$250 AWS Credit & a Netbook? Build a Twilio App by Midnight on Sunday
blog.twilio.com
blog.twilio.com
if you're not contracted out to test for vulnerabilities and exploits then there better be some other incentive involved since you're no longer living in your parents basement.
Regardless, no one's restricting you to anything... This is a hacking contest, not a real job, so the choice to just not participate costs you nothing. To me, however, the challenge of building a cool app on a new & innovative API on a very short timeline sounds kind of intriguing actually.
I suppose you don't do anything for fun, just code for money?
Saying "I like to hack for free" is not the same as saying "I like to hack twilio apps on a deadline for free." If twilio were saying, "sign up, do whatever hacking you'd be doing otherwise, and we'll pay you some", it's just stupid not to. But that's not what they're asking. They're asking you to write demo apps for them on spec. That's why it's a little insulting.
Motivation consists of two types: internal (or intrinsic) and external. External is what you do because somebody will reward you, usually with money. Internal is what you do because you love to do it.
In this particular respect, motivation in most people is a zero sum game. If you do something because you love it, and then someone starts paying you for it, the degree to which you do it because you love it must decrease.
That's why many people who love to do something so much they decide to go get paid for it gradually find themselves not liking at all what they used to love to do.
It's not actually a zero-sum game, that's just something you pulled out of your ass.
Quoting social scientists as if they were bearers of truth doesn't really seem like a winning strategy.
Most people who try to do what they love for pay don't really; they end up doing something that requires the same skillset as what they love, and of course they end up miserable as a result.
Psychologists explain it by saying that external rewards reduce intrinsic motivation. An article from the Boston Globe is here: http://www.csse.uwa.edu.au/~pk/motivation.html "If a reward - money, awards, praise, or winning a contest - comes to be seen as the reason one is engaging in an activity, that activity will be viewed as less enjoyable in its own right." Wikipedia also has an interesting article about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overjustification_effect
And the reason it didn't map? Because it tried to introduce an external motivator to coerce hackers to engage in a particular activity that they weren't otherwise intrinsically motivated to perform.
And when did we start giving social "scientists" the final say on these things? Setting up contrived scenarios with children and college students hardly strikes me as definitive. Real scenarios where people are given free reign to do just as they like for pay or meaningful reward are few and far between. "Getting paid to do what you love" usually isn't - it's much more commonly getting paid to do something that requires the same skillset as the thing you love, and it's obvious why that would kill motivation.
Just look around you. People work for money, for sex, for food, for all kinds of external motivators, far more than to fulfill their inner personal happy centers. The fact that some people are miserable because they think they've found their dream job when really it's just another way to pay the bills has other explanations than this weak sauce.
Of course people work for money, for sex, for food, etc. I wasn't saying they don't. What I am saying is that people's intrinsic motivation to do a task is lessened when they're paid to do so. There's a story -- I don't remember where I read it, unfortunately -- that when a group of coders were paid for each bug found, the number of bugs found went up. However, when the bugs-for-pay program ended, the number of bugs found went down. Their intrinsic motivation was lessened when they have extrinsic rewards for doing so -- they no longer looked as hard, or as long for bugs as when their motivation was internal. I don't know why you're calling it "weak sauce"; it's been studied and found to be true. Is there anything beyond "you don't like the idea" that you can cite as reason you think it's false?
I'm also confused why you think your bug story supports your point. Are there lots of developers who derive great personal satisfaction from churning out bug reports? Leaving aside the fact that #bug reports is a shitty metric, they did go up when the reward was introduced. The fact that they went down again after the reward was taken away means absolutely nothing in the context of this conversation, because they weren't internally motivated before.
I think developers do derive personal satisfaction for doing their jobs well, yes. I think that doing your job is an intrinsic motivation.
Bottom line: people do respond to external motivation, all the freaking time, as long as its appropriate to what they're being asked to do. Refusing to be paid to do what you'd be doing anyways, no strings attached, is, plain and simple, irrational. But, in reality, very few people ever get the opportunity to exercise that irrationality, because when someone pays you, there are pretty much always strings attached, and the strings are what are demotivating.
And again, I never argued that people are rational about money, I'm just pointing out that the particular behavior the op talked about was irrational. If you're getting defensive because I'm pointing that out, and you agree that it's irrational, then I don't know what the argument's about.
The fact that studies exist doesn't make their conclusions (or your interpretation of their conclusions) true. The specific studies you brought up in your articles all sounded like they had pretty big flaws, given they were applied to 5 year olds and college kids in contrived situations. If I got a stupid ribbon just for drawing a picture, I'd feel embarrassed and patronized, and of course I wouldn't want to do it again for the same person. That doesn't prove that humans have a weird quirk that responds poorly to external motivators, it just proves they have understandable emotional responses to weird situations. Real life, otoh, provides ample evidence that people respond productively to external motivators all the time.
As for not having a conversation anymore, were we ever? You keep throwing Teh Studies at me, ignoring the reasons I gave for why I don't think they're valid and dinging me for pointing to one that wasn't perfectly applicable to the original situation (even though I was only using it as an example of disagreement with the studies you had brought up, some of which themselves weren't perfectly applicable, either). If you want to pretend like you're the dignified salon member adhering to the rules of civilized discourse, that's fine, but I don't think it's accurate.
(took a surprising amount of time for me to figure out what exactly Twilio offers, as I had never heard of them before...)
-danielle at Twilio
i didn't even bother looking--immediately opened a new tab and google for twilio's homepage.
(btw - i love contests. they're so much fun!!!)
Pricing http://www.twilio.com/international-calling-rates
Account Configuration http://www.twilio.com/user/account/international
International FAQ http://www.twilio.com/international-faq
There you go!