4 ms·

If you have an opportunity to make money, it can be a great motivator to take risk and innovate. Without that increase in compensation, the risk/reward calculat

If you have an opportunity to make money, it can be a great motivator to take risk and innovate. Without that increase in compensation, the risk/reward calculation changes, making it less likely to justify innovation.

naasking 9y ago
> If you have an opportunity to make money, it can be a great motivator to take risk and innovate. Artists don't have a financial motives. They're often poor, and yet they continue to pursue their art. People will do things that give them purpose and provide them meaning, that will never change. But if the financial incentive is removed, you won't crowd the field with people whose only purpose is to make money.
- ameister14 9y ago
  I've been involved with the art world since I was a child, and I can tell you that artists definitely have financial motives. It's not the only thing motivating them, but it plays a role. People don't just have one motivation, you see. If I have a desire to do something but it isn't strong enough to follow through, other factors can motivate me to complete the goal. Sure, some people will starve for art. Most of the time, that's not because they desire to become as skilled as possible, but because they desire social and moral superiority and associate poverty with status and acceptance in their community. I don't personally see that 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.
  - naasking 9y ago
    > If I have a desire to do something but it isn't strong enough to follow through, other factors can motivate me to complete the goal. 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.
    - ameister14 9y ago
      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.
      - naasking 9y ago
        > 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.

naasking 9y ago

> If you have an opportunity to make money, it can be a great motivator to take risk and innovate. Artists don't have a financial motives. They're often poor, and yet they continue to pursue their art. People will do things that give them purpose and provide them meaning, that will never change. But if the financial incentive is removed, you won't crowd the field with people whose only purpose is to make money.

ameister14 9y ago
I've been involved with the art world since I was a child, and I can tell you that artists definitely have financial motives. It's not the only thing motivating them, but it plays a role. People don't just have one motivation, you see. If I have a desire to do something but it isn't strong enough to follow through, other factors can motivate me to complete the goal. Sure, some people will starve for art. Most of the time, that's not because they desire to become as skilled as possible, but because they desire social and moral superiority and associate poverty with status and acceptance in their community. I don't personally see that 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.
- naasking 9y ago
  > If I have a desire to do something but it isn't strong enough to follow through, other factors can motivate me to complete the goal. 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.
  - ameister14 9y ago
    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.
    - naasking 9y ago
      > 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.