Reef Fuel

Someone is shy

Reef hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Reef Fuel
Posted over 2 years ago
Being recognized as a leader in thought, innovation, or creativity is frequently a greater individual motivator than simple monetary reward.
Not yet, I'll take a look at that talk. More directly to the point, I believe that, just as there are often many causes for any effect rather than just the one most people see, there are many reasons for each of our decisions, but we only reveal the more culturally supported ones. As pointed out above, people range in these aspects as they do in most all attributes, but I think we're all guilty to one degree or another of hiding true motivators (yes, very often even from ourselves). Thanks as always for the thoughts.
Noface
Reef Fuel
Posted over 2 years ago
Being recognized as a leader in thought, innovation, or creativity is frequently a greater individual motivator than simple monetary reward.
Recognizing the real underlying motivators, rather than just the culturally laudable and loudly advertised reasons, helps find real answers to questions. To use this talk as an example, the question was effectively what really motivates people? My perspective on the discussion is that the 'surprise' answer was that money, and by implication personal profit, was not as strong a motivator as freedom to express one's self. I'm saying that that freedom really masks another form of personal profit. The distinction is subtle, but very important. Frequently, people are elevated for selfless acts that were in fact performed partly or primarily for the anticipated social elevation rather than the apparent altruism. I'm not so cynical to suggest that real altruism does not exist; it certainly does! I'm only suggesting that we should be discerning enough to know, or at least suspect the difference. By doing so, puzzling questions like the subject of this TEDtalk become less enigmatic, and so lead to simpler and more efficient and effective answers to the questions posed.
Noface
Reef Fuel
Posted over 2 years ago
Dan Pink: The puzzle of motivation
OK, so let's not kill ALL the lawyers. Motivation is an enigmatic thing. The implied assumption is that if we can turn individual profit into social profit through incentives, but that this often doesn't work as expected. Two primary answers occur to me as being the most likely errors in assumption: as this talk concludes, perhaps it is the freedom to create and pursue individual passions that should replace simple motivational incentives, or perhaps human nature's selfish desires extend beyond simple first level monetary profit. See my conversation attached to this talk to fire both barrels at my arguments.
Noface
Reef Fuel
Posted over 2 years ago
If we could rely on people to be honest, objective, intelligent, and reasonable, would we need any rules at all?
All true. My point is that one answer to all of this, that hacks at the root of the problem versus its branches, is self-honesty. We provide all of the self-deceptions you describe so that we can tell ourselves we are acting reasonably (fairly) and we use reality skewing techniques that mainly involve cherry-picking the whole picture to rearrage it in a way that appears to justify what we've done. Honesty and objectivity are the cure for this. I disagree that people who do what you describe are the most succesful in the long run. I have no desire to be Donald Trump, no matter how rich that would make me. False lives have to be maintained at great mental and emotional cost. Often, when allowed to see throught the facade of such lives, we can see that they are not at all what they've been made to appear.
Noface
Reef Fuel
Posted over 2 years ago
If we could rely on people to be honest, objective, intelligent, and reasonable, would we need any rules at all?
I believe the answer is that too frequently people act on their emotions without due thought. I know this idea would be shunned by poets, play-writes, and artists who rely on emotional expression, and I admit that much beauty comes from uncontaminated emotional output. But so does much of the evil and pain we see. The point of this thread is that I think if we train ourselves individually and expect each other culturally to take a moment to honestly evaluate our actions before we 'pull the trigger', a great deal of pain can be avoided.
Noface
Reef Fuel
Posted over 2 years ago
If we could rely on people to be honest, objective, intelligent, and reasonable, would we need any rules at all?
I think that empathy, as contained in the golden rule, grows naturally from honest reason. When honestly deciding, we have to choose whether we will act in a way that would be acceptable from both the giving and receiving or not. Most often, as in your example, false justification is created using skewed facts and perspectives as I've described, so that when we tell the story to ourselves or others, we can appear empathetic even when we haven't been. The effort to appear so is made, at least in large part, so that we are not ostracized. We could honestly choose to act in a way that we know we would not appreciate receiving, but then reason would warn us that, in a society in which we could honestly get away with such an act, we must expect it ourselves. I don't believe that reasonable people would choose the resulting chaotic culture.