5 ms·

The beeminder theory is undermining by the very concept of money, especially credit cards, which removes the short term cost of losing money. A simpler way to

The beeminder theory is undermining by the very concept of money, especially credit cards, which removes the short term cost of losing money. A simpler way to get the same result is to make the future present by surrounding yourself with pictures of your goals.

dreeves 6y ago
Ah, I don't agree but that's an interesting point that I could see being true for some people. I think mostly there's plenty of short-term cost to derailing a Beeminder goal and getting the alert "we are now charging you $X". Not as good as handing over cash but still pretty good! I definitely disagree that surrounding yourself with pictures of your goals is comparable. I mean, it can't hurt and maybe for some people it's enough, but for me personally, for example, things like that just fade into the background for me and lose their effectiveness. A commitment device (monetary or otherwise) doesn't let that happen!
TACIXAT 6y ago
Just looked beeminder up. If anyone else doesn't know it's goal tracking and contracts where you pay them if you fail. I'd feel a lot better about that if they were doing something positive with the money, like donating.
- andreilys 6y ago
  Lookup stickk who donates to an anti charity
  - dreeves 6y ago
    Thanks, yes! Here are all the other commitment device apps we know of: https://blog.beeminder.com/competitors/ https://blog.beeminder.com/competitors/ But as I said to Maneesh above, I think anti-charities are anti-good. https://blog.beeminder.com/anticharity/ https://blog.beeminder.com/anticharity/
- maneesh 6y ago
  If they donate to something you approve of, often people will excuse their failures by saying “at least the money is going to a good cause” when I made my bets to places I don’t approve of—-well I would never lose a bet where I had money to the KKK on the line, I’ll tell you that
  - dreeves 6y ago
    Hi Maneesh! I'm actually opposed to anti-charities because I think they're bad for the world and not necessary -- you can get equal motivation with a neutral (non-evil) 3rd party, as long as you make the amount at risk high enough. More at https://blog.beeminder.com/anticharity/ https://blog.beeminder.com/anticharity/ PS: As you know I'm a huge fan of Pavlok -- https://pavlok.com/ https://pavlok.com/ -- and definitely don't think that my arguments against anti-charities apply to it even though they're both very punishment focused. Pavlok (obviously I'm saying this for others, not Maneesh, founder of Pavlok!) is more about classical conditioning while Beeminder is more operant conditioning.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dreeves 6y ago
  Oops, yes, I should've mentioned what Beeminder is! Thanks! We get that a lot ("where does the money go? wait, you do _what_ with it??") but I'm surprised to hear that pushback on Hacker News. Is the existence of Beeminder not "something positive"? More at https://blog.beeminder.com/defail/ https://blog.beeminder.com/defail/
  - TACIXAT 6y ago
    It just feels like giving money to a stranger which I have no desire to do. I'd still not be happy about giving money to a charity or friend but I could stomach it. I think donating some small percentage (3% to 10%) of your profit to a neutral cause (hunger, bee conservation) would solve any friction for me.
    - dreeves 6y ago
      Beeminder does have a charity option but it's a premium feature in the most expensive premium plan. Also when we / Beeminder derail on our own goals we pay our users. Not sure if either of those things make it feel ok. I guess we're keen for you to feel like we're any other SaaS that you're happy to pay for. Beeminder makes you awesomer and you pay for that, just at random times, or when you most need a kick in the pants, instead of a fixed monthly amount (though that too if you want a premium plan). If Beeminder isn't worth it overall then you'll stop using it; it's not really the perverse "make money when your users fail" that it seems prima facie. There's a myopic sense in which that's true but overall it's quite the opposite! As must be the case for us to have stuck around for 9 years.
- ByteJockey 6y ago
  That actually would reduce the incentive to accomplish the goal, wouldn't it? Ideally you want something the person doesn't like to happen, that way you feel like you're doing real good (preventing harm) by accomplishing your goal. Like an alarm clock I saw once that donates a dollar to a political party you hate every time you hit the snooze button.

dreeves 6y ago

Ah, I don't agree but that's an interesting point that I could see being true for some people. I think mostly there's plenty of short-term cost to derailing a Beeminder goal and getting the alert "we are now charging you $X". Not as good as handing over cash but still pretty good! I definitely disagree that surrounding yourself with pictures of your goals is comparable. I mean, it can't hurt and maybe for some people it's enough, but for me personally, for example, things like that just fade into the background for me and lose their effectiveness. A commitment device (monetary or otherwise) doesn't let that happen!

TACIXAT 6y ago

Just looked beeminder up. If anyone else doesn't know it's goal tracking and contracts where you pay them if you fail. I'd feel a lot better about that if they were doing something positive with the money, like donating.

andreilys 6y ago
Lookup stickk who donates to an anti charity
- dreeves 6y ago
  Thanks, yes! Here are all the other commitment device apps we know of: https://blog.beeminder.com/competitors/ https://blog.beeminder.com/competitors/ But as I said to Maneesh above, I think anti-charities are anti-good. https://blog.beeminder.com/anticharity/ https://blog.beeminder.com/anticharity/
maneesh 6y ago
If they donate to something you approve of, often people will excuse their failures by saying “at least the money is going to a good cause” when I made my bets to places I don’t approve of—-well I would never lose a bet where I had money to the KKK on the line, I’ll tell you that
- dreeves 6y ago
  Hi Maneesh! I'm actually opposed to anti-charities because I think they're bad for the world and not necessary -- you can get equal motivation with a neutral (non-evil) 3rd party, as long as you make the amount at risk high enough. More at https://blog.beeminder.com/anticharity/ https://blog.beeminder.com/anticharity/ PS: As you know I'm a huge fan of Pavlok -- https://pavlok.com/ https://pavlok.com/ -- and definitely don't think that my arguments against anti-charities apply to it even though they're both very punishment focused. Pavlok (obviously I'm saying this for others, not Maneesh, founder of Pavlok!) is more about classical conditioning while Beeminder is more operant conditioning.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dreeves 6y ago
Oops, yes, I should've mentioned what Beeminder is! Thanks! We get that a lot ("where does the money go? wait, you do _what_ with it??") but I'm surprised to hear that pushback on Hacker News. Is the existence of Beeminder not "something positive"? More at https://blog.beeminder.com/defail/ https://blog.beeminder.com/defail/
- TACIXAT 6y ago
  It just feels like giving money to a stranger which I have no desire to do. I'd still not be happy about giving money to a charity or friend but I could stomach it. I think donating some small percentage (3% to 10%) of your profit to a neutral cause (hunger, bee conservation) would solve any friction for me.
  - dreeves 6y ago
    Beeminder does have a charity option but it's a premium feature in the most expensive premium plan. Also when we / Beeminder derail on our own goals we pay our users. Not sure if either of those things make it feel ok. I guess we're keen for you to feel like we're any other SaaS that you're happy to pay for. Beeminder makes you awesomer and you pay for that, just at random times, or when you most need a kick in the pants, instead of a fixed monthly amount (though that too if you want a premium plan). If Beeminder isn't worth it overall then you'll stop using it; it's not really the perverse "make money when your users fail" that it seems prima facie. There's a myopic sense in which that's true but overall it's quite the opposite! As must be the case for us to have stuck around for 9 years.
ByteJockey 6y ago
That actually would reduce the incentive to accomplish the goal, wouldn't it? Ideally you want something the person doesn't like to happen, that way you feel like you're doing real good (preventing harm) by accomplishing your goal. Like an alarm clock I saw once that donates a dollar to a political party you hate every time you hit the snooze button.