On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:06:14 +0100, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
The important conclusion is that there is lack of conclusive evidence that extrinsic rewards actually help and there is psychological research showing the opposite.
I wouldn't take this "research" too seriously. I'm not doubting the seriousness and/or competency of the researchers, but this seems like one of those "scientific conclusions" that are made once and then taken for instant truth by a large group of people (volunteer online project participants, in this case) because it simply "fits the picture". In other words, the conclusion is backed up by wishful thinking more than concrete evidence.
Well, I have a research to back up my "wishful thinking". You have only wishful thinking to back up your "wishful thinking". I still think that research carries more weight.
Not surprisingly, the first time I heard of this "scientific evidence" was on a page on the server of the Free Software Foundation, and in general you hardly ever hear of it outside of free-software or open-source communities.
Which is most likely due to your limited exposure. As far as I know, those results were confirmed in multiple experiments spanning multiple years. Hit the google and the library and then start proclaiming that "you hardly ever hear of it outside of free-software or open-source communities." One of the driving reasons for the research is to determine how to improve people's (student's, employee's) productivity and well-being and therefore has very broad applications and is non-neglible field of study in psychology.
The fact that *you* didn't hear about it outside free-software communites prooves only that you're not exactly qualified to comment on quality of the research and its conclusions.
It's like with the milk and the lightning. People have observed that milk tends to go sour when there is a thunderstorm. They conclude from that that the thunderstorm causes the milk to go sour, because that would fit the picture. But the conclusion is false. In reality there is a third factor, namely humidity, which causes both the milk to go sour and a thunderstorm.
You're arguing that "some people made inccorect conclusions in the past (example) therefore researches in question (that have nothing to do whatsoever with those people) made incorrect conclusions as well". Faulty logic if I ever saw one.
If you want to debate the merits of a very specific research, provide links to research that counters the result.
Similarly it is possible that people produce less-quality work for money not because of the money, but because of some undetermined third factor. Work for money tends to be less volunteered (i.e. you're stuck in a contract with an employer, you can't opt out at any time). Work for money tends to involve other people (colleagues or a boss) whom you might not like, but can't walk away from. Loads of possibilities.
Of course it's possible that they're wrong for multiple reasons. Researches could be really stupid. They could have suffered from temporary insanity. Maybe they were sponsored by evil goverment agency so secret, that they don't even have 3-letter acronym and created wrong results on purpose.
However, just pointing the fact that its possible that the research migh be wrong is not an argument. You can apply this silly reasoning to any research ever done, especially in psychology, given that isolating primary factors isn't easy in psychological studies.
Krzysztof Kowalczyk | http://blog.kowalczyk.info