Hacker News Reader

Comment by gsf_emergency_2 | Hacker News Reader

There's this related phenom which seems paradoxical to me but maybe you can help figure:

Things that are built with money (& not by say, intrinsic motivation alone) seem to have a high ratio of (traction) to (resources invested). Not sure if marketing alone can explain that?

Obvious exceptions come to mind , eg the Linux kernel, but even that was massively boosted by commercial interests.

(One other class of exceptions could be tentatively named "winning the zeitgeist lottery")

If you would agree that this phenom exists in the short to mid time frame: without the likelihood of traction, how can intrinsic meaning alone provide motivation?

View on HN

I would guess a lot of intrinsic motivation is driven a lot by hormones and things like dopamine release when you do something that is really interesting or exciting. I play tennis and absolutely love it, I will never make a dime from doing it, and that's totally okay with me.

Things that are built with money are often done so for scale. Successful things that are built with money often also have people who have some interest in the thing they are building.

Thanks for helping to refine the thinking. I guess the other side of the coin that would be make the paradox interesting is that, in the long term, it has to seem that most of the stuff built with money (but without intrinsically motivated managers) lose out to the stuff built on pure passion. After discounting for a heap of survival bias.

Yeah I guess it really depends on what the measure for success is. As with all things, the answer is probably that products that work really well or are beloved are often a combination of money and passion. Unfortunately, once the product/company reaches a certain threshold, it seems to get bought out and there is only money left, and thus it becomes crap.

This is, as I see it, the tension between wisdom and power.

Wealth, in the modern era, has been a vehicle to achieve power. It is certainly not the only path, but it is the most culturally universal path to influence the effort of others available today. When we set our ambitions towards lofty outcomes that require power to accomplish, we inevitably run into the capacity constraints involved with being a single person.

Money is a path to acquiring sufficient power to realize goals. Power itself is amoral, and the idealist with good intentions must inevitably conclude that power is a requirement to realize big dreams.

But, effort is also power. For our sanity, wisdom would have us focus on our efforts, with every moment we have, rather than whether or not we achieve the goal. I'll also add that AI is increasing the scope of what our efforts alone can accomplish, for good and bad.

To achieve large goals, pragmatism would require us to derive meaning and purpose from the effort put towards those ends, rather than the attainment of the goal. Think this is best described as an 'open purpose'.

Edit: if I were to put myself in Archimedes' shoes, motivation comes from "this is nuts but it could work" and meaning comes from "it works!"

>Money is a path to acquiring sufficient power

Power and money are almost interchangeable, and I'm taking a wild guess that better questions are hidden in that "almost" (as you say, "wisdom+effort", but I'd have to sleep on that for a few nights in order not to casually one-up that with "precience")

I'd tend to disagree they're interchangeable, although it may feel like it for many things. Our culture certainly wants people to equate the two, because if people believe in the myth that money = power, money has more power.

However, I'd encourage you to contemplate all the things that money can't "buy."

I categorize power not as the sum total of capability to dominate, or purchase, but influence belief, shape motivation, and inspire action.

Our body can develop power over the physical world. Our mind can develop power over the world of myths and information. Our ability to communicate can develop motivation in others through belief, inspiration, and hope.

Money can out-source, to acquire the power and resources of others.

There are many ways to power - Money is a centrally dominant one, today, but is predicated on a certain order to the world and is not universal.

So "traction", as in, many people using your creation, is the only form of worthwhile meaning? Sounds like you believe external validation is the only form of worthwhile meaning?

Edit: if I were to put myself in Archimedes' shoes, motivation comes from "this is nuts but it could work" and meaning comes from "it works!"

More like survival. I think of Archimedes' letters to the librarian of Alexandria, describing his secret technique of infinitessimals. It seems clear that he knew his work was meaningful but he wasnt going to die without telling anybody about it. He wasn't looking for validation, he didn't need it

Reply on news.ycombinator.com