Reddit mentions of Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us

For my own I consider the text trying to explain too much in classical authoritarian terms, I would even say that it's very conservative. Further on the text does not explain the most essential about left libertarianism from my perspective, which can be summarized in these sentences:

• share what is sharable (i.e. information, knowledge)
  
• collaborate about the rest (space, skills, finite resources)
  
• treat others as you want others treat you.
  
  I have also summarized the information/knowledge aspect and privacy aspect in one sentence like this:
  
  "you can not own information you define, but only you own the information which defines you".
  
  Also, although this has not much to do with left libertarianism I think, but one fundamental problem I found with this society already 40 years ago, when I was 17 years old, that was the adverse effect the monetary system has on people. A few days ago I saw this picture, and I would say that it summarizes the problem quite well.
  
  Also this picture I found I consider summarizes the left libertarian principles well (at least from my perspective, but we may of course be motivated of different reasons).
  
  One principle which has been known since eons is that money does only work as a motivator for the simplest of jobs, requiring no brain or creativity. This was recently proven by MIT-researcher Daniel Pink. Our motivation comes from the inside, not from the outside. If you have access to Wiley there is a text here, which is a review of his book, also found a book link here. There is also a Ted Talk (1/2), Ted Talk (2/2) as well as an RSA animation. Personally I like the compact, efficient style of the RSA animations.
  
  In summary: Trying to motivate people by money decreses their performance!
  
  From my own observations during the last 40 years since I became aware about the problems of money, there is in principle nothing wrong with money as such, they consistute a great idea, but they affect people's mind in a tremendously bad way. First, you said you had been a market anarchist, this is also great, but as you are certainly aware, today's capitalism is not a market economy. There are too many anti-capitalistic instruments built-in, which strives to create an anti-competetive monopolism instead.
  
  The most serious anti-capitalistic instruments I consider: Proprietary secret technoloy and software, Patents, Commercial copyright, You can buy your competitior, No real incentives to invest in machines, Banks producing fiat money.

Perhaps check out the book, Drive

If you're curious, you're welcome to read a few books which have given me this "forecast".

First, the best primer on social business is "Creating a world without poverty" by Muhammad Yunus.

To understand why this type of business will work, read "Drive" by Daniel Pink.

> Suppose an inventor wants to build an electric car. He will need a team of 10 engineers to assist him and $5 million worth of tools and equipment to build a prototype over 1-5 years. He will have a significant chance of failure, more than half the time his effort to build the car will fail and the allocated labor and capital completely wasted. Are you saying that under socialism he will have access to the labor and capital that he needs? How is that allocated? Or that ventures that have a greater than 50% chance of failure simply cannot be funded?

Take a variety of successful entrepreneurs from any or all era's (Jobs, Musk, Walton, etc). How many of them claimed to do what they did for the money? Few, if any. Now what was largely the determining factor in whether or not they were able to succeed? Access to financial resources and the ability to profit. This is the capitalist dynamic at work. In a socialist system, there's no need for that dynamic to have to play out, and it is seldom the thing the that truly motivates us.

I just finished The Curious Incidenct of the Dog in the Night-Time by Mark Haddon and Accelerando by Charles Stross.

I'm currently reading Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us by Daniel Pink and The Age of Wonder: The Romantic Generation and the Discovery of the Beauty and Terror of Science by Richard Holmes.

This will, of course, appear as a copout, but I tire of this long quote monologues back and forth in a deep thread that will only ever be read by the two of us. I've gone through a few of them recently, and it goes on forever. So I'm going to be lazy and only address the low hanging fruit. If you feel strongly about certain points, please make a new topic about it.

>the capitalist does something valuable

>there is no monetary incentive to create innovation

>People have equal opportunity.

>the system would be gamed

All of these are broad enough to have a thread.

>Who is this capitalist

The one(s) who own the company, factory, etc. While one person can play the role of both the capitalist and CEO, often as not they're separate, which is why I included them on the list of workers above.

>Capitalism has been the single largest improvement in the working conditions

Remember what I said - capitalism is necessary to create the productive forces required for socialism to come about. In fact, the only reason socialism is possible is because of the contradictions within capitalism itself. Productive power is increased to the point where scarcity must be artificially created, because otherwise there is no profit. I don't wish capitalism had never existed at all. Also see historical materialism.

>the factory worker of the later 1800s and early 1900s, or the fast food worker of today?

That's because those factory workers and industrial society has been exported to Third-World countries with worse working conditions and labor laws. Have you looked on the tag on your clothing recently? Thailand, Vietnam, China, Guatemala, and so on. You claim to be against government intervention - so it's okay with you if these countries had a socialist movement preventing this imperialism?

>This is not the most common trend.

They all worked hard. But it's not simply a matter of effort - you need the right opportunities as well. This goes over some of the various things discussed in the book. The main point is that we are largely products of our environments, and case studies are presented over a variety of topics to show this.

>You work not out of passion or interest or of choice

Really? Beyond base level jobs (i.e. fast food), what motivates people is autonomy, drive, and purpose. In a communist society you will be able to pursue that which interests you, rather then what job you get. I'd also point out that in today's society you are alienated from your labor by your lack of influence on your workplace or what you produce. This is a good thread.

>Alienation is implicit to not simply the polity of liberalism, but all capital driven society (which basically encompasses most of the "age of civilization" thus far.)

>While it manifests itself in the ways most are forced to survive (by selling their labor) and the lack of influence they have over their workplaces, it extends right into how people relate to society in general. Much of the contempt and carelessness people show toward "public" spaces (often pointed to by liberals as a "proof" favoring privatization) has everything to do with the realization that we are pretty much "strangers and guests" in most of the spaces we occupy. People know better.

>Even the so called "representative democracies" are a farce. People quite rightly regard them as being mostly a spectator sport, where different wings of the oligarchy make a pitches about how much of our labor and security they will give back to us.

>Until the various "means of production" come fully under the control of those who utilize and maintain them (workers and society in general) and democracy becomes a feature of economics (where real power resides), this alienation will persist.

In a communist society, this would not be the case.

>Sure, but who are you to say how he should spend his money?

The point is that it makes sense for a capitalist to donate the most money - he has far more then the rest of us. Besides the fact, it is not "his" money - that was produced by exploiting the labor of others.

These are three that have my highest recommendation! I’ve read these books with other performing arts teachers in book study groups, and believe that they should be required reading for all teachers!

The Talent Code: Greatness Isn't Born. It's Grown. Here's How.

Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us.

You Win in the Locker Room First: The 7 C's to Build a Winning Team in Business, Sports, and Life.

I think the results from the studies which form the basis of the book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us
(presented in RSA Animate @ Youtube, Talk @ Ted or Article in Scientific American) should become more widely known.

Some things stuck out to me in your post. They were:

> Mom used to tell me as a kid that I was best at everything I do and I'm a genius.

and

> I've always thought of myself as good at everything. In fact even though I don't like saying it (anymore), I like to think I'm better than most people in most things. I have no idea if that's even true anymore, hence me doubting myself. I had a measured IQ of 154 when I was younger and everything came easy. When I actually had to start working for it, everything went downhill and fast since I was used to things being free for me.

I highly suggest reading the following two books:
Drive by Daniel Pink and Mindset: The New Psychology of Success by Carol S. Dweck.

They get right at the root of what you're dealing with, I think. The first book will allow you to place the blame on the people and organizations that raised you and that you reside in. The second book will challenge you to realize that you hold a fair share of the responsibility to make the changes within yourself in order to improve your life.

I can relate to your post in a lot of ways. I was in a similar place only a few years ago. I ended up graduating college but with a terrible GPA. I'm really smart. I have now realized that I could have sucked it up and put the effort in and it would have been completely worth it. I'm still working on myself but I'm optimistic about where I'm headed. I know it's cliche, but you must learn from your mistakes.

Don't mistake challenges as an attack to your intellectual integrity. They are quite the opposite of that-- they are opportunity and nothing else.

Also-- read up on things like nutrition and vitamins and exercise and blah blah healthy stuff.. seriously. Take vitamin D, fish oil, and vitamins. Avoid junk food-- it isn't hard at all just do it. Maybe you should look into polyphasic sleep schedules too. Remember, you are a biological creature who will respond appropriately to the stimuli that you receive. Good input = good output. That includes thoughts and actions as well. Good luck.

> How would this work on any sort of large scale? e.g. a city. Most people are strangers, so are they just going to be gifting strangers etc?

Give away shops. Gift exchanges.

> These vague, evidence less assertions is exactly why i'm not impressed by leftists.

Carrot and stick theories of human motivation have been disproven

> Leftists make the argument that humans are going to drastically change their behavior from what it is now all the time, and they do it without evidence or any good arguments.


Ancient societies centered around gift-giving and social debt practices rather than the common myth of barter. There have been plenty of scientific arguments in favor of communism.

> Well trade secrets. If you come up with a way to make some process 10% cheaper, and you keep it a secret, you can undercut all the competition and get more sales. It could take them a long time to get hold of this secret.

Depending on what the trade secret is they could just as easily make innovations and increase the price of their good because of the scarcity of the trade secret. This introduces an inefficiency that wouldn’t exist without a market economy. Why should we prefer the efficiency of markets over the efficiencies that can be had without them in this case?

> Is the answer not obvious? People who want the research done will fund it voluntarily.

I don’t think gift economies can be effective for work that requires one's full attention like scientific research without people having their basic needs guaranteed outside the market mechanism (like through gift economy).

> I see indie game makers making games all the time when there's not much chance they'll turn a profit. They do it because they love the idea of making the game, and the money is a bonus (or something that lets them do their hobby full time).

So you understand how people can be motivated in a gift economy. If gift economies can work for these things, why not at least try to get them to work for other sorts of relatively abundant goods?

> Right, but is it more or less efficient than having IP?

It is less efficient because while functionally the innovator gets to keep a monopoly on the knowledge in both cases at least with IP they share their knowledge with others even if those others would have to pay royalties to use that is still better than not having that knowledge not shared at all.

> One big issue here too is that IP laws by their nature violate physical property rights, and I view that as immoral. I mean if you want a great absurd example, it's John Deere claiming people who buy their tractors can't service them themself or with 3rd parties because it'd violate the copyright they have on the software in the tractor, and that John Deere is only licencing the tractors due to this. It's absurd, and a huge violation of property exchange principles (I can't imagine people agreed to this in writing when they bought the tractor).

This is largely a result of regulatory capture. It isn't hard to imagine a much more reasonable form of IP.

> IP laws are as much a moral issues as an issue of efficiency, and I think IP law fails on both fronts.

I agree with you that IP (all forms) is immoral, but I disagree that a reasonable form of IP would be inefficient if one is searching for the same sort of efficiencies that market economies offer for human capital.

> Did you forget competition exists for a sentence there?

Fair enough.

> I'm not sure you know what rivalrous means. It simply means two people can't use the same thing at the same time for different purposes. This absolutely applies to absentee ownership.

Absentee ownership means that the individual that owns it isn't using it, so how is it rivalrous?

> Is that research really that valuable though?

Extending human knowledge of the universe is a worthwhile pursuit in and of itself. Even without that motivation, this research could lead to technological advances down the line.


> Wait, are you saying you disagree with the division of labour?

The division of labour is obviously a great thing as it enables the complexities of modern society, but it isn't a goal unto itself. In the narrow scenario I was discussing, the specialization of the janitor doesn’t buy us much in the way of efficiency. It forces an individual to work a bullshit monotonous job when everyone in the organization can do their share of work towards it, so everyone can do fulfilling and valuable intellectual work. It also defeats the common argument used against communism about who will do the shitty jobs. If there is a job that no one wants to do but has to be done, the group can democratically decide on such a solution rather than just forcing the impoverished to have unfulfilling work.

> I agree market socialism wouldn't suffer from this kind.

Then, what is your objection to market socialism?

> Post-scarcity is utopian and never going to happen

Post-scarcity is only utopian if you define the term in a manner, which makes it not useful. Post-scarcity can refer to an economy where goods can be produced in relative abundance compared to their demand to the point where trading in that good becomes unprofitable. This has actually already occurred in agriculture causing the EU to buy up the surplus to increase the prices back to profitable levels. Production for use, while creating some inefficiencies, can lead to efficiencies like total distribution.

> (just like communism)

How would your view change if it were established that communism is feasible?

Read this book: Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us by Daniel Pink


Basically, right now all your motivation is extrinsic. It's only by finding what intrinsically motivates you that you will be truly successful, thereby accomplishing all those goals you just listed.