Even if there was no reluctance to asking questions on the part of the readership, the cost of the question-and-response loop would still be very high. For those who write due to a desire to move a group forwards, the following observations of mine may be motivating:
-
Each question consumes some of a limited supply of (something like) discussion threadcount and bandwidth, decreasing the range and depth of the consideration given the other aspects of a topic.
-
The resolution of each loop takes time; the full version of the original topic is not completely elaborated until later, in turn delaying the development of discussion based on the fully elaborated original topic.
-
The resolution of each loop takes time. In some cases, this means that people following a discussion ought to check in multiple times to stay up-to-date with an evolving explanation.
-
A question-and-explanation is (nearly) invariably longer and (usually) more time consuming to write than a (moderately) artful initial explanation… so a quickly written initial missive is usually false economy, even selfishly.
In a group with multiple productive members, #3 and #4, by increasing the time cost of staying abreast of the topic, may tend to decrease productivity.
(Ironically, my above explanations are too terse. My apologies.)
We hear self-reports—or at least legends—of people “motivated” by far-mode concerns, so I think it can be credibly said that the public conception of “motivation” allows for both the visceral and immediate “motivated not to touch the stove again, lest they get burnt” and the abstract and far-off “motivated to increase revenues in the coming decade”.
Lionhearted’s term expressly forbids far-mode concerns—it picks out a subset of motivation.
However, I cannot endorse the phrase, since it seems that building the concept out as “Near mode motivation(s)” is more expressive (incorporates the entire near/far concept), less jargony, and nearly as short as “tactile ambition” (And probably can be trimmed to “near motivations”—which is shorter than “tactile ambition”—in contexts where it’s used often.)