 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/05/2010 3:44 PM, Jim Charter wrote:
>> 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.
And the graphics, they were good for the first 5 minutes but it was
worse than sub titles on an English film.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Who is this guy, and how the heck does is draw so fast? That's amazing!
Also, where did he get an infinite whiteboard from??
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter wrote:
> 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.
I would think it would be done like regular salaries. We'll pay you $1 per
unit of work, or we'll pay you $10 per unit of work, where a unit of work
might be either carrying buckets of water or writing limericks.
--
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 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.
--
Fax me no questions, I'll Fax you no lies!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
