102 sats \ 6 replies \ @k00b 15 Apr \ parent \ on: Join Us Today for a Q1 Review + Q2 Roadmap Discussion (11am ET) meta
I think something like that is structurally ideal. We discussed something similar. The complexity makes it hard to reason about though (for the average non-incentives nerd) and I think that'd have a big impact on the effectiveness.
The ideal action experience seems to be: I do obvious easy X and predictable good Y happens
A large portion of the negative emotions about rewards seem to come from the predictability of Y being low for instance.
That makes sense to me, but it also seems like giving us all a stake in each other would be the most aligned with the feeling of community you guys have cultivated.
reply
reply
Maybe mechanism design is the right term.
reply
This is a little outside my wheelhouse. I know it's an issue that experimental economists (major overlap with behavioral) always have to deal with. Oftentimes, they're trying get subjects to jump through some pretty complicated hoops, so they need the UX to be as intuitive as possible.
I'm not aware of one canonical treatment of the subject, though. It seems like individual experimentalists largely navigate it on their own, while borrowing heavily from each other.
It is mechanism design, but mechanism design is generally more theoretical and would tell you about the incentives created by the system you're studying and what it's equilibrium conditions are. I'm sure there's a bunch of work on applied mechanism design, though.
reply
"applied mechanism design" was the search query I needed to find this course and its reading list.
I don't expect to find a direct answer to anything we're talking about here, but it should improve my intuition at least.
reply
I'm glad my rapidly rusting knowledge was able to help.
reply