The idea of designing incentives far less useful social scientists and policy wonks we're hoping circa 2010.
I agree with and enjoy the overall sentiment of this piece. Incentive are fit losers. BYO incentives is the way to go.
That said, IRL, the structural advantage of external incentives... especially artificially designed ones... Can be near impossible to overcome.
Let's say you are a researcher working in one of the fields tested by 21st century mushiness. Replication failures. P-hacking. An unstructured stream of published research adding up to noise.
This outcome is not just because of publish-or-perish, or other incentive structure. It's also because the field is just hard. Harder than it seems it should be, intuitively.
It seems like science should have uncovered a decent, workable "theory of nutrition" or a promising pathway to one. It hasn't. That means thousands of researchers are working in their little corners... And when they look up from their desk there is no big picture forming. No big project that they are contributing to.
Maybe we just need a new theory, when you research methods.. or something. But... we don't know what that is.
Intrinsic motivation vs academic grind... Facing a near impossible challenge. A good chance of modest success within the pigeon-incetives paradigm... Vs near-guaranteed failure of an alternative, intrinsic motivation path.
Even if you take the intrinsic motivation path... There will probably come a point where you have invested years, achieve nothing... and proudly refusing to publish banal papers like everyone else will seem like folley. This person probably just leaves the field.
Startups are different than the corporations they become. 19th century science is different to modern academia. Trying to replicate qualities is always sysephean.
I really like the article but I feel like ignoring incentives always costs something. Only people who can afford the cost get to look principled, which turns having money into looking like having character. Everyone he praises in the article has/had a safety net: Sumner was a Harvard-educated senator with inherited standing, the writer himself still had a career after dropping his uni title.
The fish metaphor has the same issue. The people dying on the sidewalk outside his conference have seen worse than he has, they don't lack moral clarity but rather the freedom and capital to rebuild their lives around it. His essay treats seeing the fish and acting on it as a single moment when the acting part requires you to have capital/social safety net.
I usually go around saying to anyone who will listen "incentives are dangerous". Like... you can't avoid them as people are sneaky bastards and will find what the incentives are even if you didn't design any on purpose, but you should be on the lookout always and be damn careful if you ever get the bad idea to introduce any.
His rhetorical "Who could disagree that incentives causes bad behavior?" resolves, in reality, to a shockingly large number of real people. This is fundamentally why I do not share the author's gripe, even if it might be technically true.
The pathologies in our collective decision making at the political level caused by the inability of so many people to give credence to the power of incentives is the problem that needs to be solved, even if, in the author's weird online niche composed of a few thousand people, incentives are occasionally wrongly taken as a moral justification for bad behavior.
> My real gripe with this line of thinking is it implies that incentives should be obeyed
One individual can ignore incentives. The point of that diagnosis is that you can't build a system on the premise that most people will behave well despite incentives, because many won't. It's a point about systems, not individuals.
I remember this book: Punished by Rewards, Alfie Kohn
"The basic strategy we use for raising children, teaching students, and managing workers can be summarized in six words: do this and you'll get that. We dangle goodies (from candy bars to sales commissions) in front of people in much the same way that we train a family pet. The quick fix of rewards may seem to be effective, but manipulating people with external incentives actually kills their interest in what they are doing and lowers the quality of their work."
Thanks to something (possibly the ruinous adhd medication regime I went through for my entire childhood) I don't really get any motivation from promises of carrots, only the sticks I try to avoid. Works great though, not unhappy, because doing good work still intrinsically satisfies me. I just really don't care about pleasing people (and yet I often do)
The game theorists/economists have studied this stuff in depth under the rubric of "mechanism design" or "market design". The relevant concept is "incentive compatibility" where the agents in the system do the right thing (whatever that was intended to be/designed for) because any deviation from that costs them more than playing nice.
The Wikipedia article [0] is not yet great but does give the two classic examples of "second-price auctions and a simple majority vote between two choices". The Gibbard–Satterthwaite shows the difficulty in extending this to more choices (in that Arrow's theorem sort of way).
The best thing I've read on this stuff is Alvin Roth's "Who Gets What and Why" (2015) [1] which is worth a read in any case. Repugnant markets!
My experience tring to map game theory to people's choices in the workplace is that the action taken is typically opposite of the predicted, or optimal, 'game theoretic' action, and often with enormous benefit to that individual.
Incentives are important for allocative efficiency, whether that be the price of a banana or the incentive to do a job that pays more. Of course, they're imperfect and there are some cases where incentives lead to rent-seeking rather than genuinely economic efficiency. And there is often a divergence between private value and social value. But these are exceptions to the rule. If everyone ignored price signals, society would be less well off.
This doesn't mean we should all attempt to do the highest possible paying job available to us, but it does mean there's a genuine loss to society if (say) a high paid software engineer decides to quit and start a bike repair shop i.e. the economic pie will be smaller an so will the tax base. So when making the decision we should at least be conscious of this.
As an economist, I do kind of agree with the premise of the article, but in a different way. As consumers in particular, we can do much better than following incentives.
For instance, we can use the car less, even if it's a bit inconvenient. It's much nicer to see more people out walking, on their bikes or on the bus, leads to less noise and congestion. So there's a positive externality. Or I could buy a smaller car, even though bigger one is more convenient.
Similarly, if you're lucky enough to have a high paying job, you can buy all sorts of status symbols. Or, you could choose to consume less than you earn, and give the difference to charity, or invest in something of social value.
Whether you agree with this or not, economic theory provides a clear framework to think about all of this, both the price signal and the difference between private and social incentives. What bothers me (as the article touches on) is that people often have a simplified view of economics which is essentially that 'market incentives and price signals broadly lead to good outcomes (or at least, better outcomes than communism!), and therefore economics always morally endorses buying things at market prices'. There's nothing in economic theory that says that spending £50k more on a car because it's got a fancier brand is a reasonable moral choice.
> In the eternal game of cat and mouse between the goodhearted people trying to fix the incentives and the Goodhart’d people trying to exploit the incentives, I am rooting for the cats.
Incentives are about tricking the selfish side of people into doing things that are valuable for others, which can be an incredibly powerful force, but it’s not the only way to get people to do things, and it’s not okay to be absolutely selfish and outsource your responsibility to the system.
Completely agree. Incentives are for the statistical masses.
As thinking individuals we can and should use our awareness and courage to make biggest "good" choices we can bear to. We can't all be zero-waste vegan community organisers lobbying for renewables and free education/healthcare, but I doubt living life with the blinders on leads any kind of moral or spiritual growth or fulfilment either.
> As thinking individuals we can and should use our awareness and courage to make biggest "good" choices we can bear to.
That’s the cool thing about incentives, we follow them whether we realize it or not. “bear to” is where the incentives are hiding. We don’t make the best choices, we choose from the choices available to us.
You can’t fight your environment forever.
If the gooder choice is 50km away and the bad choice is down the street, eventually you’ll stop going 50km out of your way every day because it’s just too cumbersome. You might even do it “just this once” because you had a busy day and your kid is crying and you’re just so tired and then before you know it, it’s been months or even years since the last time you did the cumbersome better thing.
The satisfaction and feeling of superiority that comes from knowing that you did the right thing despite incentives to the contrary, in fact, is a very potent incentive in itself. You can totally get addicted to it.
> Everywhere you look, people are being rewarded for doing the wrong thing.
And, people are also being rewarded for doing the right thing. Don't conflate the two.
Just because some incentives are rewarding the wrong behavior doesn't invalidate the concept. We're surrounded by incentives at work in every part of our life.
Fiat money only works because we are incentivized to believe in it.
Democracy works because we're mostly incentivized to support it.
Governments, countries, companies, parks, global trade, science, and shipping only work because of the complex web of positive and negative incentives we've built up to support them. They're not perfect, and never will be. And they also shouldn't be perfect (despite our natural inclination to want the "perfect"). The worst atrocities humankind has seen were driven by the pursuit of perfection and purity.
The cobra effect is what happens when you choose your incentives poorly. That's not a fault of the concept.
I know it's kinda beside the point but I like incentives compared to hard rules as a policy measure. They are much more effective, less bureaucratic and easier to push through. They are like weights vs. booleans.
Don't like smoking? Try out right banning it. It's impossible. You have to fight the lobbyist, the addicted consumers, the workers employed by the industry, ... Slapping a tax on it is much easier. A soft NO that's giving everyone time to adjust.
The problem with "absolute" taxes (A fixed % of the price for everyone) is that they punish the poor but don't affect the rich, while most of the problems out there are caused by the rich, because they are more powerful.
You don't care about a carbon tax on your extremely polluting plane tickets if this represents 0,01% of your revenue.
One solution is to make the tax proportional to your revenue, like in Switzerland speed tickets are which means someone already got 1.7M fine from one over-speed limit driving. But then people will manage to lie about their revenue, as rich always do.
Then you could say that it's linked to the person, not the money, so in France if you drive too fast your driving licence is suspended. But once again, that would completely destroy a poor person life, not being able to go to his job anymore, while a rich will be a bit annoyed but just pay a cab.
It would be so much better if people were doing the right thing because they knew it is the right thing, instead of having to add incentive to push them to do so.
Our planet is burning right now, that would be a good moment to act.
On the other hand, there are vastly fewer rich people than poor, so for many things it doesn't matter if they can pay the fine. If only millionaires were littering, the streets would be quite clean.
That's all nice on a theoretical but such ideas quickly fall flat in a world where corporations are owned by rich people and create pollution often whole countries are even unable to pull off, often completely unpunished often economically and politically ("we need more jobs") encouraged.
I think reducing individuals to two people whose only difference is wealth in respect to which goods they can buy is wrong when applied to real world societies in the same way that weather prognosis based on a very limited set of parameters is wrong.
Wealth is not a measure to pay just fines or good, but today effectively the approximation for power that individuals, groups of individuals or legal entities hold. And measuring wealth is a huge complex topic on its own which also makes the taxation topic very complicated.
I think that's a huge flaw in present day economical thought. X is good because it increases X/Y ignoring secondary effects. It's like predicting whether it will rain on a given day by just looking at which way the wind goes on your weather station. There is theoretical truth to it, but given both secondary effects and the rest of the world that you might completely ignore but might have complete or partial reversal effects.
And then you have various groups that anyway mess with the details of the rules and people that ignore them through various other means, like not getting caught.
Classic example is also "We raise taxes, because then the rich will go away" which ignores things from "the rich" potentially not giving you anything if they don't give you taxes and the fact that your country might be able to offer a bit more both as a living and a working place than the level of taxes. In fact there have been studies conducted and the reality is that it barely has an effect. Turns out that people don't just leave for paying something that might even indirectly benefit them. Just like if you are rich you probably don't care much if the price for base goods increases, because you might have way bigger incentives like being in a secure place, having a house and family at a place and your company currently running smoothly with no downtrend in sight.
Another example: In Germany the chancellor decided that workers take too much "sick leave". Fair enough (probably) but they decided to clamp down on it by requiring a doctor's certificate from day one. Rookie mistake! For the doctors it piles on extra bureaucracy. Everyone who's actually sick is either miserable waiting in a doctor's office just to get some paperwork done or picks the lesser evil and goes to work sick where they infect the remaining colleagues.
An incentive based solution is: reduced pay on sick days. With _no pay_ you get sick people at work. With _full pay_ you get healthy people at home. With _reduced pay_ you can find a sweet spot. That adds no bureaucracy for doctors. For employers there is some but it directly translates into cost savings.
If I've got told, "oh btw, when you are sick you only get 70% of your wage" my risk management system would go full alarm mode. That's a risk I wouldn't want to take on me.
However whatever Germany is doing right now definitely isn't the way to to either.
Fair enough but cutting the tax is another incentive measure: make the legal way to buy cigarettes the cheapest way. As the article states: the fact illicit tobacco is illegal does not prevent it and poses massive enforcement costs.
As someone who has helped drug addicts in an organisation called "Proyecto Hombre" in Spain you probably don't understand how hard is to help someone in this situation and that sometimes you CAN'T.
It is very typical that when someone gets on drugs even the father of the person stops trying to help after several failed trials. Only the mothers stay. And it is so painful to watch. The kind of abuses mothers tolerate from their children.
Substances destroys the typical regulating behaviour of the brain. They literally can't see the harm they do to others. You usually can't help them until they hit rock bottom and open a window for you to intervene.
For helping you need knowledge and training and "trying to help" without it could do more harm than good.
About the moral obligation to help the drug addicts, as "social justice", I would call this "injustice". Here is the typical situation: Someone takes drugs in a social group because is "cool". In the same group there is someone that decides not to take them. He is humiliated by the group and it takes a lot of work. One of the members of the group gets addicted, do terrible things and asks for help.
It is usual that the one that did not take drugs, or the brother in the family ask the question "why are you helping this person that decided to go this way herself?"
"Why are you expending like 10x more resources in this person that did everything wrong than in me when did everything well (studied instead of earning easy money selling drugs, that had to withstand the pressure and humiliations by the group).
Drugs are super expensive and addicts will do anything to get their dose, supporting the addicts usually takes all the resources from a family, neglecting the resources to other members of the family. If the State provides the support, the same thing happens. Should the State spend exorbitant resources that the rest of the society has to pay taking the resources from everyone that needs them?
>My real gripe with this line of thinking is it implies that incentives should be obeyed, that it is normal or even noble to do so, and that is perhaps impossible to do otherwise. How could you be expected to break a rule, forego a promotion, or give up decimal of your grade point average, for the sake of—what? Doing the right thing?
But this misunderstands incentive based analysis.
The point isn't just that people naturally follow incentives, but that those who refuse are punished and no longer in a position to affect the world.
Taking a principled stand is great and all, but if the result is simply that you get fired and replaced by someone better at following orders, you didn't really fix the problem.
Of course it's more complicated than that. Certainly other people being willing to do evil is no excuse to do evil yourself. Maybe your principled stand inspires others and you start a revolution or something. But that's rare. In the average case incentives win. Which is why if you want to actually change the world for the better you should attack the incentives not the individuals - individuals can be replaced, but millions are willing to follow incentives.
-----
The rest of the article seems to be about developing your own morality, but morality is really just yet another incentive.
Maybe more succinctly: incentives work whether anyone cares or not, which is broadly the hallmark of good public policy. As foolish as relying on heroism in technology, so too is relying on perfect behavior from the citizenry in government.
I think your comment is describing something slightly different from incentives: the criteria for granting power and control to some individuals rather than others. There may be incentives to do what's necessary to fulfill those criteria, but it's a different axis from the incentives themselves.
Responding to the actual article: it seems like the author simply has a different set of values than what is assumed by the conventional incentives that he sees around him. If you choose your values then you can also choose your incentives.
I think you've written a good counterargument, but I disagree with your claim that "morality is really just yet another incentive". Incentives must be external.
Agreed, but I think some logic follows that as increasingly more incentives are needed then maybe people just don't have these principles. People seem to want it both ways—both to get the thing they want, but to be seen as not having taken it. To be seen as principled without standing for the principle. So we hear that taking a "principled stand is great and all, but". That line is right, it just implies the person doesn't believe that much in the principle.
I loved this. Unfortunately, I don't know how realistic it is at this point. The entire modern Western system is built on incentives, and it would require dramatically changing the social order and economic system.
I think as a culture, we teach the wrong things to kids.
1) Bribe/corruption is okay: Do this (eat broccoli, finish homework, etc) and I'll give you an incentive/bribe (candy, play time, screen time).
2) Magic: Kids are scientific and curious, they ask millions of questions. Explain everything away by magic (fairytales), religion, god, govt, economics, etc. Nobody has the knowledge or patience to deal with the continuous stream of questions.
We train kids to accept these things as defaults of culture.
As far as 2) goes, I don't think that is actually true. Sometimes people don't have time for children's questions, but when a child asks why summer is different than winter nobody in modern times says because Demeter is sad about the rape of her daughter.
Even if you think you cannot escape incentives - there exists a thing for shaping them - it is called "regulation". Some still consider it a dirty word though.
I think implicit in this argument is a proposal that society stops making excuses for anti-social people and behavior, and shames them and their behavior instead. Ironically, this is just a different incentive system! But IMO that doesn't make the argument less correct. It is a more full realization that "people respond to incentives", including shame.
develop or rediscover a culture that views people as possessing inherent dignity, reason, empathy and individual freedom instead of promoting a commercial culture whose logical terminus are the Wall-E people.[1]
Practical first step would be to return to Humboldt's model of education[2] and to not devalue to arts and humanities at every opportunity.
And thankfully millions of people are already doing it. But the good of small actions from normal people is in the balance with the evil of terrible actions from powerful people, the last example being the current president of the US.
This article reflects my values and philosophy exactly... However I think the author is underestimating the cost of not following incentives. It's torture.
In this society, I'm a loser precisely because I ignored incentives. I think we live in a failed society so I don't mind that much being a loser in such society. I don't think I would feel any pride being a winner... However, I would very much appreciate the financial comfort of not having to participate in it! So that would be the advantage of being a winner.
It's the great irony; the winners who have the option to not participate, want to participate... And the losers who ignore incentives find that they are forced to participate sooner or later!
Right now I think my current job is probably unethical. Though most people would probably not think so. They just didn't look for the devil in the details.
Most people are lucky to have been following incentives subconsciously, believing that incentives align with economic efficiency and, therefore, moral virtue. I was not so lucky to believe that. Now I have to do stuff that I know to be unethical to free myself. Is this the definition of corruption? Isn't it a worse form of corruption if you don't even bother trying to understand the impact of what you're doing? Or worse, you deceive yourself?
This seems to misrepresent what incentives are: latent unobservable things. Incentives are not what you or anyone else says they are. It makes sense to simply state the incentives in academic games which are of course useful at times.
So the author is making some point about wrong incentive models and meta models.
Very few people are self starters, I’ve become fixated on increasing the productivity of the population. Anyone excluded or encumbered has things to address why that is, and then add them to the productivity machine. At one point women weren’t included, other marginalized people are excluded, some populations have a tendency to suicide unless we affirm their feelings and then they are productive. All of that fits within my philosophy and makes the tweaks to the workflow easy adopt, if it means more people are included in the productivity engine.
Most of the comments are one level deeper “lets condition all of society to be self starters” with no proposal on how to do so
> A critical part of human development—in fact, the most human part of human development—is to acquire a purpose.
This is actually a fairly recent concept.
For a long time, humans across the globe have believed that life had a purpose, but until the 18th and 19th centuries, the belief was more or less that the purpose was dictated by God, the universe, etc. That there was a purpose that applied to everyone, not that everyone had to find his or her own purpose.
> That means refining your sense of right and wrong and figuring out how you, personally, can increase the right and decrease the wrong.
The problem with this is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Well-meaning people who believe strongly that they are increasing the right and decreasing the wrong are capable of creating many problems. And sometimes, you get really sick people who think they're well-meaning and their "right" is everyone else's "wrong".
> But over the years, as I had the opportunity to meet some of these captains of industry, these Grand Pooh-Bahs and Distinguished Scholars, I’ve realized how wrong I was. They only seemed enviable because I was looking at them from a distance, so all I could see was what they had. Up close, when you can see what they are, it becomes clear that only a few of these ladder-toppers are indeed wise and cool. More often, they’re sniveling little twerps. They’re spiritually chinless. They have no convictions, no passions, no purpose other than ladder-climbing. It’s sad to watch them, these people who have everything except the one thing that actually matters.
I'm personally not a fan of the Elons and Zucks of the world, but going around categorizing people into groups like "spiritually chinless, passionless, purpose-lacking sniveling little twerps who only care about getting ahead" probably isn't healthy.
Has the author considered that many of these people simply have beliefs, passions, purposes that don't align with his and that, if asked, they might speak poorly of his beliefs, passions, purposes?
We can debate whether or not these people are, in the final analysis, ethical, but I don't think reducing them to this helps the author's argument.
> Why spend your days wondering about right and wrong, good and evil, sacred and profane, etc. when you don’t have to?
Most people in this world don't have the luxury of sitting around and figuring out all of the world's mysteries and solving all of the world's problem.
> I saw my fish in 2020 in San Fransisco, during the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology.5 Inside the conference hotel were dozens of talks about stereotyping, prejudice, inequality, and so on. That had never struck me as strange until that year, when outside of the hotel, which was in the middle of SF’s Tenderloin district, people were sprawled out on the sidewalk, dying of overdoses. Scholars were scurrying past homeless people to give talks on social justice, which is ironic because “scholars will scurry past homeless people to give talks on social justice” is literally the main finding from one of the most famous psychology studies of all time.
The author paints his experience as some sort of Siddhartha-like epiphany. The reality is that lots of people have seen what the author saw, and worse. Any many were affected by it. But just because they didn't stop and play Jesus (which the author apparently didn't do either) doesn't mean that they didn't notice and weren't affected.
The author seems to be assuming that he's one of the few people who isn't oblivious.
> When I meet someone of uncommon integrity, someone willing to defy the incentives at any cost, I find they almost always have seen the fish—big, hulking fish, far larger than any I’ve ever encountered. They have undergone some kind of moral reckoning that undid their illusion of philosophical depth and gave them the chance to forge their own values.
Like what? The article is really lacking in specifics and it seems like it's a reflection of the author's experience and views, which he projects onto the other 8 billion people on the planet.
In my own experience, which includes having emigrated from the US to another part of the world, most people are just trying to get through the day, pay their bills, provide for their families, find peace and contentment, etc. They're not morally-corrupt zombies who, at best, are oblivious to the suffering in the world or, at worst, bad apes chasing free bananas. They're just people who don't have any illusions that their lives and powers are bigger than they really are.
I think the point is, society is trying to maximize wealth instead of maximizing happiness and fulfilment. We are being told that to be successful is to be rich, while we should be told that to be successful is to be happy. And the reason is that you don't need much to be happy. So the day we say this to the citizens, the day we all realize buying things is useless, the whole economic system collapses, and no one wants to be in charge during the very hard transition period between the two systems. The interesting thing is, because the planet has limited resources, because we don't take care of it and because we don't control wealth inequality, the switch will happen, unplanified, and millions (billions?) of humans will die.
There's a difference between being born into a world where you are taught you have a purpose defined by God, the universe, etc., and being born into a culture where you are taught you need to find your own purpose.
It's both. You have a purpose defined by God, but you have to understand what it is and the journey is your own. There are a lot of hints, explanations, personal stories, but you have to do some work to understand what they mean.
The historical evidence is pretty clear that the modern idea you have a unique purpose you need to find for yourself started to become common in the 18th and 19th centuries. Before that, purpose was largely a dictate cast upon all members of the society.
Who cares what names you call. I would be more powerful and comfortable in this world. While you spend your time calling names that would have zero effect in this world. You would be like a donkey who cries its lust away. Sounds like a total loser to me..
If I kill someone, or behave like an asshole, everyone will hate me, so I've got an incentive not to. Is that so horrible?
The reason that people talk about incentives when it comes to politics is that laws and large parts of present day's richer countries economic systems are controlled by laws, contracts, associations between countries, companies, people, etc. and are an artificially created ruleset. That means if you change rules you change incentives. Eg. if you know a government will bail you out, you lose the incentive to avoid risky things, if there is a tax on something you are it will influence your monetary incentives, if being an asshole is looked upon favorably then you have an incentive to be one. Also if tax fraud isn't considered a crime by large parts of people or is seen as smart then you have an incentive to commit it.
A lot of social change good and bad came from shifts in good and bad incentives.
Even more. If you look at the legal and prison systems in Norway vs eg the US the incentives that individuals, governments and corporations have are a reason for a 5 year recidivism rate of 70% vs 20%.
In general if you think your life will be better as a criminal than the alternative then you will be incentivized become one. If you can choose between joining the mafia that might even care for you or barely getting through with day jobs then you are incentivized to do so.
So if a government manages to make sure your life will certainly better, than the incentive to join is a whole lot lower.
If you are shamed vs praised (or otherwise feel supported) for sexism or racism you will have an incentive to go a certain way.
Cults and so on used incentives in a bad way, many parents use incentives in a good way ("if you clean up your room/finish your homework/behave you'll get ice cream later").
The reason people talk about incentives is because they shape whether things are likely to work out. As we've seen big public companies usually will do everything they can get away with and will break laws if the expected profit is higher than the potential fine. That is a wrong and very much changeable incentive.
And it doesn't have to be laws. It can be public opinion. If the marketing is more expensive than just not doing a bad thing in first place then that's an incentive as well.
Incentives are the things that make people do things good and bad. Incentives are the reason people go out of bed and be it just the incentive to ease the pressure on their full bladder. And even there if getting up will cost you great pain you might have a higher incentive there.
Just like people going to doctors is often dominated by incentives of getting rid of a sickness vs not having to pay money or endure a potentially painful or side effect rich treatment.
The premise of this article only works because the author has taken an overly narrow definition of an 'incentive' - as if an incentive can only be offered by a social media app for a quick dopamine hit.
What's they are missing is that it's all incentives, all the way down. You want to be a good kind person? You feel good when you believe you've demonstrated this - but you're just acting on incentives you've set for yourself to feel good. You want to feel morally superior by quitting social media (thereby avoiding the overt incentives to the contrary) or donating more to charity? Same thing - you're following incentives you've created for yourself to be the person you want to be and be seen as.
--
Also, FWIW, I strongly disliked the mid-article moralisation - implying that people are somehow flawed, inferior individuals if they haven't examined every aspect of their world and developed a deep understanding of it that could never be challenged. This is just a self-serving conceit of someone who feels superior because they think they see the matrix (or fish). The world is full of people who live their lives as best they can, trying to be decent people as best they can, without having the time, energy, or incentive to dive deeper into things as the author seems to believe they should. Are they inferior people? No. So f#ck this author and their snide superior moralistic b#llshit.
> without having the time, energy, or incentive to dive deeper into things
I don't think anyone would disagree that survival comes first. But for those who do have the time/energy/money to dive deeper into things, and intentionally choose not to... those people may be worthy of our contempt
I agree with and enjoy the overall sentiment of this piece. Incentive are fit losers. BYO incentives is the way to go.
That said, IRL, the structural advantage of external incentives... especially artificially designed ones... Can be near impossible to overcome.
Let's say you are a researcher working in one of the fields tested by 21st century mushiness. Replication failures. P-hacking. An unstructured stream of published research adding up to noise.
This outcome is not just because of publish-or-perish, or other incentive structure. It's also because the field is just hard. Harder than it seems it should be, intuitively.
It seems like science should have uncovered a decent, workable "theory of nutrition" or a promising pathway to one. It hasn't. That means thousands of researchers are working in their little corners... And when they look up from their desk there is no big picture forming. No big project that they are contributing to.
Maybe we just need a new theory, when you research methods.. or something. But... we don't know what that is.
Intrinsic motivation vs academic grind... Facing a near impossible challenge. A good chance of modest success within the pigeon-incetives paradigm... Vs near-guaranteed failure of an alternative, intrinsic motivation path.
Even if you take the intrinsic motivation path... There will probably come a point where you have invested years, achieve nothing... and proudly refusing to publish banal papers like everyone else will seem like folley. This person probably just leaves the field.
Startups are different than the corporations they become. 19th century science is different to modern academia. Trying to replicate qualities is always sysephean.
The fish metaphor has the same issue. The people dying on the sidewalk outside his conference have seen worse than he has, they don't lack moral clarity but rather the freedom and capital to rebuild their lives around it. His essay treats seeing the fish and acting on it as a single moment when the acting part requires you to have capital/social safety net.
The pathologies in our collective decision making at the political level caused by the inability of so many people to give credence to the power of incentives is the problem that needs to be solved, even if, in the author's weird online niche composed of a few thousand people, incentives are occasionally wrongly taken as a moral justification for bad behavior.
One individual can ignore incentives. The point of that diagnosis is that you can't build a system on the premise that most people will behave well despite incentives, because many won't. It's a point about systems, not individuals.
"The basic strategy we use for raising children, teaching students, and managing workers can be summarized in six words: do this and you'll get that. We dangle goodies (from candy bars to sales commissions) in front of people in much the same way that we train a family pet. The quick fix of rewards may seem to be effective, but manipulating people with external incentives actually kills their interest in what they are doing and lowers the quality of their work."
The Wikipedia article [0] is not yet great but does give the two classic examples of "second-price auctions and a simple majority vote between two choices". The Gibbard–Satterthwaite shows the difficulty in extending this to more choices (in that Arrow's theorem sort of way).
The best thing I've read on this stuff is Alvin Roth's "Who Gets What and Why" (2015) [1] which is worth a read in any case. Repugnant markets!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incentive_compatibility
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_E._Roth#Market_design
This doesn't mean we should all attempt to do the highest possible paying job available to us, but it does mean there's a genuine loss to society if (say) a high paid software engineer decides to quit and start a bike repair shop i.e. the economic pie will be smaller an so will the tax base. So when making the decision we should at least be conscious of this.
As an economist, I do kind of agree with the premise of the article, but in a different way. As consumers in particular, we can do much better than following incentives.
For instance, we can use the car less, even if it's a bit inconvenient. It's much nicer to see more people out walking, on their bikes or on the bus, leads to less noise and congestion. So there's a positive externality. Or I could buy a smaller car, even though bigger one is more convenient.
Similarly, if you're lucky enough to have a high paying job, you can buy all sorts of status symbols. Or, you could choose to consume less than you earn, and give the difference to charity, or invest in something of social value.
Whether you agree with this or not, economic theory provides a clear framework to think about all of this, both the price signal and the difference between private and social incentives. What bothers me (as the article touches on) is that people often have a simplified view of economics which is essentially that 'market incentives and price signals broadly lead to good outcomes (or at least, better outcomes than communism!), and therefore economics always morally endorses buying things at market prices'. There's nothing in economic theory that says that spending £50k more on a car because it's got a fancier brand is a reasonable moral choice.
What lovely writing.
As thinking individuals we can and should use our awareness and courage to make biggest "good" choices we can bear to. We can't all be zero-waste vegan community organisers lobbying for renewables and free education/healthcare, but I doubt living life with the blinders on leads any kind of moral or spiritual growth or fulfilment either.
That’s the cool thing about incentives, we follow them whether we realize it or not. “bear to” is where the incentives are hiding. We don’t make the best choices, we choose from the choices available to us.
You can’t fight your environment forever.
If the gooder choice is 50km away and the bad choice is down the street, eventually you’ll stop going 50km out of your way every day because it’s just too cumbersome. You might even do it “just this once” because you had a busy day and your kid is crying and you’re just so tired and then before you know it, it’s been months or even years since the last time you did the cumbersome better thing.
No, we don't.
> Everywhere you look, people are being rewarded for doing the wrong thing.
And, people are also being rewarded for doing the right thing. Don't conflate the two.
Just because some incentives are rewarding the wrong behavior doesn't invalidate the concept. We're surrounded by incentives at work in every part of our life.
Fiat money only works because we are incentivized to believe in it.
Democracy works because we're mostly incentivized to support it.
Governments, countries, companies, parks, global trade, science, and shipping only work because of the complex web of positive and negative incentives we've built up to support them. They're not perfect, and never will be. And they also shouldn't be perfect (despite our natural inclination to want the "perfect"). The worst atrocities humankind has seen were driven by the pursuit of perfection and purity.
The cobra effect is what happens when you choose your incentives poorly. That's not a fault of the concept.
Don't like smoking? Try out right banning it. It's impossible. You have to fight the lobbyist, the addicted consumers, the workers employed by the industry, ... Slapping a tax on it is much easier. A soft NO that's giving everyone time to adjust.
I think reducing individuals to two people whose only difference is wealth in respect to which goods they can buy is wrong when applied to real world societies in the same way that weather prognosis based on a very limited set of parameters is wrong.
Wealth is not a measure to pay just fines or good, but today effectively the approximation for power that individuals, groups of individuals or legal entities hold. And measuring wealth is a huge complex topic on its own which also makes the taxation topic very complicated.
I think that's a huge flaw in present day economical thought. X is good because it increases X/Y ignoring secondary effects. It's like predicting whether it will rain on a given day by just looking at which way the wind goes on your weather station. There is theoretical truth to it, but given both secondary effects and the rest of the world that you might completely ignore but might have complete or partial reversal effects.
And then you have various groups that anyway mess with the details of the rules and people that ignore them through various other means, like not getting caught.
Classic example is also "We raise taxes, because then the rich will go away" which ignores things from "the rich" potentially not giving you anything if they don't give you taxes and the fact that your country might be able to offer a bit more both as a living and a working place than the level of taxes. In fact there have been studies conducted and the reality is that it barely has an effect. Turns out that people don't just leave for paying something that might even indirectly benefit them. Just like if you are rich you probably don't care much if the price for base goods increases, because you might have way bigger incentives like being in a secure place, having a house and family at a place and your company currently running smoothly with no downtrend in sight.
An incentive based solution is: reduced pay on sick days. With _no pay_ you get sick people at work. With _full pay_ you get healthy people at home. With _reduced pay_ you can find a sweet spot. That adds no bureaucracy for doctors. For employers there is some but it directly translates into cost savings.
However whatever Germany is doing right now definitely isn't the way to to either.
[0] https://theconversation.com/three-things-australia-must-do-t...
It is very typical that when someone gets on drugs even the father of the person stops trying to help after several failed trials. Only the mothers stay. And it is so painful to watch. The kind of abuses mothers tolerate from their children.
Substances destroys the typical regulating behaviour of the brain. They literally can't see the harm they do to others. You usually can't help them until they hit rock bottom and open a window for you to intervene.
For helping you need knowledge and training and "trying to help" without it could do more harm than good.
About the moral obligation to help the drug addicts, as "social justice", I would call this "injustice". Here is the typical situation: Someone takes drugs in a social group because is "cool". In the same group there is someone that decides not to take them. He is humiliated by the group and it takes a lot of work. One of the members of the group gets addicted, do terrible things and asks for help.
It is usual that the one that did not take drugs, or the brother in the family ask the question "why are you helping this person that decided to go this way herself?" "Why are you expending like 10x more resources in this person that did everything wrong than in me when did everything well (studied instead of earning easy money selling drugs, that had to withstand the pressure and humiliations by the group).
Drugs are super expensive and addicts will do anything to get their dose, supporting the addicts usually takes all the resources from a family, neglecting the resources to other members of the family. If the State provides the support, the same thing happens. Should the State spend exorbitant resources that the rest of the society has to pay taking the resources from everyone that needs them?
But this misunderstands incentive based analysis.
The point isn't just that people naturally follow incentives, but that those who refuse are punished and no longer in a position to affect the world.
Taking a principled stand is great and all, but if the result is simply that you get fired and replaced by someone better at following orders, you didn't really fix the problem.
Of course it's more complicated than that. Certainly other people being willing to do evil is no excuse to do evil yourself. Maybe your principled stand inspires others and you start a revolution or something. But that's rare. In the average case incentives win. Which is why if you want to actually change the world for the better you should attack the incentives not the individuals - individuals can be replaced, but millions are willing to follow incentives.
-----
The rest of the article seems to be about developing your own morality, but morality is really just yet another incentive.
Responding to the actual article: it seems like the author simply has a different set of values than what is assumed by the conventional incentives that he sees around him. If you choose your values then you can also choose your incentives.
1) Bribe/corruption is okay: Do this (eat broccoli, finish homework, etc) and I'll give you an incentive/bribe (candy, play time, screen time).
2) Magic: Kids are scientific and curious, they ask millions of questions. Explain everything away by magic (fairytales), religion, god, govt, economics, etc. Nobody has the knowledge or patience to deal with the continuous stream of questions.
We train kids to accept these things as defaults of culture.
The only parent that comes to mind who seems to have understood this is Richard Feynman's dad who taught him to think like a scientist, question authority, etc: https://www.wondersofphysics.com/2021/06/what-did-feynman-le...
As far as 2) goes, I don't think that is actually true. Sometimes people don't have time for children's questions, but when a child asks why summer is different than winter nobody in modern times says because Demeter is sad about the rape of her daughter.
Practical first step would be to return to Humboldt's model of education[2] and to not devalue to arts and humanities at every opportunity.
[1] https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Yw7WAq_GZY8/hqdefault.jpg [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldtian_model_of_higher_ed...
But you don't have to wait for the entire world to change for you to treat the people around you this way.
In this society, I'm a loser precisely because I ignored incentives. I think we live in a failed society so I don't mind that much being a loser in such society. I don't think I would feel any pride being a winner... However, I would very much appreciate the financial comfort of not having to participate in it! So that would be the advantage of being a winner.
It's the great irony; the winners who have the option to not participate, want to participate... And the losers who ignore incentives find that they are forced to participate sooner or later!
Right now I think my current job is probably unethical. Though most people would probably not think so. They just didn't look for the devil in the details.
Most people are lucky to have been following incentives subconsciously, believing that incentives align with economic efficiency and, therefore, moral virtue. I was not so lucky to believe that. Now I have to do stuff that I know to be unethical to free myself. Is this the definition of corruption? Isn't it a worse form of corruption if you don't even bother trying to understand the impact of what you're doing? Or worse, you deceive yourself?
So the author is making some point about wrong incentive models and meta models.
Very few people are self starters, I’ve become fixated on increasing the productivity of the population. Anyone excluded or encumbered has things to address why that is, and then add them to the productivity machine. At one point women weren’t included, other marginalized people are excluded, some populations have a tendency to suicide unless we affirm their feelings and then they are productive. All of that fits within my philosophy and makes the tweaks to the workflow easy adopt, if it means more people are included in the productivity engine.
Most of the comments are one level deeper “lets condition all of society to be self starters” with no proposal on how to do so
Incentives it is
This is actually a fairly recent concept.
For a long time, humans across the globe have believed that life had a purpose, but until the 18th and 19th centuries, the belief was more or less that the purpose was dictated by God, the universe, etc. That there was a purpose that applied to everyone, not that everyone had to find his or her own purpose.
> That means refining your sense of right and wrong and figuring out how you, personally, can increase the right and decrease the wrong.
The problem with this is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Well-meaning people who believe strongly that they are increasing the right and decreasing the wrong are capable of creating many problems. And sometimes, you get really sick people who think they're well-meaning and their "right" is everyone else's "wrong".
> But over the years, as I had the opportunity to meet some of these captains of industry, these Grand Pooh-Bahs and Distinguished Scholars, I’ve realized how wrong I was. They only seemed enviable because I was looking at them from a distance, so all I could see was what they had. Up close, when you can see what they are, it becomes clear that only a few of these ladder-toppers are indeed wise and cool. More often, they’re sniveling little twerps. They’re spiritually chinless. They have no convictions, no passions, no purpose other than ladder-climbing. It’s sad to watch them, these people who have everything except the one thing that actually matters.
I'm personally not a fan of the Elons and Zucks of the world, but going around categorizing people into groups like "spiritually chinless, passionless, purpose-lacking sniveling little twerps who only care about getting ahead" probably isn't healthy.
Has the author considered that many of these people simply have beliefs, passions, purposes that don't align with his and that, if asked, they might speak poorly of his beliefs, passions, purposes?
We can debate whether or not these people are, in the final analysis, ethical, but I don't think reducing them to this helps the author's argument.
> Why spend your days wondering about right and wrong, good and evil, sacred and profane, etc. when you don’t have to?
Most people in this world don't have the luxury of sitting around and figuring out all of the world's mysteries and solving all of the world's problem.
> I saw my fish in 2020 in San Fransisco, during the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology.5 Inside the conference hotel were dozens of talks about stereotyping, prejudice, inequality, and so on. That had never struck me as strange until that year, when outside of the hotel, which was in the middle of SF’s Tenderloin district, people were sprawled out on the sidewalk, dying of overdoses. Scholars were scurrying past homeless people to give talks on social justice, which is ironic because “scholars will scurry past homeless people to give talks on social justice” is literally the main finding from one of the most famous psychology studies of all time.
The author paints his experience as some sort of Siddhartha-like epiphany. The reality is that lots of people have seen what the author saw, and worse. Any many were affected by it. But just because they didn't stop and play Jesus (which the author apparently didn't do either) doesn't mean that they didn't notice and weren't affected.
The author seems to be assuming that he's one of the few people who isn't oblivious.
> When I meet someone of uncommon integrity, someone willing to defy the incentives at any cost, I find they almost always have seen the fish—big, hulking fish, far larger than any I’ve ever encountered. They have undergone some kind of moral reckoning that undid their illusion of philosophical depth and gave them the chance to forge their own values.
Like what? The article is really lacking in specifics and it seems like it's a reflection of the author's experience and views, which he projects onto the other 8 billion people on the planet.
In my own experience, which includes having emigrated from the US to another part of the world, most people are just trying to get through the day, pay their bills, provide for their families, find peace and contentment, etc. They're not morally-corrupt zombies who, at best, are oblivious to the suffering in the world or, at worst, bad apes chasing free bananas. They're just people who don't have any illusions that their lives and powers are bigger than they really are.
Whether people think it's God dictated or it's self invented, sounds to me like people acquire purpose.
> then you’re a dummy and a schmuck
Who cares what names you call. I would be more powerful and comfortable in this world. While you spend your time calling names that would have zero effect in this world. You would be like a donkey who cries its lust away. Sounds like a total loser to me..
"We can all agree: the incentives are bad."
Seriously?!
If I kill someone, or behave like an asshole, everyone will hate me, so I've got an incentive not to. Is that so horrible?
The reason that people talk about incentives when it comes to politics is that laws and large parts of present day's richer countries economic systems are controlled by laws, contracts, associations between countries, companies, people, etc. and are an artificially created ruleset. That means if you change rules you change incentives. Eg. if you know a government will bail you out, you lose the incentive to avoid risky things, if there is a tax on something you are it will influence your monetary incentives, if being an asshole is looked upon favorably then you have an incentive to be one. Also if tax fraud isn't considered a crime by large parts of people or is seen as smart then you have an incentive to commit it.
A lot of social change good and bad came from shifts in good and bad incentives.
Even more. If you look at the legal and prison systems in Norway vs eg the US the incentives that individuals, governments and corporations have are a reason for a 5 year recidivism rate of 70% vs 20%.
In general if you think your life will be better as a criminal than the alternative then you will be incentivized become one. If you can choose between joining the mafia that might even care for you or barely getting through with day jobs then you are incentivized to do so.
So if a government manages to make sure your life will certainly better, than the incentive to join is a whole lot lower.
If you are shamed vs praised (or otherwise feel supported) for sexism or racism you will have an incentive to go a certain way.
Cults and so on used incentives in a bad way, many parents use incentives in a good way ("if you clean up your room/finish your homework/behave you'll get ice cream later").
The reason people talk about incentives is because they shape whether things are likely to work out. As we've seen big public companies usually will do everything they can get away with and will break laws if the expected profit is higher than the potential fine. That is a wrong and very much changeable incentive.
And it doesn't have to be laws. It can be public opinion. If the marketing is more expensive than just not doing a bad thing in first place then that's an incentive as well.
Incentives are the things that make people do things good and bad. Incentives are the reason people go out of bed and be it just the incentive to ease the pressure on their full bladder. And even there if getting up will cost you great pain you might have a higher incentive there.
Just like people going to doctors is often dominated by incentives of getting rid of a sickness vs not having to pay money or endure a potentially painful or side effect rich treatment.
What's they are missing is that it's all incentives, all the way down. You want to be a good kind person? You feel good when you believe you've demonstrated this - but you're just acting on incentives you've set for yourself to feel good. You want to feel morally superior by quitting social media (thereby avoiding the overt incentives to the contrary) or donating more to charity? Same thing - you're following incentives you've created for yourself to be the person you want to be and be seen as.
--
Also, FWIW, I strongly disliked the mid-article moralisation - implying that people are somehow flawed, inferior individuals if they haven't examined every aspect of their world and developed a deep understanding of it that could never be challenged. This is just a self-serving conceit of someone who feels superior because they think they see the matrix (or fish). The world is full of people who live their lives as best they can, trying to be decent people as best they can, without having the time, energy, or incentive to dive deeper into things as the author seems to believe they should. Are they inferior people? No. So f#ck this author and their snide superior moralistic b#llshit.
I don't think anyone would disagree that survival comes first. But for those who do have the time/energy/money to dive deeper into things, and intentionally choose not to... those people may be worthy of our contempt