|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> On Mon, 24 May 2010 07:14:08 +0200, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msn com> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |