[p2p-research] Money is used by people to obstruct far greater fears

[marc fawzi]

I'm seeing a number or responders who actually get "free" and "at cost" in
the context of peer production and they're all young with no exception.

Older people not only use money to obfuscate deeper fears about themselves
and the world but they are also more suspicious of "free" and "at cost" in
general.

To update you on the experiment, I've just taken two young entrepreneurs on
the basis that if I help them make their dream come true for "free" then
they ought to turn around and help others do the same thing. They get that,
totally, and are very excited about it. They have also demonstrated that
they're willing to do as much of the production as possible and are
interested in doing 100% of the production.

So it's this interest and demonstration of capacity to be their own
producers that really grabs my interest. What drives me is: how many people
can I empower?

While responders from the older crowd (those 25-45 yrs old) backed off the
minute their 'dream' was basically handed to them at a nominal cost (or even
for free had they asked for it) the younger crowd seem to be very excited
and are subscribing to the idea that we can start a model where everyone
helps everyone to become their own producers, and that by doing so everyone
benefits!!!

It seems that the older crowd had more than just the fear of failure in the
way of achieving their dreams. After further dialog, it's become clear that
they have resistance to the idea that anyone should be able to produce their
own iPhone idea because the idea of "scarcity creation" as the means for
profit is burnt into their brains. If they uphold the scarcity system then
the skills they've developed in terms of hording power, money, and
intellectual "property" all goes out of the window and they'd have to learn
how to operate in a world where the goal is abundance creation and where
those who enable the most abundance benefit the most.

It seems that in order to start a new economy based on gift giving or
at-cost trading we'd have to start with young people who have not yet
developed a psychologically complex relationship to money and are willing to
leave the world of scarcity behind (the world they know) and embrace the
world of abundance and openness (which has a completely different and far
more positive kind of empowerment)

There is definitely a lot to be learned from putting models in practice and
seeing what works and what doesn't.

Theories concocted on a keyboard change dramatically upon contact with
reality.

But as Eisenhower and Clausewitz before him said, "forget the plan; planning
is everything"

Working on theories helps us understand what it is that we really want to
accomplish, but without practice no theory stands a chance of being correct.


What I'm learning now is that I want to empower others and have them empower
others to be their own producers (of iPhone software in my case) and the
easiest way to do it seems to be "free" or "at cost" with YOUNG
participants. The keyword is "YOUNG"

There is a lot more to be learned from continuing with the experimentation
than from thinking about the logic.

I can see huge potential for the P2P Energy Economy but I doubt very much
that an absolute-value currency like the Joule Tokens can be made practical.
The challenge is how to make the currency relative (to something other than
demand and supply) while also making it abundance sustaining. I doubt that
anyone has solved the paradox... but if anyone has any ideas on such types
of currencies please don't hesitate to throw them out there.

Marc

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:27 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Summary:
>
> If money (the way it is today) is used by people to obstruct far greater
> fears/insecurities then how do we get rid of it?
>
> It is in fact a drug, so telling people not to do drugs (especially a very
> legal one like money) is not going to be easy ... Nicotine patches (i.e. the
> kind of money that hurts less) will help but it won't be easy...
>
> Marc
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [ox-en] There is no such thing as "equal exchange" - respect
> instead of money
> To: list-en at oekonux.org
>
>
> :)
>
> I guess all us programmers think alike.
>
> I'm already experimenting with "near zero cost" software production
> services and people's behavior (as documented through the exchanges I've had
> to date, which I will anonymize and publicize as part of a study) is very
> interesting and defeats every economic theory out there, including my own
> thinking on 'equitable exchnge' (or "at cost" exchange)
>
> I put out this ad on Craigslist - Manhattan, and I picked Manhattan because
> it's the bustling center of capitalism. I wanted the input to the experiment
> to be well defined, with as little ambiguity as possible.
>
> See: http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/bus/1052325574.html
>
> So what is $250 (upfront cost of the service) for a local developer with my
> experience when programmers in Belarus (who have contacted me following the
> ad) charge 10X the money for the same service?
>
> It is basically "near zero" relative to the market price of the service but
> to me it is roughly how much it would cost me in calories and coffee to
> deliver the service.
>
> So that's me experimenting with my own theory of "trading at the cost in
> work energy it takes to produce and deliver the good or service."
>
> The result is very mind opening.
>
> It seems that "trade" has far more deeper emotional/psychological
> dimensions than rational ones.
>
> Rationally, you'd think people would be hounding me to work on their iPhone
> this and iPhone that.
>
> I have great samples to show them and I have a 100% rational step-driven
> interaction process that I designed carefully to be as rationally assuring
> as possible so that a rational person would experience a flow-through
> process from initial contact to delivery.  I will publish this interaction
> process as part of the study, in anonymized fashion.
>
> I also say something nice about their idea and thank them for their
> interest etc.
>
> So you would think that paying for software production as a service at a
> price that is 10X less than what you'd get from a programmer in Belarus and
> 10X less than what you'd get from the lowest market price out there, at
> conceivably 10X the quality, combined very powerful/creative demos (work
> samples) and an exact, logical (yet emotionally positive/affirming)
> interaction process in a very hot market (relative to the state of the
> general market) would results in people 'begging' to get the service.
>
> What is happening, however, is that if I read deeply (or listen deeply) to
> their intent what they really want (which is hugely obfuscated by the way
> language is used in business dialog) is that they have other unmet needs
> that supercede making money and it may be scary for some to realize that
> they CAN actually produce that idea they have been fantasizing about (many
> have told me of their iPhone ideas that they have been fantasizing about for
> a while) which then exposes them to the fear of what if the idea does not
> sell once it's made? will that expose them to their insecurities which are
> now hiding behind a cost barrier?
>
> In other words, I am realizing that trade has many hidden dimensions, one
> of which that some people, some of the time, actually need to hide behind
> barriers like the barrier of something being too costly to attain.
>
> Yes, when people are given a zero barrier to a certain want or need that
> they did not realistically think they could have but always dreamt about
> having then they may prefer the dream to the reality.
>
> For example, as I said already, let's say that these people are mostly
> dreamers (because the ad I wrote probably appeals most to that segment) and
> they have this one idea that they have been harboring and dreaming about for
> a while and it has become a psychological shelter like: if only I can make
> this idea happen I will be all set. So when someone comes to them and offers
> to make the idea at near-zero cost (i.e. lowers the barrier enough that they
> can simply walk over it, and even if they had no legs they can crawl over
> it) then all the sudden they pull back. They recognize something wrong has
> happened: they need the dream of having the product more than they need the
> actual product.
>
> Now, if I was to change the barrier so that it is just a little beyond
> their reach, e.g. $2,500 instead of $500, then they would feel a strong pull
> from their other insecurity: "if I can only take a little more risk I bet I
> will succeed"
>
> The people are invited to check out some really clever and powerful iPhone
> demos I've made (mostly game physics/graphics related) and they are invited
> to talk to former CEOs, VCs, etc, i.e. an over abundance of assurance of my
> ability to make their dream happen, and I am genuine about wanting to help
> them realize their dreams (in my spare time.) It's an experiment at one
> level and a genuine desire to help people at another level (without over
> stretching myself)
>
> So the conclusion from this is that "trade" or "exchange" is a
> pyschological game with many up-till-now hidden dimensions. Equal exchange
> maybe less favorable than unequal exchange or vice versa, and we cannot
> decide on what will make people engage and complete an exchange unless we
> understand their psychological motives.
>
> If I offer the service completely for free, then people who want
> "dependence" on others as a way to live will definitely want to complete the
> exchnge but only if "I" take care of them and cater to their every need.
> Same if I offer it for money. It does not change a thing. Peopel are willing
> to pay to be able to have such dependence on someone, and my process is
> totally against dependence. I want to empower them to co-produce the product
> and I want them to achieve their dream, but they may want to purchase
> dependence or get dependence for free and cling to their dream instead of
> turning it into a reality.
>
> As you see, it has nothing to do with rational thought and everything to do
> with emotional/psychological needs.
>
> There are people of course who want to be empowered to achieve their dream.
>
> I have yet to see any such people in my so-far limited sample (I got about
> 6 or 7 inquiries in the last 2 days since I posted the ad)
>
> I am sure a larger sample set would have a larger variety of people, but
> even though I picked New York, the city that never sleeps and the capital of
> the capitalist world, I still have a sample (so far) that's made up entirely
> of people who are afraid and who view money as a barrier to hide behind when
> it's convenient and to jump across (if they're feeling daring enough) but
> never as a means for equitable exchange, i.e. money always associated with
> deeper fears and insecurities than the fear of money itself.
>
> I'll update you on how the experiment evolves but I could easily say that
> "phase I: removing the fear of money itself by making it almost irrelevant
> through at-cost trading" is now done (ready to move on to Phase II) and the
> conclusions I'm making from Phase I is that people have far deeper
> fears/insecurities than money, and they use money as both a protective
> barrier (blame their state on their lack of money) or as a great gap that
> they dare themselves to jump across (blame their state on their lack of risk
> taking, which if overcome with counter-phobia can lead to gambling or worse:
> throwing money out of the window to prove their courage)
>
> The relationship man has with "money" is one where man uses money to
> obfuscate far deeper fears.
>
> Marc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:13 AM, Stefan Noack <noackstefan at googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>> [Converted from multipart/alternative]
>>
>> [1 text/plain]
>> hi,
>>
>> what you say is completely correct in my opinion. being a programmer i
>> expect that i will become wealthy easily (which is actually already the
>> case
>> now). so even though the current system has many advantages for me
>> personally, logic tells me that such a system cannot be good because there
>> are other people out there who are less fortunate. so yesterday i had a
>> funny idea: once i have enough for me i could open a Zero-Dollar-Shop,
>> where
>> everything is free. I just want to see what happens! I expect some people
>> to
>> act very silly, spiling goods and so on but i also expect them to quickly
>> get bored.
>>
>> What i saw many times is that people act more sane and humane if they are
>> free to decide: For example when i travel to dresden by train and go back
>> the same day there is a special one-day ticket that is cheaper than two
>> rides. but additonally this ticket is valid for up to five persons. so
>> it's
>> common practice that people wo have such a ticket sell the free spaces to
>> others. however, when i ask people if they want to travel with me and they
>> ask me how much they have to pay i say "you're free to decide - it's
>> cheaper
>> for me either way." and i really mean it. many people react very confused.
>> it's interesting that all people that i asked so far gave me 5 or even 6
>> euros. a friend of mine once tried it the capitalist way and tried to sell
>> the free ticket space for 5 euro. the other person tried to beat it down
>> to
>> 3,80 and my friend disagreed so it was in the end more expensive for both
>> of
>> them!
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 10:41 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > [Converted from multipart/alternative]
>> >
>> > [1 text/plain]
>> > I think that we can't purify human nature with logic.
>> >
>> > The P2P Energy Economy model (on P2Pf wiki) goes to extreme lengths in
>> some
>> > areas to make sure that the model's logic supersedes human irrationality
>> > (or
>> > the impure nature) but that resulted in one fatal contradiction: people
>> > should be able to give things completely for free without any
>> expectation
>> > (i.e. true generosity) which the model had no way of allowing while also
>> > enforcing equitable exchange. So I've moved away from trying to purify
>> > human
>> > nature with logic and resorted to the much more limited goal of enabling
>> > voluntary reciprocal exchanges in immaterial resources that are already
>> > abundant (e.g. digital content) so as to have a participatory protocol
>> that
>> > sustains the abundance of the given resource on scalable basis. That's a
>> > much lower intervention than trying to constrain human behavior... and
>> I'm
>> > still thinking about it...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:19 AM, Stefan Noack <
>> noackstefan at googlemail.com
>> > >wrote:
>> >
>> > > [Converted from multipart/alternative]
>> > >
>> > > [1 text/plain]
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 10:05 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > [Converted from multipart/alternative]
>> > > >
>> > > > [1 text/plain]
>> > > > Giving and getting recommendations (or respect) in a reciprocal or
>> > > > generalized exchange is an ancient common social practice.  I can
>> > > recommend
>> > > > you if you recommend me back, or I can recommend you without
>> expecting
>> > > that
>> > > > you recommend me back. This is a common social practice and can
>> happen
>> > as
>> > > a
>> > > > reciprocal exchange or as a generalized (non-reciprocal) exchange.
>> > > >
>> > > > Someone who is highly political can accumulate a lot of so-called
>> > > "respect"
>> > > > without having any moral or intellectual merit.
>> > > >
>> > > > Try to solve that!
>> > > >
>> > > > i.e. how do you ensure that respect in society flows not based on
>> > > political
>> > > > favoritism but based on rational thought.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > My idea was to always have the respect coupled to the action it was
>> given
>> > > for; your example is a disadvantage of the respect systems that we
>> have
>> > > now,
>> > > where the motivation for paying respect can become very irrational.
>> > Having
>> > > the respect together with the reason it was paid for would allow me to
>> > > evaluate my personal respect to that person based on my personal
>> > standards.
>> > > However, i have no idea how this could be implemented practically.
>> > >
>> > > grüße
>> > >
>> > > stefan
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > [2 text/html]
>> > > _________________________________
>> > > Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
>> > > Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
>> > > Contact: projekt at oekonux.de
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > [2 text/html]
>> > _________________________________
>> > Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
>> > Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
>> > Contact: projekt at oekonux.de
>> >
>>
>>
>> [2 text/html]
>> _________________________________
>> Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
>> Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
>> Contact: projekt at oekonux.de
>>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090307/03d7140d/attachment-0001.html>