Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 05/23/10 07:39, Jim Charter wrote:
>>>     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.
> 
> 	Um, perhaps. Not sure I'm parsing you correctly.
> 
> 	The point is that offering a larger sum to get the job done led to
> lower performance (slower, etc) for tasks that require more advanced
> thinking.
> 
People paid higher rewards were simply no different from people offered 
lower rewards?  Or people doing such tasks who were paid lower rewards 
performed better than those being paid higher?

The reward high or low was not at all attached to production?

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 23 May 2010 19:08:42 +0200, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> People paid higher rewards were simply no different from people offered  
> lower rewards?  Or people doing such tasks who were paid lower rewards  
> performed better than those being paid higher?

The latter.



> The reward high or low was not at all attached to production?

There was a negative correlation between reward and performance.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 23 May 2010 16:08:38 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Who is this guy, and how the heck does is draw so fast? That's amazing!

He doesn't, the video is sped up to keep pace with the lecture.

> Also, where did he get an infinite whiteboard from??

I've taught in classrooms that had whiteboards big enough to accommodate 
something like this - it doesn't look to me like it needed a *lot* of 
space, really.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Who is this guy, and how the heck does is draw so fast? That's amazing!
> 
> He doesn't, the video is sped up to keep pace with the lecture.

Yeah, I know that. ;-)

But in seriousness... I could stand in front of a board for several 
weeks and not draw anything this good. Man, those drawing classes really 
paid off. :-(

>> Also, where did he get an infinite whiteboard from??
> 
> I've taught in classrooms that had whiteboards big enough to accommodate 
> something like this - it doesn't look to me like it needed a *lot* of 
> space, really.

Really? I've never seen one larger than about 6 feet across.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 23 May 2010 22:04:55 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> Who is this guy, and how the heck does is draw so fast? That's
>>> amazing!
>> 
>> He doesn't, the video is sped up to keep pace with the lecture.
> 
> Yeah, I know that. ;-)

I thought that might be the case, but you've surprised us before. ;-)

> But in seriousness... I could stand in front of a board for several
> weeks and not draw anything this good. Man, those drawing classes really
> paid off. :-(

Some people have a knack; some people don't.  I couldn't draw like that 
either.

>>> Also, where did he get an infinite whiteboard from??
>> 
>> I've taught in classrooms that had whiteboards big enough to
>> accommodate something like this - it doesn't look to me like it needed
>> a *lot* of space, really.
> 
> Really? I've never seen one larger than about 6 feet across.

Yeah, really.

In a couple of our so-called "warrooms", the entire wall - ceiling to 
floor, corner to corner - is all whiteboard.

The two larger classrooms in our office in Provo are easily 25'x5' in 
size.

But even in standard classrooms that I teach in (with 4-15 students) 
typically have whiteboards that are the width of the room.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> In a couple of our so-called "warrooms", the entire wall - ceiling to 
> floor, corner to corner - is all whiteboard.

Sun Computers wallpapered their entire cafeteria in whiteboard wallpaper and 
left markers all around the room.  The only problem was every visitor had to 
be taken out to lunch, because the whole caf had trade secrets written all 
over the walls.

-- 
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

Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> On Sun, 23 May 2010 19:08:42 +0200, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
>> People paid higher rewards were simply no different from people 
>> offered lower rewards?  Or people doing such tasks who were paid lower 
>> rewards performed better than those being paid higher?
> 
> The latter.
> 
> 
> 
>> The reward high or low was not at all attached to production?
> 
> There was a negative correlation between reward and performance.
> 
> 
> 
No, in fact he flips it.

First he says of the study with the students that to
'incentivise performance'
'there were three levels of reward'
'if you did pretty well you got a small reward, medium well you got a 
medium reward, and really well you got a large cash prize'

so reward is attached to performance, the reward amount follows 
performance, depends on performance

then he goes on to summarize the results in the opposite order

for 'mechanical skills the higher the pay the better the performance'
for 'rudimentary cognitive skills the higher reward led to poorer 
performance'

so now he has performance following the reward, performance depending on 
reward



then he describes second study as being set up 'roughly as follows'

'small performance, low performance, two weeks salary,
medium performance, about a months salary,
high performance, about two months salary'
so he leaves the order a little vague though he does list performance 
then reward, and again he describes the 'incentives' as 'rewards' 
suggesting it follows on performance
then again he describes the results in the opposite order, that the 
rewards 'led' to performance.
at this point a lot depends on the word 'offer' which can be ambiguous 
in the context but still we have the word 'reward'
those 'offered medium reward do no better than those offered small 
reward, but the people offered the top reward, they did worst of all'

this is the sleight of hand I am bothered by.

who was offered what? was everyone competing for top rewards?  i don't 
get it.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> Sun Computers wallpapered their entire cafeteria in whiteboard wallpaper 
> and left markers all around the room.  The only problem was every 
> visitor had to be taken out to lunch, because the whole caf had trade 
> secrets written all over the walls.

Haha! Nice way to shoot yourself in the foot. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

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.

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



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

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