I could be wrong, but I took the parent's comment to mean that we should design incentive structures transparently, instead of obscuring them or outright ignoring the whole concept when engineering society.
At this point I'm so used to this that I mentally translate "for health" into "to look good for the opposite sex".
It’s funny how those incentives are so well aligned.
Re:Fraud, so much fraud
by tsimionescu on Saturday September 28, 2024 @10:54AM
(#41680614)
That's reductive, some of use are doing it to look good for the same sex!
You got it backwards. It's not about being transparent about what you want to achieve, it's about being transparent about what others expect you to achieve on your current position.
To check my understanding: say your current position is "unemployed." You would think that the expectation for you is to "get a job", but to get a job is extremely difficult. You have to navigate an almost adversarial job market and recruiting process, often for months. It's essentially a massive negative incentive, considering all of the effort and grief involved. So, the incentives aren't aligned with the desired outcome; the skittishness of each individual hiring company to make sure that they don't get screwed by a bad hire has warped the entire dynamic. Is this a good example?
If you say that your incentive for working out is to look good and be popular with the ladies then people will judge you for it, even if it's exactly the truth. If you say that you work out "for health" everyone will applaud you for what you're doing. And yet the outcome is going to be the same.