= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Mqrius comments on Co-Working Collaboration to Combat Akrasia - 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 (96)
I'd even be ok with money changing hands. Or, more informally, buying food.
I think money might complicate things: You might want to get paid more for stuff you don't find that interesting. With trading just time, it feels different. You'd just give the other person X hours of your time, and you get X hours back. It doesn't matter to you what you do in the X hours you gave away. Perhaps getting money for it also makes it seem like work, instead of a fun, social thing. Then again, maybe it's a distinction that's only in my head, so if you can make it work, sure, go for it!
Buying food indeed seems less formal.
Also, paying money to your friends is probably bad, psychologically. There is a "social mode" with family and friends, and a "business mode" when dealing with money. They use different rules. For example the business mode is based on principle that everything can be replaced and traded; but the family and friends are supposed to be special. Trying to calculate whether the X hours I gave to my friend really have the same value as the X hours my friend gave to me seems like a certain way to ruin our friendship.
(I am not sure how much this is culture-depended.)
Dan Ariely's research found that paying money will destroy social relationships, giving stuff does a little damage, and just doing stuff for 'free' is best. So, if you're trying to keep the social bits, just go straight to 'free.'
I believe this is the research you mention? Effort for payment: a tale of two markets
Yes, it is.