior.
Hacker news isn't for politics so please keep your horrible political ignorance off of here. You don't appear to have any clue what you're talking about and probably don't understand most of the terms you used. There's no point in discussing it, just please don't do it here anymore.
This really resonates with how counter productive the review system is a Microsoft, especially at and above the middle levels, the incentives become decoupled from effort and productivity.
When doing good work was reasonably correlated with promotion, stock and pay the system worked. When what was measured became uncertain the system falls apart
17 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 47.6 ms ] threadI trust they'll bring more, that's why I wait and work hard.
Along similar lines, I believe that individuals can make decisions that go counter to the incentives provided to them.
But, when you take an aggregate of thousands or more of individuals, you can often predict accurately that the aggregate behaviors will align with the incentives in the system.
You'll find where there is accountability & consequences & FEEDBACK, then things improve.
This article is just one dimension of that larger concept on feedback & incentives.
When people start to associate work with endless subordination and minuscule reward, they're effectively conditioned for laziness (in the long term). They stop believing that anything is worth waiting more than 10 minutes for.
Incentives power everything -- good and bad. Looking at the financial crisis of 2009, rent seekers taking advantage of Medicaid, etc. You could come up with a million examples.
Good incentives are life really.. look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs. I believe most people work because they have to, but most people who work hard, work hard because they want to. The pay off is growth, progress, self-actualisation.
As an aside, this is why I question the whole gamification thing. The best games life-ify the game. Why would you want to remove meaning and complexity from work?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5981630
Obviously, in the end everyone will be equal, equally improductive. Equally poor.
I wish people at least spoke for themselves. Because know of a lot of examples where I went above and beyond simply because I felt good about the work and enjoyed finding out about and increasing my potential. I can work hard in a cancer ward for lodging and meals and love it; but you could hardly pay me enough to sell people something they don't need, or that actually hurts them. I know I'm not alone with that either, I am in awesome, priceless company.
Ever watched horses in the wild? Or dogs play? They exert themselves because they can. Those who need to be forced or tricked are sick.
Then there is also this: "The trouble with the rat race is, even if you win it, you're still a rat." (Lily Tomlin) Capitalism doesn't solve anything, it just shifts the problem out of the range of short-sighted people. Even those often feel it subconsciously, and cannot hide their confusion and despair trickling through the cracks of the facade.
This article essentially points out that humans have defensive strategies in situations of uncertainty and distrust. The suggested reaction is not to reflect on what causes them, where they might be justified and where they might not -- but simply assumes as given that "life isn't fair" and that it would help to better deceive people into thinking it was. I'm making another connection to marshmallows here: "white and spineless, without any traces of intellectual honesty".
Problem: People don't trust Facebook and are less engaged because they either feel it's just a thinly veiled mechanism to shove them into marketing segements, or because they're uncomfortable with the cooperation with snoops.
Solution: PR campaign. Yeah, Facebook is "just a company", and "needs" to make money at whatever cost, so all of this and worse would be to expected in utopian capitalism, but Skinner showed us ways around that.
Instead of, you know, having a decent society, this article is about the tools we are supposed to use in broken one. It's sweet, but no thanks, because it just sticks between the teeth and makes you fat. Can't think well with a fat brain.
It seems that in practice, a reward does not need to be an economic return in order to be an incentive. There are other kinds of rewards: eg awards, prizes, or honours. Most militaries use rewards of this kind.
If you agree with the premise of the article, social agreements which can be trusted are vital when an individual is deciding to take risks. One side of this is ensuring rewards for successful risk-taking. A 100% 'tax' as you describe in utopian communism, or widespread corruption, or a bad legal system, etc, all redue the possibility of seeing possible rewards.
The other side of the coin is risk limiting. Healthcare, retirement, children's education, bankruptcy protections, unemployment, etc, all affect risk-taking decisions in a similar way.
'Socialist' protections can thus strengthen capitalistic behavior.
When doing good work was reasonably correlated with promotion, stock and pay the system worked. When what was measured became uncertain the system falls apart