7 ms·
Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us
- ulvund 16y agoWhat a great way to watch a lecture
- zacharyvoase 16y agoPerhaps the reason most economic approaches fail to predict this kind of behaviour is because they forget that money by itself is not a motivator—it’s only ever a means to an end for all who use it. Money gives you the freedom to make choices and spend time doing other things—the autonomy and mastery that Dan Pink was talking about. However, earning more money but being stuck in the same job renders this increase in salary effectively useless, because you don’t stand to gain any satisfaction simply by having the money.
- asdflkj 16y agoIt would be interesting to see if in the companies that have a "culture of quitting", money is an additional motivator. $20k worth of crap isn't that exciting, but a year's runway is. This might shed light on whether this is about a mistaken identification of money with value, or if people value the present that much more than the future. The latter would be more profound. Unfortunately, those companies either already basically pay enough (e.g. Google), or they're startups where giving employees more money than necessary is almost certainly the wrong thing to do.
- zacharyvoase 16y agoIt’s worth mentioning that the underlying concept is Marginal Utility: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility
- pedrokost 16y agoThe lecture sounded really familiar - from here: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_pink_on_motivation.html http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_pink_on_motivation.htm...
- nnutter 16y agoI thought I had seen this before. I remembered some candle/tacks/box task. I believe it was this TED video.
- jonpaul 16y agoThis is one of the best books I've read. As an entrepreneur, it will get you to think differently on how you motivate people. Before, I use to think that if I pay a person to do a task that should be sufficient. Now, I encourage purpose and deliver a vision. You would be amazed at how easy it is to 'rally the troops' by doing this. Read this book now.
- enntwo 16y agoI have had this book on my shelf for a few months now, yet I had never read it, nor really planned on it. That's different now, I will try to start tonight.
- rokhayakebe 16y agoI apologize for sounding ignorant, but what is the book? Edit: Got it. Thanks.
- jonparis 16y agoStrongly agree. The book is a quick read and has broad implications. I worked with the author (Daniel Pink) to create a mobile app based on the book. Daniel is a great guy who lives what he writes. Plug: the app is free and called "Dan the Motivation Roo" currently on Android only
- briancooley 16y agoThe "Back to the Future" bit at 7:05 or so was very funny. I was kind of skeptical to watch a video with content I had already seen as a TED talk and nearly clicked back before it started. Once it started, I was immediately engaged, and reading parts of the talk satisfied a certain part of my brain.
- thorax 16y agoYeah-- I was just thinking that if every lecture in school was this way, how could I not stay engaged and absorb it?
- itistoday 16y agoBecause if every lecture was that way, then that style would be the norm, and therefore almost by definition you probably wouldn't be engaged, just as you aren't engaged to the norm now, and seek out unique and interesting—novel things.
- albemuth 16y agoSal Khan gave an interesting hypothesis about why his lectures were more engaging (he uses a blackboard) than a traditional one with a person in the front. I recommend watching the video, but his point is that we tend to focus on the person, the movement of the hands. When you remove the person, you're sort of left with a voice inside your head explaining stuff. http://vimeo.com/11731351 http://vimeo.com/11731351
- peregrine 16y agoEvery reason he described there is pertinent to this video. Thanks so much for posting this, I don't know why I skipped it when it made its rounds the other day.
- stat 16y agoThank you for posting this! I went on his youtube channel to see what it's all about and I ended up watching the first 7 lessons in Biology... and I had 3 or 4 "gotchas" that I never got in school... man this is fun. I'm sure to continue watching this stuff. I want to watch it all!
- ak555 16y agoDoes anybody have any idea which software was used to create the RSA animated series?
- adammichaelc 16y agoIt seems plausible that it was done by hand and then sped up to match the speed of the talk.
- nikhilpandit 16y agoAt the end of the video it says images were done by "cognitive media". Here's a link to that company: http://www.cognitivemedia.co.uk/ http://www.cognitivemedia.co.uk/
- bryanh 16y agoBeautiful presentation of a presentation! If you are like me and usually just scan the comments of HN, don't miss this one!
- ccarpenterg 16y agoMoney is overrated. Time is undervalued. However, not everyone wants to make a contribution. And high incentives can improve the perfomance of people who wants a collateral reward of money like social status.
- techiferous 16y ago"And high incentives can improve the perfomance of people who wants a collateral reward of money like social status." Do you have any science to back that up?
- thunk 16y agoAww, man. I wanted it to pan out and show the whole mural at the end.
- stat 16y agoIf what he says is true, then that means Diaspora will fail, because of the huge amount of funding they got.
- loup-vaillant 16y agoNo, for a simple reason: they already got the money. If this money would be delivered only upon some milestone of the project, I would have agreed. The fact is, once the funding round is finished, once they actually start to work, they will receive naught. On the contrary, money had been put out of the equation, at least for a time. And their very first motivation wasn't money. It was Eben Moglen's talk[1]. Pure idealism. Four geeks in their proverbial garage set out do destroy an evil corporation is exactly the right kind of incentive. They have independence, they probably seek mastery, and they have a purpose. Sure, they could become greedy and just want to get rich like an americally dreamt start-up founder, but I think this is unlikely. Failure will come from another factors, if at all. [1]: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2010/feb/01/freedom-cloud-software-freedom-privacy-and-securit/ http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2010/feb/01/freedom-clou...
- bad_user 16y ago> And their very first motivation wasn't money. It was Eben Moglen's talk[1]. Pure idealism. If you believe in pure idealism, then you must also believe in Santa Claus. > Four geeks in their proverbial garage set out do destroy an evil corporation is exactly the right kind of incentive Even in the open-source world, people don't brag about their pet projects until they've got at least a preliminary design to show. I like developers that deliver ... like Linus, when he was criticized for Bitkeeper, he came out of nowhere with Git.
- loup-vaillant 16y agoYou will note that you didn't contradict me at all. Let me repeat: the Diaspora founders have independence (the proverbial garage and the financial relief). They also probably seek mastery (they are techno-geeks). Finally, they have a purpose (destroying the busness model of Facebook, as advocated by Eben Moglen). Now, on to your points: > Even in the open-source world, people don't brag about their pet projects until they've got at least a preliminary design to show. I like developers that deliver I actually agree with that. This is of course a major point against Diaspora. That said, I doubt they expected such a buzz. Don't forget my primary point: their incentives increases the odds of success. I didn't talk about the initial odds. > If you believe in pure idealism, then you must also believe in Santa Claus. I'm not sure I get your meaning. I just said that their primary motivation was a purely idealistic one. As told in the submitted video, idealism is one of the most efficient incentives. The thing is, he called that "purpose", which cleverly avoids the negative connotation of "idealism". The negative connotation of "idealism" worries me, because we need idealism. For instance, you surely know that exponential growth, continued exploitation of the south, systematic destruction of the soil just can't go one forever. They will stop, one way or another. To put it bluntly, our civilization as we know it won't last. Now, I see two ways our civilization could change: (1) We continue to prefer short term maximization over long term planning. We rush to deplete the remaining resources. We continue to over-exploit and destroy our soil. A major biologic crisis ensues (that one has already started, by the way). Humanity starves and go back to a pre-feudal state, or falls prey to an oligarchy and eat Soylent Green. (2) We think long term. We cooperate. We use the remaining oil to bootstrap renewable energies. We take care of our soil. The biologic crisis is mitigated. Humanity mostly lives in the countryside, and eats organic crops. I'm probably wrong about the details, but the main point remain: our civilization will eventually change drastically. We could make the transition smooth and painless, or we can let it be sudden and nasty. Our choice.
- sp332 16y agoI'm pretty sure I disagree with the moral. Does anyone really contribute to Wikipedia for the sense of mastery it gives them? Do you think the NSA releases their Linux kernel patches to increase the agency's autonomy? Do you think that most open source and free culture advocates are altruists motivated by a drive to give their stuff away to other people? No, they do it because it improves the world they live in - for them. Enlightened self-interest is still self-interest. Also, the dissing on economists just rubs me the wrong way.
- InclinedPlane 16y agoQuite so. It's sometimes easy to forget that making the world a better place can still be a very selfish act. Consider the man living in a world he hates, with all the money in the world, vs. a man living in a world he enjoys, with comparatively less individual wealth. In a very real sense the 2nd man is better off. A lot of this has become baked into the cultural DNA of the west. Cooperation pays dividends. Today's J. Average Middle-class Everyman living in the 1st world is much, much better off than very nearly every king, despot, prince, and emperor throughout history.
- loup-vaillant 16y ago> making the world a better place can still be a very selfish act You sound like such selfness is actually concious. I don't think so. We're not Machiavellian machines, gauging the consequences of each of our deeds. For example, I bet most Wikipedia contributors don't especially want to help building the world's most comprehensive encyclopaedia, but just want to share a bit of their knowledge, or just don't like to see spelling errors.
- bad_user 16y ago> It's sometimes easy to forget that making the world a better place can still be a very selfish act. If only those people would not try to impose their morality on other people, that would truly make the world a better place. Unfortunately some things we never learn. > Cooperation pays dividends Only if you're collaborating with the right people. On the other hand you can get screwed pretty badly ... by people who either steal your work, claiming it as their own, or by people that don't appreciate you (which is a problem when willfully collaborating because that's when you have an inflated ego).
- raintrees 16y agoI wish they had ended it with a shot of the whole board at once - Or maybe even just zoomed slowly out...
- swankpot 16y agoSomewhat related video from Paul Solman at PBS Newshour, on motivation and money: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGyhaZnPtC4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGyhaZnPtC4 (An interview with Dan Pink, author of A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future)
- c4urself 16y agogreat video, almost makes one stressed looking to see if that hand will keep up with the talk though...
- delackner 16y agoDan Ariely's book, Predictably Irrational, presents research that speaks to this issue from another angle: that we perform better at tasks framed in social norms (help a friend) vs tasks (even the same task!) done simply for money.