Money and Recognition: The Two Axes of Compensation

(The following observation, including its linkage to Aristotle, is fun but not novel as noted at the end of the essay. The text/references came from Kagi's Research Assistant)

Compensation has two parts that work like directions on a plane. One direction is money. The other is recognition. Every job pays out along both, but the mix is different for each one. The mix is a two-vector and getting it right matters.

Examples abound. A doctor earns good money and high respect. Both directions are strong. A ballet dancer earns little money but receives great prestige. The recognition direction does almost all the work. A soldier may earn modest pay but gains deep honor, especially in moments of sacrifice. Respect, prestige, and honor are three words for the recognition axis — the one that money cannot buy.

Money and recognition are different goods for different kinds of merit. Paying someone in the wrong way causes problems. A wealthy person does not need more money. A person who cannot buy groceries does not care about awards. The right reward is the two-vector that addresses what the person actually lacks on both axes.

This is an old idea, with concepts going back to at least Aristotle. He saw that honor (not "recognition") and money were separate goods. He tied each to a different kind of contribution. He warned that mixing them up causes political trouble. The passages below trace his argument.

Concept	Aristotle's Words	Source
Honor and profit are two distinct currencies of reward. In unequal friendships, each party should receive more — but not more of the same thing: the superior receives the larger share of honor; the needy party receives the larger share of material gain.	"both parties should receive a larger share from the friendship, but not a larger share of the same thing: the superior should receive the larger share of honor, the needy one the larger share of profit; for honor is the due reward of virtue and beneficence, while need obtains the aid it requires in pecuniary gain."	Nicomachean Ethics VIII.14
Honor and property are independent axes of competition. People compete for them separately, and inequality along each axis produces discontent in opposite directions: the masses resent unequal property; the upper classes resent equally distributed honors.	"civil strife is caused not only by inequality of property but also by inequality of honors, though the two motives operate in opposite ways—the masses are discontented if possessions are unequally distributed, the upper classes if honors are equally distributed."	Politics II.7 (1266b)
"Merit" is not a single dimension. Different political traditions measure it differently — by free birth, by wealth, or by virtue — so what counts as a fair reward depends on which axis of merit is being applied.	"all men agree that what is just in distribution must be according to merit in some sense, though they do not all specify the same sort of merit, but democrats identify it with the status of freeman, supporters of oligarchy with wealth (or with noble birth), and supporters of aristocracy with excellence."	Nicomachean Ethics V.3
Paying along only one axis gives poor outcomes. Each group is partly right but wrong when it claims the whole.	"All those who dispute about the forms of constitution assert a part of the just principle."	Politics III.9 (1281a)

This article's two-axes presentation is not original. For example, Nancy Fraser, in her contribution to Redistribution or Recognition? (co-authored with Axel Honneth), proposes a two-dimensional theory of justice in which economic redistribution and cultural recognition are distinct, irreducible axes. Her redistribution and recognition map directly onto the money and recognition axes described here.

Screen Time extensions are Intermittent Reinforcement

(The following observation/structure is mine but the text/references came from Kagi's Research Assistant per this specific prompting.)

Your child's iPhone or iPad locks. They look up at you. "Can I just have a little more time?"

You say yes. Or maybe no. Next time, you say the opposite. It feels like parenting. It isn't. It is one of the most powerful addiction triggers in psychology, and Apple has built it directly into Screen Time.

Psychologists call it intermittent reinforcement. The concept is simple. When a behavior is rewarded sometimes, but not always, that behavior becomes more persistent, not less. The uncertainty is the point. As one introduction to the subject puts it, "unpredictability can create a stronger association between the behavior and the reward, making it more compelling and often more difficult to extinguish." [1] This is why slot machines work. You keep pulling the lever because this time might be the one. The reward doesn't have to come often. It just has to come sometimes.

Apple's Screen Time feature is marketed as a parental control tool. It lets parents set daily limits on how long a child can use an app or a device. When a child hits that limit, the iPhone or iPad locks. Apple describes what happens next on its own child safety page: the child "can ask parents for more time." [2] CNET, reviewing the feature approvingly, puts it plainly: "your child can send a request for more time if more time is needed." [3] The parent then decides. Yes, no, or no answer at all. The child never knows which it will be.

That uncertainty is not a minor flaw. It is the mechanism. The behavior is using the phone until the limit hits, then sending the request. The reward is more screen time. The schedule is unpredictable. That is a textbook variable-ratio reinforcement schedule. It is the same structure that makes gambling compulsive. [1] The child is not being taught that the phone has limits. The child is being taught that the phone has a lever. Pull it enough times and it pays out. The parent, intending to set a boundary, has instead become the slot machine.

The fix is not complicated. Set the limit. Hold it. Every time. No exceptions. A limit that bends is not a limit. It is a reward on a variable schedule. The parent who always says no to extension requests is not being cruel. They are being consistent. And consistency is the one thing that intermittent reinforcement cannot survive. [1] Your child does not need more time on their phone. They need a parent who means what they say. Do not use time extensions.

References

1. "The Power of Intermittent Reinforcement in Psychology." Unplugged Psych. https://www.unpluggedpsych.com/the-power-of-intermittent-reinforcement-in-psychology/
2. "Child Safety." Apple. https://www.apple.com/child-safety/
3. "Apple's Screen Time Feature Saves Parents from Being the Bad Guy." CNET. https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/apples-screen-time-feature-saves-parents-from-being-the-bad-guy/

Tinkering on old projects

Over the past year I've dusted off several projects hosted at https://github.com/RhysU/:

RhysU/ar

Autoregressive process modeling tools in header-only C++.

RhysU/ESIO

Parallel-HDF5 library for high-throughput I/O of structured turbulence simulation data.

RhysU/suzerain

Spectral, direct numerical simulation of the compressible Navier-Stokes equations for turbulence research.

RhysU/c99sh

Shebang interpreter that runs single C99, C11, and C++ files with rcfile support.

RhysU/jobserver

Nestable Python jobserver with thread-safe futures, callbacks, and type hints.

RhysU/droll

Command-line implementation of the Dungeon Roll dice game.

RhysU/tuna

Lightweight autotuner that picks the fastest among interchangeable code chunks at runtime.

RhysU/war

Simulation of the card game War.

Underling

Thirteen years ago, while working on the dissertation, I put together a 3D pencil transform library atop FFTW MPI called underling. It looked great in isolation. It never integrated correctly with my dissertation code. I eventually ran away because spending time on it wasn't time spend graduating

In the last couple of days I learned that there was no problem with the library from a correctness perspective. Instead, the mysterious problem was MKL exposes an incomplete FFTW implementation that simply returns NULL for a lot of methods. After some linking tinkering in my dissertation's primary codebase, my little pencil decomposition library snapped right into place.

This is both immensely satisfying (it worked after all!) and frustratingly painful (would have loved to benchmark/publish during the grad school days!). Alas.