Hacker News Reader

Comment by kazinator | Hacker News Reader

This is actually completely backwards in an ironic way. I have found in the past that when I made a program closed source, for sale, all further incentive to do anything to the program became connected to its revenue. Like, "it hasn't generated any meaningful revenue, so I cannot justify spending another N hours on it unless those hours lead to sales."

Most software that you can buy has little or no revenue, which means you will be one of a scarce set of suckers paying for it. That meagre revenue doesn't pay for the developer resources to improve the program.

Paying for software is like an insurance premium against bugs and issues in that program.

Paying for some unpopular software with few users is like buying insurance from an insurance company that insures only a handful of other policy holders.

View on HN

Alfie Kohn’s Punished by Rewards provided hundreds of sources, tested and re-tested proof, and description of experiments proving over and over again that for humans, extrinsic rewards kill intrinsic motivation.

If you want your child who loves drawing to stop loving it, reward them. If you want them to stop learning, tie a reward to their learning.

It’s very simple, really.

Being able to receive sustainable income for doing what you love doing, is a different formula though. Subtly, but different.

> If you want your child who loves drawing to stop loving it, reward them. If you want them to stop learning, tie a reward to their learning.

Is there a way to achieve the opposite?

> Being able to receive sustainable income for doing what you love doing, is a different formula though.

What is the difference?

To “achieve the opposite”: give up on your agenda for their relationship with drawing, or whatever interest of theirs you want to promote.

Support it when requested, but give support only when requested.

Think of your child as being driven by their enthusiasm and interest. They don’t control these forces and you do t either. Trying to force them kills them. Trying to direct them suffocates them.

So, be there, celebrate what they celebrate, lend an year to their doubts, feel free to offer a bit of support but never insist on it. Watch it grow and maintain the soil; that’s all you can really do.

Compliments are also rewards by the way ;)

I highly recommend taking a look at the book, it’s in most libraries.

So, don't buy hours or drawings, but do buy pencils, paper, brushes and canvases, and show an interest, but don't say OMG what a gorgeous drawing every single time.

Exactly.

It’s their relationship, their art, their journey. Don’t try to become a main character in it. It’s OK to be a benefactor, but don’t try to amplify it or change its course.

I haven't read the material in a while but I think this was sensitive to framing. That is, I don't think it's exactly true that attaching a reward to something harms performance — I think one has to frame the task as being done for the purpose of the reward. If I am remembering this correctly, then emphasizing someone's intrinsic motivation while also providing an extrinsic reward should be ok.

If you happen to remember the material well enough to clarify on this point I would appreciate it :)

If the reward is conditional on performing the task, it triggers the loss of intrinsic motivation.

It is basically a way to hijack the intrinsic reward mechanism and externalize it.

I imagine if you provide support for he activity, regardless of outcome, and regardless of it occurring or not, then the intrinsic motivation may remain in place.

I am not speaking from memory though; I myself would have to look at the book.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com