Isn't this line of reasoning

You need thinkers, problem solvers, people who can be creative and using money to motivate them will not get you that

a double-edged sword?

I understand this can be used as a reason for your employer to provide a (better) lifestyle approach (work-life balance), but it can also mean an employer doesn't have to pay you as much because no matter how much money they throw at you, it still won't motivate you to work optimally or strive to be the best creatively.

The reason why this jumped out at me is because I was in a similar situation. I applied to a huge company I wanted to work for, gave them my salary expectation from the get-go, and many wasted days and hours later, they offered me the job but with a salary that was a lot less than I had asked for. I asked if they needed further proof and mentioned that I had excelled at the tests they had given me and surpassed their job requirements (I had all the nice-to-haves and the required skills). They just said they were sorry I wouldn't be taking the position, because obviously I wouldn't at that salary. I think I would have been absolutely stellar at this position, but I wouldn't even be able to survive on that wage.

I consulted with a few personal friends who are managers or pretty high in their respective corporation's ladder, and they said I should feel insulted and that they were astonished.

So, while

Group B, on the other hand, having never been offered money in exchange for working on the puzzles, worked on the puzzles longer and longer in each consecutive session and maintained a higher level of sustained interest than Group A.

I question how this applies to the real world, where people usually are being paid to work, and move to another job usually for better working/living conditions and pay. Does this only apply to job-seekers who have no current job prospects? I think most people who take pay-cuts definitely think "It really has to be worth my while" to get paid less; variables such as neighbourhood, commute, etc., are taken into account.

And lastly, this

The way our brains are built make it necessary that emotions “cloud” our judgment. Without all that cloudy emotion, we wouldn’t be able to reason, have motivation, and make decisions.

sounds very Nietzschean--chaotic, unorganised, 'organic'/'natural'. This may be the philosopher inside of me talking, but this goes against a lot of my own philosophy. It is true that there needs to be a strong enough flow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)) to motivate us to do what we like, but I don't think this occupies a large percent of the motivation pie, if you will. I think a balance is needed and there is an initial gut sensation of excitement that needs to be recognised, but in the end, this excitement will wear off and one really needs to concentrate and ground oneself in reality. According to my interpretation of Nietzsche, these "clouded" judgments I think are very attractive to artists, and I think it manifests itself as a sense of childishness and naivete in, for example, (liberal) arts students. I was an arts student, before anyone jumps on me for this. Sorry to bring this into the equation, but this type of idealism is not suited for our times and, as arts students as witness/examples, they do not help the working world, when they put into practice this Nietzschean concept of passion; it seems too extreme.

I'm an emotional being, yes, but I need to balance it with rational judgment, not clouded judgment. The less I do this, the more I recognise this as a "high risk".