Financial incentives are ineffecitve if offered privately? That’s perhaps true for me personally at the level Zack is offering, but seems obviously false in general.
Offering money in private is maybe less effective than exerting social pressure in public (via publicly offering financial incentives, or other means). I merely pointed out that the two are entangled here, and that the pressure aspect is the one that actually motivates me in this case. I request that future such incentives be applied in a more disentangled way, but I’m not asking Zack to refrain from applying social pressure OR from offering financial incentives, just asking that those methods be explicitly disentangled. Zack is of course not obliged to comply with this request, but if he does not do so, I will continue flagging my actual motivations explicitly.
Financial incentives are ineffecitve if offered privately? That’s perhaps true for me personally at the level Zack is offering, but seems obviously false in general.
The financial incentive was clearly ineffective in this case, when offered publicly, so this is a red herring. (Really, who would’ve expected otherwise? $40, for the average Less Wrong reader? That’s a nominal amount, no more.)
No, what was effective was the social pressure—as you say!
I request that future such incentives be applied in a more disentangled way, but I’m not asking Zack to refrain from applying social pressure OR from offering financial incentives, just asking that those methods be explicitly disentangled. Zack is of course not obliged to comply with this request, but if he does not do so, I will continue flagging my actual motivations explicitly.
Disentangling these things as you describe would reduce the force of the social pressure, however.
I probably would have also responded if Zack had sent his comment verbatim as a PM. Maybe not as quickly or in exactly the same way, e.g. I wouldn’t have included the digression about incentives.
But anyway, I did in fact respond, so I don’t think it’s valid to conclude much about what would have been “clearly ineffective” in a counterfactual.
One other point that you seem to be missing is that it’s possible to exert social pressure via private channels, with or without financial incentives (and I’m also fine with Zack or others trying this, in general). Private might even be more effective at eliciting a response, in some cases.
In retrospect, I feel guilty about impulsively mixing the “cheerful price” mechanism and the “social pressure” mechanism. I suspect Said is right that the gimmick of the former added to the “punch” of the latter, but at the terrible cost of undermining the integrity of the former (it’s supposed to be cheerful!). I apologize for that.
Financial incentives are ineffecitve if offered privately? That’s perhaps true for me personally at the level Zack is offering, but seems obviously false in general.
Offering money in private is maybe less effective than exerting social pressure in public (via publicly offering financial incentives, or other means). I merely pointed out that the two are entangled here, and that the pressure aspect is the one that actually motivates me in this case. I request that future such incentives be applied in a more disentangled way, but I’m not asking Zack to refrain from applying social pressure OR from offering financial incentives, just asking that those methods be explicitly disentangled. Zack is of course not obliged to comply with this request, but if he does not do so, I will continue flagging my actual motivations explicitly.
The financial incentive was clearly ineffective in this case, when offered publicly, so this is a red herring. (Really, who would’ve expected otherwise? $40, for the average Less Wrong reader? That’s a nominal amount, no more.)
No, what was effective was the social pressure—as you say!
Disentangling these things as you describe would reduce the force of the social pressure, however.
I probably would have also responded if Zack had sent his comment verbatim as a PM. Maybe not as quickly or in exactly the same way, e.g. I wouldn’t have included the digression about incentives.
But anyway, I did in fact respond, so I don’t think it’s valid to conclude much about what would have been “clearly ineffective” in a counterfactual.
One other point that you seem to be missing is that it’s possible to exert social pressure via private channels, with or without financial incentives (and I’m also fine with Zack or others trying this, in general). Private might even be more effective at eliciting a response, in some cases.
In retrospect, I feel guilty about impulsively mixing the “cheerful price” mechanism and the “social pressure” mechanism. I suspect Said is right that the gimmick of the former added to the “punch” of the latter, but at the terrible cost of undermining the integrity of the former (it’s supposed to be cheerful!). I apologize for that.