 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
watch at least the first minute of this.
http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/2010/04/08/rsa-animate-drive/
It's an interesting talk anyway, and over in 10 minutes, so it's worth watching.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:14:42 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> It's an interesting talk anyway, and over in 10 minutes, so it's worth
> watching.
Interesting talk, the presentation style reminds me a little bit of
http://prezi.com/
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/2010/04/08/rsa-animate-drive/
I think the point about having or not having someone constantly managing
what you are doing can work both ways, though.
If I have understood correctly, when John Romero founded his own company
(Ion Storm) in 1996, his basic idea was to have a friendly work environment
with lots of freedom and little management pressure, where programmers and
artists had more independency and freedom to do things at their own pace in
their own terms.
This (among other things) resulted to be a bad choice. The lack of
management, of a leader who would manage the whole, and who would clearly
instruct each department of what and how they would do things, resulted in
lots of miscommunication, wasted work and frustration.
On the other hand, the Duke Nukem Forever project by 3D Realms (which went
for over 10 years) might be a good example of monetary rewards being, indeed,
demotivational rather than the other way around, as contradictory as that
might sound. Seemingly the project didn't finally crash because of lack
of funding, but on the contrary, because there was *too much* funding.
Ironically, too much funding caused stagnation and lack of motivation.
There was no pressure, no deadlines, no actual motivation to do work in
order to earn the money...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> watch at least the first minute of this.
>
> http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/2010/04/08/rsa-animate-drive/
>
> It's an interesting talk anyway, and over in 10 minutes, so it's worth
> watching.
I don't understand the experiment. What does he mean "people offered
the high reward" did poorly. Does that mean no one actually received
the high reward? I'm confused.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/05/2010 8:14 PM, Darren New wrote:
> watch at least the first minute of this.
>
> http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/2010/04/08/rsa-animate-drive/
>
> It's an interesting talk anyway, and over in 10 minutes, so it's worth
> watching.
Sorry, it was over in much less than 10 minutes.
I’ve heard of and suffered “Death by PowerPoint” and this is a good
example of insulting the viewer’s intelligence.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/22/10 08:46, Jim Charter wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> watch at least the first minute of this.
>>
>> http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/2010/04/08/rsa-animate-drive/
>>
>> It's an interesting talk anyway, and over in 10 minutes, so it's worth
>> watching.
> I don't understand the experiment. What does he mean "people offered
> the high reward" did poorly. Does that mean no one actually received
> the high reward? I'm confused.
They performed worse than those who weren't offered an award, or
offered a low award.
--
Whose cruel idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have a "S" in it?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/22/10 09:04, Stephen wrote:
> On 21/05/2010 8:14 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> watch at least the first minute of this.
>>
>> http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/2010/04/08/rsa-animate-drive/
>>
>> It's an interesting talk anyway, and over in 10 minutes, so it's worth
>> watching.
>
> Sorry, it was over in much less than 10 minutes.
> I’ve heard of and suffered “Death by PowerPoint” and this is a good
> example of insulting the viewer’s intelligence.
Well, OK. Watch his other talk at TED then:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_pink_on_motivation.html
Also, he references Dan Ariely, who himself has two TED talks. And
Ariely's book (Predictably Irrational) is a pretty good read. It has a
chapter on this topic.
--
Whose cruel idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have a "S" in it?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22/05/2010 5:39 PM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Well, OK. Watch his other talk at TED then:
>
> http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_pink_on_motivation.html
>
> Also, he references Dan Ariely, who himself has two TED talks. And
> Ariely's book (Predictably Irrational) is a pretty good read. It has a
> chapter on this topic.
>
That’s a much better presentation with no gimmicks. As far as the
subject matter goes he is preaching to the converted. ;-)
I suppose the problem is that I am a socialist and an European, these
things are self evident (to most) here.
But I applaud him.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 05/22/10 08:46, Jim Charter wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> watch at least the first minute of this.
>>>
>>> http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/2010/04/08/rsa-animate-drive/
>>>
>>> It's an interesting talk anyway, and over in 10 minutes, so it's worth
>>> watching.
>> I don't understand the experiment. What does he mean "people offered
>> the high reward" did poorly. Does that mean no one actually received
>> the high reward? I'm confused.
>
> They performed worse than those who weren't offered an award, or
> offered a low award.
>
I see so the reward is not based on performance or achievements after
the fact but rather it is paid in the hope of getting high performance
or achievements which never pan out.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On 21/05/2010 8:14 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> watch at least the first minute of this.
>>
>> http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/2010/04/08/rsa-animate-drive/
>>
>> It's an interesting talk anyway, and over in 10 minutes, so it's worth
>> watching.
>
> Sorry, it was over in much less than 10 minutes.
> I’ve heard of and suffered “Death by PowerPoint” and this is a good
> example of insulting the viewer’s intelligence.
>
>
My reaction too, it seems like some kind of scientific veneer is being
pasted on a small set of casual observations surrounding open source
coding and in a rather self-congratulatory way. But maybe the 'studies'
do exist, would like to know about Those, before getting to all the
sweeping conclusions.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
