

Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us - zacharyvoase
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

======
briancooley
The "Back to the Future" bit at 7:05 or so was very funny.

I was kind of skeptical to watch a video with content I had already seen as a
TED talk and nearly clicked back before it started. Once it started, I was
immediately engaged, and reading parts of the talk satisfied a certain part of
my brain.

~~~
thorax
Yeah-- I was just thinking that if every lecture in school was this way, how
could I not stay engaged and absorb it?

~~~
itistoday
Because if every lecture was that way, then that style would be the _norm_ ,
and therefore almost by definition you probably wouldn't be engaged, just as
you aren't engaged to the norm now, and seek out unique and interesting—
_novel_ things.

~~~
albemuth
Sal Khan gave an interesting hypothesis about why his lectures were more
engaging (he uses a blackboard) than a traditional one with a person in the
front. I recommend watching the video, but his point is that we tend to focus
on the person, the movement of the hands. When you remove the person, you're
sort of left with a voice inside your head explaining stuff.

<http://vimeo.com/11731351>

~~~
peregrine
Every reason he described there is pertinent to this video. Thanks so much for
posting this, I don't know why I skipped it when it made its rounds the other
day.

------
zacharyvoase
Perhaps the reason most economic approaches fail to predict this kind of
behaviour is because they forget that money by itself is _not_ a
motivator—it’s only ever a means to an end for all who use it.

Money gives you the freedom to make choices and spend time doing other
things—the autonomy and mastery that Dan Pink was talking about. However,
earning more money but being stuck in the same job renders this increase in
salary effectively useless, because you don’t stand to gain any satisfaction
simply by _having_ the money.

~~~
zacharyvoase
It’s worth mentioning that the underlying concept is Marginal Utility:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility>

------
sp332
I'm pretty sure I disagree with the moral. Does anyone really contribute to
Wikipedia for the sense of mastery it gives them? Do you think the NSA
releases their Linux kernel patches to increase the agency's autonomy? Do you
think that most open source and free culture advocates are altruists motivated
by a drive to give their stuff away to other people? No, they do it because it
improves the world they live in - _for them_. Enlightened self-interest is
still self-interest.

Also, the dissing on economists just rubs me the wrong way.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Quite so. It's sometimes easy to forget that making the world a better place
can still be a very selfish act. Consider the man living in a world he hates,
with all the money in the world, vs. a man living in a world he enjoys, with
comparatively less individual wealth. In a very real sense the 2nd man is
better off. A lot of this has become baked into the cultural DNA of the west.
Cooperation pays dividends. Today's J. Average Middle-class Everyman living in
the 1st world is much, much better off than very nearly every king, despot,
prince, and emperor throughout history.

~~~
loup-vaillant
> making the world a better place can still be a very selfish act

You sound like such selfness is actually concious. I don't think so. We're not
Machiavellian machines, gauging the consequences of each of our deeds. For
example, I bet most Wikipedia contributors don't especially want to help
building the world's most comprehensive encyclopaedia, but just want to share
a bit of their knowledge, or just don't like to see spelling errors.

------
jonpaul
This is one of the best books I've read. As an entrepreneur, it will get you
to think differently on how you motivate people. Before, I use to think that
if I pay a person to do a task that should be sufficient. Now, I encourage
purpose and deliver a vision. You would be amazed at how easy it is to 'rally
the troops' by doing this.

Read this book now.

~~~
jonparis
Strongly agree. The book is a quick read and has broad implications. I worked
with the author (Daniel Pink) to create a mobile app based on the book. Daniel
is a great guy who lives what he writes.

Plug: the app is free and called "Dan the Motivation Roo" currently on Android
only

------
thunk
Aww, man. I wanted it to pan out and show the whole mural at the end.

~~~
Gambit89
Hmm, well, someone could make one by taking screenshots at the appropriate
times and then stitching them together.

------
bryanh
Beautiful presentation of a presentation! If you are like me and usually just
scan the comments of HN, don't miss this one!

------
pedrokost
The lecture sounded really familiar - from here:
[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_pink_on_motivation.htm...](http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_pink_on_motivation.html)

~~~
nnutter
I thought I had seen this before. I remembered some candle/tacks/box task. I
believe it was this TED video.

------
ulvund
What a great way to watch a lecture

------
ak555
Does anybody have any idea which software was used to create the RSA animated
series?

~~~
adammichaelc
It seems plausible that it was done by hand and then sped up to match the
speed of the talk.

------
swankpot
Somewhat related video from Paul Solman at PBS Newshour, on motivation and
money: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGyhaZnPtC4>

(An interview with Dan Pink, author of _A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers
Will Rule the Future_ )

------
raintrees
I wish they had ended it with a shot of the whole board at once - Or maybe
even just zoomed slowly out...

------
delackner
Dan Ariely's book, Predictably Irrational, presents research that speaks to
this issue from another angle: that we perform better at tasks framed in
social norms (help a friend) vs tasks (even the same task!) done simply for
money.

------
ccarpenterg
Money is overrated. Time is undervalued. However, not everyone wants to make a
contribution. And high incentives can improve the perfomance of people who
wants a collateral reward of money like social status.

~~~
techiferous
"And high incentives can improve the perfomance of people who wants a
collateral reward of money like social status."

Do you have any science to back that up?

------
c4urself
great video, almost makes one stressed looking to see if that hand will keep
up with the talk though...

------
stat
If what he says is true, then that means Diaspora will fail, because of the
huge amount of funding they got.

~~~
loup-vaillant
No, for a simple reason: they _already_ got the money. If this money would be
delivered only upon some milestone of the project, I would have agreed.

The fact is, once the funding round is finished, once they actually start to
work, they will receive naught. On the contrary, money had been put out of the
equation, at least for a time. And their very first motivation wasn't money.
It was Eben Moglen's talk[1]. Pure idealism.

Four geeks in their proverbial garage set out do destroy an evil corporation
is _exactly_ the right kind of incentive. They have independence, they
probably seek mastery, and they have a purpose. Sure, they could become greedy
and just want to get rich like an americally dreamt start-up founder, but I
think this is unlikely.

Failure will come from another factors, if at all.

[1]: [http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2010/feb/01/freedom-
clou...](http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2010/feb/01/freedom-cloud-
software-freedom-privacy-and-securit/)

~~~
bad_user
> _And their very first motivation wasn't money. It was Eben Moglen's talk[1].
> Pure idealism._

If you believe in pure idealism, then you must also believe in Santa Claus.

> _Four geeks in their proverbial garage set out do destroy an evil
> corporation is exactly the right kind of incentive_

Even in the open-source world, people don't brag about their pet projects
until they've got at least a preliminary design to show.

I like developers that deliver ... like Linus, when he was criticized for
Bitkeeper, he came out of nowhere with Git.

~~~
loup-vaillant
You will note that you didn't contradict me at all. Let me repeat: the
Diaspora founders have independence (the proverbial garage and the financial
relief). They also probably seek mastery (they are techno-geeks). Finally,
they have a purpose (destroying the busness model of Facebook, as advocated by
Eben Moglen).

Now, on to your points:

> Even in the open-source world, people don't brag about their pet projects
> until they've got at least a preliminary design to show. I like developers
> that deliver

I actually agree with that. This is of course a major point against Diaspora.
That said, I doubt they expected such a buzz. Don't forget my primary point:
their incentives increases the odds of success. I didn't talk about the
_initial_ odds.

> If you believe in pure idealism, then you must also believe in Santa Claus.

I'm not sure I get your meaning. I just said that their primary motivation was
a purely idealistic one. As told in the submitted video, idealism is one of
the most efficient incentives. The thing is, he called that "purpose", which
cleverly avoids the negative connotation of "idealism".

The negative connotation of "idealism" worries me, because we need idealism.
For instance, you surely know that exponential growth, continued exploitation
of the south, systematic destruction of the soil just can't go one forever.
They will stop, one way or another. To put it bluntly, our civilization as we
know it won't last.

Now, I see two ways our civilization could change:

(1) We continue to prefer short term maximization over long term planning. We
rush to deplete the remaining resources. We continue to over-exploit and
destroy our soil. A major biologic crisis ensues (that one has already
started, by the way). Humanity starves and go back to a pre-feudal state, or
falls prey to an oligarchy and eat Soylent Green.

(2) We think long term. We cooperate. We use the remaining oil to bootstrap
renewable energies. We take care of our soil. The biologic crisis is
mitigated. Humanity mostly lives in the countryside, and eats organic crops.

I'm probably wrong about the details, but the main point remain: our
civilization will eventually change drastically. We could make the transition
smooth and painless, or we can let it be sudden and nasty. Our choice.

