Commit 5d1a2888 authored by Eric S. Raymond's avatar Eric S. Raymond

/etc cleanup

	* COOKIES, copying.paper, INTERVIEW, MAILINGLISTS, MOTIVATION,
	publicsuffix.txt SERVICE: More deletions suggested by RMS.
parent 9685190b
2014-01-11 Eric S. Raymond <esr@thyrsus.com>
* celibacy.1, sex.6, condom.1, echo.msg: Deleted at RMS's
suggestion. Not lost to posterity as they are part of the
widely distributed funny-manpages collection.
2014-01-11 Fabrice Popineau <fabrice.popineau@gmail.com>
* configure.ac: Read $srcdir/nt/mingw-cfg.site when $MSYSTEM is
......
[Someone sent this in from California, and we decided to extend
our campaign against information hoarding to recipes as well
as software. (Recipes are the closest thing, not involving computers,
to software.)
The story appears to be a myth, according to the Chicago Tribune,
which says that Mrs Fields Cookies hoards the information completely.
Therefore, this recipe can be thought of as a compatible replacement.
We have reports that the cookies it makes are pretty good.]
Someone at PG&E called the Mrs. Fields Cookie office
and requested the recipe for her cookies. They asked
her for her charge card number, and she gave it to them
thinking the cost would be $15 to $25. It turned out
to be $200!
Therefore, this person is giving the recipe to anyone
and everyone she knows (and doesn't know) so that
someone can get use of her $200. Anyway, just keep
passing it on.
Cream together: 2 cups butter
2 cups sugar
2 cups brown sugar
Add: 4 eggs
2 tsp. vanilla
Mix together in
separate bowl: 4 cups flour
5 cups oatmeal (put small
amounts of oatmeal in blender until it turns to
powder. Measure out 5 cups of oatmeal and only
"powderize" that, NOT 5 cups "powderized" oatmeal)
1 tsp salt
2 tsp baking powder
2 tsp baking soda
Mix: All of the above
Add: 24 oz. bag of chocolate chips and
1 finely grated 8 oz Hershey bar (plain)
Add: 3 cups chopped nuts (any kind)
Bake on greased cookie sheet (make golf ball sized balls) and
bake about two inches apart. Bake at 350 degrees for 8 - 10
minutes. DO NOT OVERBAKE. Makes 112.
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!hplabs!parcvax!bane@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John R. Bane)
Subject: Re: free cookie foundation?
Hi! I "stole" your very expensive cookie recipe off the net. If you
want to send me your SnailMail address, I'll be glad to send you a
dollar (I would like to suggest this to the net, but I think there is
some netiquette rule against asking for money - or is that only money
for oneself?) to help defray the cost (it's not much, but if EVERYone
who took the recipe sent you a dollar, it would help).
Here also is another cookie recipe which I'm very fond of.
Makes 6-8 dozen
Bake at 375 degrees for ~10 min.
Cream together:
1 cup shortening (I use Weight Watcher's Reduced Calorie Margarine!)
1/4 cup peanut butter (I recommend the non-sugared kind)
1/2 cup sugar
1/2 cup brown sugar
2 eggs
1 teaspoon vanilla
Add:
1/2 cup flour
1 teaspoon soda
1/2 teaspoon salt
2 cups rolled oats (I use the 5-min variety)
1-2 cups chocolate chips (I use 2 cups semi-sweet - ummmm!)
1 cup nuts (I use pecan pieces - don't get them crushed, or the extra
oil will make greasy cookies)
1 cup shredded or flaked coconut
(The nuts were listed as optional and I added the coconut myself, but
I really love them there! You could also add things like m&m's, or
raisins (I don't care for raisins in cookies, but you might). I've
always wanted to try banana chips.)
Mix well. Drop by teaspoonfuls on greased cookie sheet (I use pam).
Bake at 375 degrees for approx. 10 min.
My aunt found this recipe in an Amish book called something like
"Eating Well When The Whole World Is Starving," and although I thought
a cookie recipe was a bit odd for a book like that, they are about the
healthiest a cookie is ever likely to get.
They are also very easy to make (no blending, sifting, rolling, etc.)
and extremely delicious. I get rave reviews and recipe requests whenever
I make them.
- rene
Chocolate Chip Cookies - Glamorous, crunchy, rich with chocolate bits & nuts.
Also known as "Toll House" Cookies ... from Kenneth and Ruth Wakefield's
charming New England Toll House on the outskirts of Whitman, Massachusetts.
These cookies were first introduced to American homemakers in 1939 through
our series of radio talks on "Famous Foods From Famous Eating Places."
Mix Thoroughly :
2/3 cup soft shortening ( part butter )
1/2 cup granulated sugar
1/2 cup brown sugar ( packed )
1 egg
1 tsp vanilla
Sift together and stir in :
1-1/2 cups sifted flour (*)
1/2 tsp soda
1/2 tsp salt
Stir in :
1/2 cup cut-up nuts
6 oz package of semi-sweet chocolate pieces ( about 1-1/4 cups )
(*) for a softer, more rounded cookie, use 1-3/4 cups sifted flour.
Drop rounded teaspoonfuls about 2" apart on ungreased baking sheet. Bake until
delicately browned ... cookies should still be soft. Cool slightly before you
remove them from the baking sheet.
Temperature: 375 F. ( modern oven )
Time: bake 8 - 10 minutes
Amount: 4 - 5 dozen 2" cookies
=====
Personal comments :
I find it tastes better with a mixture of shortening and butter, as they say.
You don't need << all >> of that sugar, and it can be whatever color you want.
The nuts are optional. Feel free to play with the recipe. I put oatmeal in it,
reducing flour accordingly, and sometimes cinnamon.
I also find it useful to grease the cookie sheets.
I think I'm going to go bake some now ...
-- richard
2014-01-11 Eric S. Raymond <esr@thyrsus.com>
* celibacy.1, sex.6, condom.1, echo.msg: Deleted at RMS's
suggestion. Not lost to posterity as they are part of the
widely distributed funny-manpages collection.
* COOKIES, copying.paper, INTERVIEW, MAILINGLISTS, MOTIVATION,
publicsuffix.txt SERVICE: More deletions suggested by RMS.
2014-01-10 Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>
* ORDERS: Replace contents with pointer to emacs.info, mark obsolete.
......
This diff is collapsed.
This diff is collapsed.
STUDIES FIND REWARD OFTEN NO MOTIVATOR
Creativity and intrinsic interest diminish if task is done for gain
By Alfie Kohn
Special to the Boston Globe
[reprinted with permission of the author
from the Monday 19 January 1987 Boston Globe]
Verbatim copying and distribution is permitted in any medium
provided this notice is preserved.
In the laboratory, rats get Rice Krispies. In the classroom the top
students get A's, and in the factory or office the best workers get
raises. It's an article of faith for most of us that rewards promote
better performance.
But a growing body of research suggests that this law is not nearly as
ironclad as was once thought. Psychologists have been finding that
rewards can lower performance levels, especially when the performance
involves creativity.
A related series of studies shows that intrinsic interest in a task -
the sense that something is worth doing for its own sake - typically
declines when someone is rewarded for doing it.
If a reward - money, awards, praise, or winning a contest - comes to
be seen as the reason one is engaging in an activity, that activity
will be viewed as less enjoyable in its own right.
With the exception of some behaviorists who doubt the very existence
of intrinsic motivation, these conclusions are now widely accepted
among psychologists. Taken together, they suggest we may unwittingly
be squelching interest and discouraging innovation among workers,
students and artists.
The recognition that rewards can have counter-productive effects is
based on a variety of studies, which have come up with such findings
as these: Young children who are rewarded for drawing are less likely
to draw on their own that are children who draw just for the fun of
it. Teenagers offered rewards for playing word games enjoy the games
less and do not do as well as those who play with no rewards.
Employees who are praised for meeting a manager's expectations suffer
a drop in motivation.
Much of the research on creativity and motivation has been performed
by Theresa Amabile, associate professor of psychology at Brandeis
University. In a paper published early last year on her most recent
study, she reported on experiments involving elementary school and
college students. Both groups were asked to make "silly" collages.
The young children were also asked to invent stories.
The least-creative projects, as rated by several teachers, were done
by those students who had contracted for rewards. "It may be that
commissioned work will, in general, be less creative than work that is
done out of pure interest," Amabile said.
In 1985, Amabile asked 72 creative writers at Brandeis and at Boston
University to write poetry. Some students then were given a list of
extrinsic (external) reasons for writing, such as impressing teachers,
making money and getting into graduate school, and were asked to think
about their own writing with respect to these reasons. Others were
given a list of intrinsic reasons: the enjoyment of playing with
words, satisfaction from self-expression, and so forth. A third group
was not given any list. All were then asked to do more writing.
The results were clear. Students given the extrinsic reasons not only
wrote less creatively than the others, as judged by 12 independent
poets, but the quality of their work dropped significantly. Rewards,
Amabile says, have this destructive effect primarily with creative
tasks, including higher-level problem-solving. "The more complex the
activity, the more it's hurt by extrinsic reward," she said.
But other research shows that artists are by no means the only ones
affected.
In one study, girls in the fifth and sixth grades tutored younger
children much less effectively if they were promised free movie
tickets for teaching well. The study, by James Gabarino, now
president of Chicago's Erikson Institute for Advanced Studies in Child
Development, showed that tutors working for the reward took longer to
communicate ideas, got frustrated more easily, and did a poorer job in
the end than those who were not rewarded.
Such findings call into question the widespread belief that money is
an effective and even necessary way to motivate people. They also
challenge the behaviorist assumption that any activity is more likely
to occur if it is rewarded. Amabile says her research "definitely
refutes the notion that creativity can be operantly conditioned."
But Kenneth McGraw, associate professor of psychology at the
University of Mississippi, cautions that this does not mean
behaviorism itself has been invalidated. "The basic principles of
reinforcement and rewards certainly work, but in a restricted context"
- restricted, that is, to tasks that are not especially interesting.
Researchers offer several explanations for their surprising findings
about rewards and performance.
First, rewards encourage people to focus narrowly on a task, to do it
as quickly as possible and to take few risks. "If they feel that
'this is something I have to get through to get the prize,' they're
going to be less creative," Amabile said.
Second, people come to see themselves as being controlled by the
reward. They feel less autonomous, and this may interfere with
performance. "To the extent one's experience of being
self-determined is limited," said Richard Ryan, associate psychology
professor at the University of Rochester, "one's creativity will be
reduced as well."
Finally, extrinsic rewards can erode intrinsic interest. People who
see themselves as working for money, approval or competitive success
find their tasks less pleasurable, and therefore do not do them as
well.
The last explanation reflects 15 years of work by Ryan's mentor at the
University of Rochester, Edward Deci. In 1971, Deci showed that
"money may work to buy off one's intrinsic motivation for an activity"
on a long-term basis. Ten years later, Deci and his colleagues
demonstrated that trying to best others has the same effect. Students
who competed to solve a puzzle quickly were less likely than those who
were not competing to keep working at it once the experiment was over.
Control plays role
There is general agreement, however, that not all rewards have the
same effect. Offering a flat fee for participating in an experiment -
similar to an hourly wage in the workplace - usually does not reduce
intrinsic motivation. It is only when the rewards are based on
performing a given task or doing a good job at it - analogous to
piece-rate payment and bonuses, respectively - that the problem
develops.
The key, then, lies in how a reward is experienced. If we come to
view ourselves as working to get something, we will no longer find
that activity worth doing in its own right.
There is an old joke that nicely illustrates the principle. An
elderly man, harassed by the taunts of neighborhood children, finally
devises a scheme. He offered to pay each child a dollar if they would
all return Tuesday and yell their insults again. They did so eagerly
and received the money, but he told them he could only pay 25 cents on
Wednesday. When they returned, insulted him again and collected their
quarters, he informed them that Thursday's rate would be just a penny.
"Forget it," they said - and never taunted him again.
Means to and end
In a 1982 study, Stanford psychologist Mark L. Lepper showed that any
task, no matter how enjoyable it once seemed, would be devalued if it
were presented as a means rather than an end. He told a group of
preschoolers they could not engage in one activity they liked until
they first took part in another. Although they had enjoyed both
activities equally, the children came to dislike the task that was a
prerequisite for the other.
It should not be surprising that when verbal feedback is experienced
as controlling, the effect on motivation can be similar to that of
payment. In a study of corporate employees, Ryan found that those who
were told, "Good, you're doing as you /should/" were "significantly
less intrinsically motivated than those who received feedback
informationally."
There's a difference, Ryan says, between saying, "I'm giving you this
reward because I recognize the value of your work" and "You're getting
this reward because you've lived up to my standards."
A different but related set of problems exists in the case of
creativity. Artists must make a living, of course, but Amabile
emphasizes that "the negative impact on creativity of working for
rewards can be minimized" by playing down the significance of these
rewards and trying not to use them in a controlling way. Creative
work, the research suggests, cannot be forced, but only allowed to
happen.
/Alfie Kohn, a Cambridge, MA writer, is the author of "No Contest: The
Case Against Competition," recently published by Houghton Mifflin Co.,
Boston, MA. ISBN 0-395-39387-6. /
GNU Service Directory
---------------------
Please see <http://www.fsf.org/resources/service/> for a list of
people who have asked to be listed as offering support services for
GNU software, including GNU Emacs, for a fee or in some cases at no
charge.
Note added January 2014:
This file is obsolete and will be removed in future.
Please update any links to use the above URL.
This diff is collapsed.
This diff is collapsed.
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment