Money alone is an incomplete form of motivational friction; incorporating multiple motivational dimensions can improve fairness and effectiveness.
Domains of friction
When rationalising a decision, we typically optimise for outcomes grouped into:
Health
Comfort/Effort
Enjoyment
Wealth
Social Standing
Self-Esteem
It's useful to question if two groups should merge—for instance, "Comfort" and "Enjoyment," or "Social Standing" and "Self-Esteem." A handy test is whether the same decision can hold opposing values in each.
Going camping ("roughing it") isn't comfortable, yet it's enjoyable. Physical activities often follow this pattern. Confessing to a misdeed usually improves self-esteem but reduces social standing, though confessing under duress may not aim to enhance self-esteem.
Our prioritisation of these areas determines a decision’s overall value. Rational decisions aren't inherently better than emotional ones but can guide them.
These impacts aren’t simple scores; they involve probabilities and time.
Example 01: Do I exercise by walking or base jumping?
Walking has a narrow, high-probability band of minor positive impact, alongside a broader, low-probability range of injury.
Base jumping has a higher probability of disastrous impacts and minor injuries, alongside a small positive health benefit.
Example 02: Do I buy a house?
Buying a home initially reduces wealth through sunk costs (fees, taxes). Over time, there's potential for steady wealth increase, but also risk.
Initial costs have high probability of a specific known cost; longer-term wealth outcomes have broader, uncertain values and probabilities.
Designing for fairness
While people don't explicitly use this framework, similar factors implicitly influence decisions. Attempts to influence decisions often promote specific impacts, their probabilities, and their relative values. People also respond differently to friction depending on how far in the future it is.
Zvi recommends money as friction, but wealth alone doesn't fairly impact everyone equally.
Example 03: Five expensive sports cars parked illegally at a beach received parking tickets. Clearly, wealth friction failed here—wealthy drivers were unaffected. Adding time-based friction (community service) could balance impacts, as wealthier people value time highly.
Balanced friction: Society readily accepts friction on wealth and time but hesitates on other groups like social standing (shame is controversial) and outright rejects health-based friction (at least in Australian society).
Sidenote on fines: If fines increased exponentially with recurrence and gradually reduced over time, equilibrium between friction and motivation would emerge.
Example 04: Jack illegally parks and is fined:
1st week: $20
2nd week: $80
3rd week: $320
Eventually, the cost outweighs convenience, influencing better choices. Over time, the multiplier decreases, allowing occasional minor infringements without severe penalty.
This escalating approach could fairly apply across other motivational groups like time.
Increasing fairness: A society that only uses wealth for friction is one where the poor have laws that the rich can ignore. Considering multiple motivational dimensions helps ensure fairness and effectiveness when designing friction to encourage desirable decisions.
I recognise Zvi's excellent post was not focused on the types of non-destructive friction. Zvi likely chose to focus the article on friction instead of wading into these concepts.
Money alone is an incomplete form of motivational friction; incorporating multiple motivational dimensions can improve fairness and effectiveness.
Domains of friction
When rationalising a decision, we typically optimise for outcomes grouped into:
It's useful to question if two groups should merge—for instance, "Comfort" and "Enjoyment," or "Social Standing" and "Self-Esteem." A handy test is whether the same decision can hold opposing values in each.
Going camping ("roughing it") isn't comfortable, yet it's enjoyable. Physical activities often follow this pattern. Confessing to a misdeed usually improves self-esteem but reduces social standing, though confessing under duress may not aim to enhance self-esteem.
Our prioritisation of these areas determines a decision’s overall value. Rational decisions aren't inherently better than emotional ones but can guide them.
These impacts aren’t simple scores; they involve probabilities and time.
Example 01: Do I exercise by walking or base jumping?
Example 02: Do I buy a house?
Designing for fairness
While people don't explicitly use this framework, similar factors implicitly influence decisions. Attempts to influence decisions often promote specific impacts, their probabilities, and their relative values. People also respond differently to friction depending on how far in the future it is.
Zvi recommends money as friction, but wealth alone doesn't fairly impact everyone equally.
Example 03: Five expensive sports cars parked illegally at a beach received parking tickets. Clearly, wealth friction failed here—wealthy drivers were unaffected. Adding time-based friction (community service) could balance impacts, as wealthier people value time highly.
Balanced friction: Society readily accepts friction on wealth and time but hesitates on other groups like social standing (shame is controversial) and outright rejects health-based friction (at least in Australian society).
Sidenote on fines: If fines increased exponentially with recurrence and gradually reduced over time, equilibrium between friction and motivation would emerge.
Example 04: Jack illegally parks and is fined:
This escalating approach could fairly apply across other motivational groups like time.
Increasing fairness: A society that only uses wealth for friction is one where the poor have laws that the rich can ignore. Considering multiple motivational dimensions helps ensure fairness and effectiveness when designing friction to encourage desirable decisions.
I recognise Zvi's excellent post was not focused on the types of non-destructive friction. Zvi likely chose to focus the article on friction instead of wading into these concepts.