The Jolly Contrarian

Candle problem: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Candle problem (view source)

Revision as of 15:33, 2 April 2020

434 bytes added ,  2 April 2020
no edit summary
m (Amwelladmin moved page Glucksberg candle experiment to Candle problem)
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|g|[[File:Candle in the wind.jpg|450px|frameless|center|Elton Glucksberg performing ''Candle on the Wall'' yesterday.]]}}The [[Glucksberg candle experiment]] is a celebrated experiment from social psychology that proves that, for non-trivial problems, an incentive structure that rewards individual problem solvers — like a traditional investment banking bonus structure, yo — will be less successful in solving the problem that a structure that rewards everyone on the group equally. Popularised by {{author|Daniel Pink}} in a TED Talk and a book on the topic: {{br|Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us}}.
{{a|g|[[File:Candle in the wind.jpg|450px|frameless|center|Elton Glucksberg performing ''Candle on the Wall'' yesterday.]]}}The [[candle problem]] is a celebrated experiment from social psychology about overcoming assumptions when solving problems (this is the “Duncker candle problem”), and what sorts of incentives work best for solving those kinds of problems (the “[[Glucksberg candle problem]]”).  


Popularised by {{author|Daniel Pink}} in a TED Talk and a book on the topic: {{br|Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us}}.
===Duncker===
The problem comes from the [[Duncker candle problem|''Duncker'' candle problem]], first formulated by gestalt rockabilly entertainer Elvis Duncker in 1945, which challenges participants to figure out how to attach a lighted candle to a wall so that no wax gets on the floor, using only matches and a tray of tacks. Duncker correctly predicted participants’ “[[functional fixedness]]” regarding the tray — seeing it as only a container for the thumbtacks and not otherwise relevant to the problem — would hinder their arrival at the simplest solution to the puzzle: tack the box to the wall, and put the candle in the box.
The problem comes from the [[Duncker candle problem|''Duncker'' candle problem]], first formulated by gestalt rockabilly entertainer Elvis Duncker in 1945, which challenges participants to figure out how to attach a lighted candle to a wall so that no wax gets on the floor, using only matches and a tray of tacks. Duncker correctly predicted participants’ “[[functional fixedness]]” regarding the tray — seeing it as only a container for the thumbtacks and not otherwise relevant to the problem — would hinder their arrival at the simplest solution to the puzzle: tack the box to the wall, and put the candle in the box.


Thus, solving the [[Duncker candle problem]] requires a small amount of lateral thinking, to overcome the [[functional fixedness]].  
Thus, solving the [[Duncker candle problem]] requires a small amount of lateral thinking, to overcome the “[[functional fixedness]]”.  


The problem was then Elton Glucksberg’s addition was to run the experiment with two groups, and incentivise each differently. One group were not given an incentive but were told the experiment was a to test out various problems to decide which to use in a later experiment”. The other group were offered cash incentives for being among the fastest in the group to solve the problem. The fastest solved got $20, the top 25% got $5, and the rest got nothing.
===Glucksberg===
Enter flamboyant pianist Elton Glucksberg’s, whose addition was to run the [[candle problem]] with two groups, each incentivised differently. One group was not given an incentive but told the experiment was a to test out various problems to decide which to use in a later experiment”. The 25% fastest problem solvers in the other group would win $5 each, the fastest, $25. The rest got a [[donut]].


So what do you think happened?
You will never guess what happened.


It turns out that greedy individuals racing to solve the problem by themselves and claim the maximum reward will be disinclined from collaborating, and will be forced into a narrow results focussed mindset probably best suited to the problem. Those without that pressure are inclined to share, and on average the sharing group apples the problem more quickly.
It turns out those incentivised to be greedy capitalist rent-seekers were disinclined to collaborate, forced themselves into a narrow, white-knuckle footrace towards the goal and ''didn’t do very well''. Those without the pressure to kill or be killed collaborated and, on average, solved the problem far more quickly. This really ought not need a Ted Talk to point out. The incentives are all wrong: they discourage collaboration of the sort which obviously will help in solving the problem.


This really ought not surprise anyone who thinks about the problem for a moment. The incentives are all wrong and discourage collaboration of the sort which obviously will help in solving the problem.
Any way, in this way, by the simple expedient of [[libtard|metropolitan liberal]] reasoningwas naked capitalism finally falsified, vanquished and logicked out of existence. As a result, there aren’t any [[Investment bank|investment banks]] any more, the canals of Venice run clear, the sky over Zhengzhou is a brilliant polaroid blue, and unicorns gamble in the wildflower meadows of Rotherhithe.


This maddens sociologist Daniel Pink who, in a well-known Ted talk, rails at the absurdity and venality of modern institutions, whose leaders stick religiously to the traditional bonus structure when they have of this overwhelming evidence that it doesn’t work
Well, not quite. But the insistence of big organisations on narrow, stupid compensation models maddens Daniel Pink, giver of said TED talk, who rails at the absurdity and venality of our institutions, whose leaders stick religiously to the traditional bonus structure in the face of overwhelming evidence that it doesn’t work. It doesn’t just madden Pink, it ''baffles'' him.


But pink seems to be addressing the wrong puzzle here. The issue isn’t the wonder of how “autonomy, mastery, and purpose” will motivate people more than money — who didn’t, instinctively, know that? But why corporates ignore this plain,a priori fact.
But he seems to be addressing the wrong puzzle here. The puzzle isn’t the how “autonomy, mastery, and purpose” will motivate people more than money — who didn’t, instinctively, know that? — but why our corporate overlords who, in their reflective moments, surely must know that as well, ignore this plain, ''[[a priori]]'' fact.


As ever, the [[JC]] has a theory. It’s because the people who run corporates aren’t, actually interested in solving the organisation’s, much less its clients’ actual problems, but seeing to their own personal enrichment. That is far better served by an inventive structure under which they, as leaders, will be the ones pocketing that lion’s share.
As ever, the [[JC]] has a theory. It’s because the people who run corporates aren’t, actually interested in solving the organisation’s, much less its clients’ actual problems, but seeing to their own personal enrichment. That is far better served by an inventive structure under which they, as leaders, will be the ones pocketing that lion’s share.
.
.
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/42660"