= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
pjeby comments on Anti-akrasia tool: like stickK.com for data nerds - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (88)
Wow, thanks, Alicorn! That just made my much more convoluted reply moot. :)
One more way to possibly mitigate the incentive problem:
http://beeminder.uservoice.com/forums/3011-general/suggestions/2281088-choose-your-own-incentives-have-an-option-to-pay-
...which is also crazy for a business. Bear in mind that there is a reason that bookies offer 50-to-1 odds on people meeting their weight loss goals.
"Pay if I meet my goal" makes no sense economically or motivationally. It only sounds good to people who don't want to risk anything. If you want to do a non-punishing version, or let people use their own incentives when they fail, just charge a per-goal fee up front, or a time-based fee.
Hm, 50-to-1 is a bit of an exaggeration? It says "up to 50-to-1", and in the same paragraph, "bettors lose 80 percent of the time". Your point besides that stands, though.