I agree with preferring intentional friction to be non-destructive. But while money is a useful medium to convert friction into, it will always cause more friction for those who have less money. I have written a post to explore this and other options for friction here:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QqdrXf69NtJD4usGH/rethinking-friction-equity-and-motivation-across-domains
Money alone is an incomplete form of motivational friction; incorporating multiple motivational dimensions can improve fairness and effectiveness.
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... (read 359 more words →)
The "Snow is white" example bothered me every time. I suppose it is because I believe a single snow flake is transparent, and snow becomes white as these transparent snow flakes refract that light around more. I know snow looks white. I would have felt more comfortable with an item that was pigment white, that does equally reflect the visible spectrum, when providing an example of an incontrovertible fact.