This is exactly the kind of conventional wisdom that needs to be actually tested, rather than assumed.

exactly, reading through the article, the researcher got a lot of negative feedback (death threats) throughout the course. He wasn't ever saying we necessarily should be providing financial incentives, but he was asking if they work or not before automatically deciding against them.

it reminds me of an article I read about some organization doing scientific studies on charity. I wish I had the link handy.

There was once instance where people would charge people in 3rd world countries a nominal fee for HIV medications, thinking that the compliance in taking the medications would increase if you assigned some non-zero value to it. they did a formal study and found that it was less effective overall than just giving away the medicine.

Yes, you're probably right. I'm just always stumped by the part where you can't try a dry-run in educational theory- you actually have to try it out, and you run the risk of screwing up a kid's education.

Seems easier than the situation in medicine. I have fewer moral qualms about testing experimental educational techniques on students than I do about testing experimental medicine on patients, especially if the students (or the students' parents) are compensated by an amount that make them willing subjects.

See, what if they can never be intrinsically motivated? no body wants to do "work" - by providing extrinsic motivation, you at least achieve the result (of making them learn something). Who knows, why might even become good at what they learnt, and turns that into a career.

If someone can't ever be intrinsically motivated, then they are likely suffering from psychological inertia (apathy) and there are other, more pertinent issues to address. IANAPsychologist