Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> On Mon, 24 May 2010 07:14:08 +0200, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
>>
>> who was offered what? was everyone competing for top rewards?  i don't 
>> get it.
> 
> The test was performed several times, each time with different levels of 
> reward offered. The participants competing for big rewards did worse 
> than those competing for small (or no) rewards.

Okay well, that is not how he presents it!  He clearly states that 
reward follows accomplishment on the little staircase.  So then I want 
to know who it is that ends up falling through the top stair.  They 
should never have made it to the top stair.

I also find it suspicious that just as he segues to his little reversal 
of cause and effect, each time, he goes on a little detour into 
something completely unrelated and emotionally charged such as stereo 
types about the political leanings of the study's sponsor, or the 
scholastic pedigree of the experimenters.
> 
> Admittedly, he does kind of confuse things in that video, especially 
> with the drawings. Neeum Zawan linked to a better video, one that even 
> has a citation for the experiment:
> http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_pink_on_motivation.html
> 
> 
> 

thanks I'll take a look.

Post a reply to this message