hide

Read Next

Reference Points

I just spent some time reading Thomas Schelling's "Choice and Consequences" and I heartily recommend it. Here's a Google books link to the chapter I was reading, "The Intimate Contest for Self Command."

It's fascinating, and if you like LessWrong, rationality, understanding things, decision theories, figuring people and the world out - well, then I think you'd like Schelling. Actually, you'll probably be amazed with how much of his stuff you're already familiar with - he really established a heck of a lot modern thinking on game theory.

Allow me to depart from Schelling a moment, and talk of Sam Snyder. He's a very intelligent guy who has lots of intelligent thoughts. Here's a link to his website - there's massive amounts of data and references there, so I'd recommend you just skim his site if you go visit until you find something interesting. You'll probably find something interesting pretty quickly.

I got a chance to have a conversation with him a while back, and we covered immense amounts of ground. He introduced me to a concept I've been thinking about nonstop since learning it from him - reference points.

Now, he explained it very eloquently, and I'm afraid I'm going to mangle and not do justice to his explanation. But to make a long story really short, your reference points affect your motivation a lot.

Jonathanscard: A social experiment, or not?

On DROdio

Jonathanscard -- a geeky 2.0 take on the "give a penny, leave a penny" concept -- has been all over the news recently (if you haven't heard the backstory, this is a good place to start). I'm surprised at all the harsh words over my brother Sam's hacking of the social experiment.

For example, one HackerNews commentator wrote, "Did Sam Odio's blog get hacked? Because I refuse to believe that the Sam whose comments I've been reading on HN would steal from someone. Sam how is what you're doing different from what Anonymous et al are doing? However irritating Jonathan's experiment is, it doesn't give you the right to impose you idea of morality on them" and plenty of other comments.

And It's funny to see those comments on a site titled "HackerNews."

Jonathanscard -- a geeky 2.0 take on the "give a penny, leave a penny" concept -- has been all over the news recently (if you haven't heard the backstory, this is a good place to start). I'm surprised at all the harsh words over my brother Sam's hacking of the social experiment. For example, one HackerNews commentator wrote, "Did Sam Odio's blog get hacked? Because I refuse to believe that the Sam whose comments I've been reading on HN would steal from someone. Sam how is what you're doing different from what Anonymous et al are doing? However irritating Jonathan's experiment is, it doesn't give you the right to impose you idea of morality on them" and plenty of other comments. And It's funny to see those comments on a site titled "HackerNews." The $625 amount Sam transferred off of Jonathanscard onto another Starbucks card was the exact amount my startup, Socialize donated to the card to promote its SDK Speed Challenge competition.  That was not an accident. Sam took a social experiment and ran a social experiment on it.  The money that he transferred was funded by Socialize, and Sam's donating the funds to a good cause.  The card has already been bid on eBay past its face value, garnering even more funds for Save the Children  (which is an awesome hat trick.) Jonathanscard was a social experiment, so isn't what happened exactly the point? 8/14 UPDATE: Read Sam's update about the experiment and his Q&A about the reaction he's been getting    

Rendering New Theme...