The effect of money on humans
Project: Polytopia
Project: Polytopia
I'm sure many of you know about the great mathematician, Paul Erdos, and may have heard this story about him (from Wikipedia):
and today, I was reading an interesting article titled, "Should kids be bribed to do well in school?" which starts off with this anecdote:
"Should Kids Be Bribed To Do Well In School? -Time Magazine"
The connecting link between these two behaviors is the monetary reward each was given. One was a intelligent 12 year old, and the other was a middle-aged, brilliant mathematician, but both were able to stop their addicting behaviors for money and to prove they could. Do you think they would have truly succeeded if there was nothing to "win" or no bet and the end? Amphetamines are a physiologically and psychological addicting substance, and as for television, I sure as hell couldn't quit for a month. Well, I would considering it's 2010 and we have the internet I could, but I couldn't live for a month without using computers. Either way, monetary rewards have the psychological power to give one the strength to break an addiction, albeit for an extended, but temporary, period of time.
This idea could make for some very interesting social policy that could prove to be incredibly effective, were there to be a society that would accept bribery of citizens (pay them to not pollute/stay in school/not get any driving violations... etc)
His colleague Alfréd Rényi said, "a mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems", and Erdős drank copious quantities. (This quotation is often attributed incorrectly to Erdős himself.)[6] After 1971 he also took amphetamines, despite the concern of his friends, one of whom (Ron Graham) bet him $500 that he could not stop taking the drug for a month.[7] Erdős won the bet, but complained during his abstinence that mathematics had been set back by a month: "Before, when I looked at a piece of blank paper my mind was filled with ideas. Now all I see is a blank piece of paper." After he won the bet, he promptly resumed his amphetamine habit.
and today, I was reading an interesting article titled, "Should kids be bribed to do well in school?" which starts off with this anecdote:
In junior high school, one of my classmates had a TV addiction - back before it was normal. This boy - we'll call him Ethan - was an encyclopedia of vacuous content, from The A-Team to Who's the Boss?
Then one day Ethan's mother made him a bold offer. If he could go a full month without watching any TV, she would give him $200. None of us thought he could do it. But Ethan quit TV, just like that. His friends offered to let him cheat at their houses on Friday nights (Miami Vice nights!). Ethan said no.
One month later, Ethan's mom paid him $200. He went out and bought a TV, the biggest one he could find.
"Should Kids Be Bribed To Do Well In School? -Time Magazine"
The connecting link between these two behaviors is the monetary reward each was given. One was a intelligent 12 year old, and the other was a middle-aged, brilliant mathematician, but both were able to stop their addicting behaviors for money and to prove they could. Do you think they would have truly succeeded if there was nothing to "win" or no bet and the end? Amphetamines are a physiologically and psychological addicting substance, and as for television, I sure as hell couldn't quit for a month. Well, I would considering it's 2010 and we have the internet I could, but I couldn't live for a month without using computers. Either way, monetary rewards have the psychological power to give one the strength to break an addiction, albeit for an extended, but temporary, period of time.
This idea could make for some very interesting social policy that could prove to be incredibly effective, were there to be a society that would accept bribery of citizens (pay them to not pollute/stay in school/not get any driving violations... etc)






