Re:Rank-reversal aversion may be causing more social problem...
by ameister14 on Saturday July 15, 2017 @01:57PM
(#14777956)
Sure, but I'm saying that the social reward system and the profit reward system are roughly equivalent in my mind, while the necessity one is superior to both.
If you remove the risk, that changes the calculation too, definitely. That's much harder to do, though, than increasing the reward opportunity or the perception of reward opportunity. Do I believe it is worthwhile to move in that direction? Certainly, but it's frankly impossible to administrate that solution today.
Re:Rank-reversal aversion may be causing more social problem...
by naasking on Sunday July 16, 2017 @09:58AM
(#14781975)
> If you remove the risk, that changes the calculation too, definitely. That's much harder to do, though, than increasing the reward opportunity or the perception of reward opportunity.
I'm not convinced that's true. It hasn't really been tried, and we know that financial incentives make people's work worse through psychological studies, so it's frankly worth trying for that reason alone.
Agreed.
> I don't personally see [social standing motives] as any greater or worse than pure profit motivation, and see it as much worse than a motivation to earn money in order to accomplish other goals, such as feeding, sheltering and clothing family.
But we're talking about financial rewards that far exceed what's needed to feed, shelter and clothe your own family.
You initially mentioned the risk/reward calculation, and rewards certainly affect it, but suppose instead of incentivizing via rewards, we remove the disincentive of risk. You no longer have the exorbitant rewards attracting people who are just after money, but you still encourage innovation for those who have insufficient motive absent high rewards given the risks.