I agree with the more general point about importance of tracking and rewarding contributions, but in this subthread I was specifically discussing cookies and difficulties with graciously expressing my lack of appreciation for them.
rewarded for making small but costly contributions
There is nothing good about contributions being costly. With signaling, the cost should pay for communication of important things that can’t otherwise be communicated, because incentives don’t allow trust; here that piece of critical intelligence would be posession of cooking skill and caring about the group. The cost is probably less than the cost of time spent in the meeting, so the additional signal is weak. If you like cooking, the cost might actually be negative. If you are not poor, the signal from store-bought food is approximately zero. (As signaling is about a situation without trust, it’s not the thought that counts. I’m not saying that signaling is appropriate here, I’m considering the hypothetical where we are engaged in signaling for whatever reason.)
And it should actually matter whether the contributions are appreciated. So I guess it’s possible that there is a difference in how people respond to costly signals, compared to useful contributions of indeterminate cost.
The cost is probably less than the cost of time spent in the meeting, so the additional signal is weak. If you like cooking, the cost might actually be negative.
Once upon a time, I liked programming. Time spent not programming was uncomfortable, and any opportunity to involve programming with other activities was welcome. If I could program some cookies for a meetup, I would describe the cost of that as negative. Thus by analogy I’m guessing that a person who similarly likes cooking would perceive the cost of cooking (not counting the price of ingredients) as negative. Maybe I liked programming to a ridiculous degree?
I agree with the more general point about importance of tracking and rewarding contributions, but in this subthread I was specifically discussing cookies and difficulties with graciously expressing my lack of appreciation for them.
There is nothing good about contributions being costly. With signaling, the cost should pay for communication of important things that can’t otherwise be communicated, because incentives don’t allow trust; here that piece of critical intelligence would be posession of cooking skill and caring about the group. The cost is probably less than the cost of time spent in the meeting, so the additional signal is weak. If you like cooking, the cost might actually be negative. If you are not poor, the signal from store-bought food is approximately zero. (As signaling is about a situation without trust, it’s not the thought that counts. I’m not saying that signaling is appropriate here, I’m considering the hypothetical where we are engaged in signaling for whatever reason.)
And it should actually matter whether the contributions are appreciated. So I guess it’s possible that there is a difference in how people respond to costly signals, compared to useful contributions of indeterminate cost.
I’m sorry, but this is a ridiculous claim.
Once upon a time, I liked programming. Time spent not programming was uncomfortable, and any opportunity to involve programming with other activities was welcome. If I could program some cookies for a meetup, I would describe the cost of that as negative. Thus by analogy I’m guessing that a person who similarly likes cooking would perceive the cost of cooking (not counting the price of ingredients) as negative. Maybe I liked programming to a ridiculous degree?