You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

John_Maxwell_IV comments on The cup-holder paradox - Less Wrong Discussion

18 Post author: PhilGoetz 26 March 2013 04:47AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (78)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 30 March 2013 11:04:03PM *  0 points [-]

I'd expect the authors of the best business books (e.g. Andy Grove, Tony Hsieh) to have experience managing top corporations, or get paid to consult for managers of top corporations. Those are tasks that require intelligence and rationality to succeed at and consist of more than just motivating your workers. I'd expect that if there was no way to motivate workers in an intentional/systematic way, these smart, rational people would have said that in their books and it would be a truism in the business world. Instead, the truism is just the opposite.

I also think that things people take to be common sense should be given a strong prior in general. I see essentially no reason to believe that the threat of getting fired is the only thing that motivates anyone, so it's a bit frustrating to see you (apparently) privileging that hypothesis (because the great Eliezer, who has never managed anyone or worked at a for-profit corporation, suggested it?) when common sense holds the opposite.

Comment author: MugaSofer 30 March 2013 11:40:37PM *  -2 points [-]

Possibly I've been reading too much Dilbert, but I expect that books detailing brilliant new management insights would thrive regardless of the actual existence of such insights.

That said, I, like you, have a higher prior for employee motivation than lottery-winning. I just think this preexisting (perfectly rational) prior is your true rejection.