[Home]WhyWork

HomePage | RecentChanges | Preferences

How might OPTIMAES tackle the problem of agents' motivations to work? At the moment, it assumes agents do just create more resources. But this is undoubtedly going to be criticised from the right. If an agent has a choice, to not work, and consume resources it gains from gifts or exchange, surely this will decentivate work to create more resources?

That's another question of psychology, but like everything else, we can sharpen our intuitions by modelling it.

So, this is the page for discussing how to implement agent decision making about deciding whether to work, what the costs and benefits are, what psychology says about this etc. All suggestions, links to literature etc. welcome.


From Working Knowledge (Davenport & Prusak), it's said that other than money there are a few other "coins" in the knowledge market:

I would add Gratitude as the realization of Reciprocity (that is, when people pay back and fulfill the expectation). -- JoaoNeves


For reciprocity and gratitude, maybe we could model a ReputationEconomy.

For repute it might be interesting to try to implement an [AttentionEconomy]. Maybe treat attention as a resource which everyone has a fixed amount of. But can only be given once; or only sold on with big

I wouldn't overlook fun and personal satisfaction either. This is really important for genuinely creative and innovative things. The original stuff, by definition, is stuff that the market doesn't know it wants. -- PhilJones


OK, I must be thinking correctly because I also reached the problem of attention. I was thinking of a GiftAgents with non-scarce resources and thinking that everybody could have all resources in such an economy, so why doesn't it happen? Then concepts like information overload came to my mind.

Unlike you, I don't think attention is a resource, just an effect. My idea is, you can have resources and use resources. With non-scarce resources it's very "cheap" to have resources, but using them takes time (listening, reading, running software, etc). Attention span is, therefore, the time you spend using a resource. Maybe including time in the models makes them too expensive ?

So, what I'm saying is that for scarce resources you have to take into account acquisition (having them) and use (using them to produce other resources). This difference is what allows you to distinguish rich from middle class agents (rich have assets that generate other assets, while middle class usually has a lot of assets). For non-scarce resources, acquisition is only a problem if there's some kind of artificial scarcity (like non disclosure agreements), but using takes a limited resource called time.

This means that there are only 2 ways of coping the use of non-scarce resources: using them or ignoring them.

Sorry, I'm starting to think on things that are of the scope of this page.

-- JoaoNeves

It's all interesting. Especially as I've been reading Jeremy Rifkin's "The Age of Access" recently (I'm gonna write about this on my wiki soon) There he describe capitalism changing from a property exchange model to a network access model. In this model, agent attention time, and information capacity are definitely relevant. But you're also right this is getting big for this page. Let's refactor to AttentionEconomy? and AttentionAgent? pages, You can do this if you want, or I will when I get a bit of time. -- PhilJones


HomePage | RecentChanges | Preferences
This page is read-only | View other revisions
Last edited May 16, 2005 1:10 am by RichardP (diff)
Search: