I think that the key insight here, for me, is the idea that we should train ourselves to ignore rewards.
and
“try to do good work today, and trust that a fair reward will come.”
I fear there’s a failure mode where you fall off the efficient frontier of (money vs effort/unpleasantness) and just do worse than the hypothetical EMH limit in every dimension (doing much better might be unlikely, but there’s no barrier to doing worse)
So I would expect to need to pay some attention to rewards, if you want to ensure you land somewhere in the neighbourhood of “at least approximately as well rewarded as the best similarly difficult work”.
(It feels ironically possible that I’m interpreting the article as evidence for a related but implausible claim, and you didn’t mean what I’m reading into it)
Between
and
I fear there’s a failure mode where you fall off the efficient frontier of (money vs effort/unpleasantness) and just do worse than the hypothetical EMH limit in every dimension (doing much better might be unlikely, but there’s no barrier to doing worse)
So I would expect to need to pay some attention to rewards, if you want to ensure you land somewhere in the neighbourhood of “at least approximately as well rewarded as the best similarly difficult work”.
(It feels ironically possible that I’m interpreting the article as evidence for a related but implausible claim, and you didn’t mean what I’m reading into it)
I mean it loosely. Ignore doesn’t mean that you never pay attention to rewards, just far less attention to them than to the quality of your work.