jpahmad

Yes. Ignorance

Why does that just intuitively not feel like an accurate description of the man? I just don't get that "evil" vibe from him Where did you get that info? Is there a quote or a video?

Do you really believe this guy is evil?

Eastern version of a tarot card reader.

Yes, I thought it was definitely a little "softball." Suspend disbelief or not, there is no way I could enjoy a movie like that; I would just be gagging the whole time on the wad of propaganda that was being shoved at me.

I'd say so. I would put it this way though: The preference not to murder can be universalized without contradiction. Therefore, UPB is exists.

I think it's useful to think of UPB as "only that behavior that can me universally preferred without contradiction"

Well, the reason I'm interested in this topic is because my livelihood depends on getting kid to develop work ethic. This means that I have to prove to them that doing exactly what I say will benefit them immensely. The only problem is, the parents are not necessarily backing me up on this. They don't know how. And that I where I have to teach the parents as well. I have to teach them how to negotiate with their kids and get them to stay committed to an activity that has nothing to do with grade school. This is a big challenge. I feel if I can communicate the right principles, have them apply the principles, and prove it with hard empirical evidence that I am correct, then, I'm in business for the long haul. I already have positive results rolling in from a few students who are using the "do everything I say, everyday" method. These students all excel and enjoy themselves. If I can accomplish this, if I can throw out the "bad" philosophy and insert the "good" philosophy into the minds of the parents, then I will revolutionize piano instruction for everyone. I will hopefully get video testimonials from the parents and students as this process moves along. So, this is my motivation for this thread.

Likewise

Avalanche, I read the article, and I can sum up the article with this quote, which I found the most important: "By definition, intrinsically motivated behaviors, the prototype of self-determined actions, stem from the self. They are unalienated and authentic in the fullest sense of those terms. But, as already noted, SDT recognizes that extrinsically motivated actions can also become self determined as individuals identify with and fully assimilate their regulation. Thus it is through internalization and integration that individuals can be extrinsically motivated and still committed and authentic." So, did everybody who uses this study to promote their educational agendas (Alfie Kohn) just skip over this part? This study absolutely supports everything I have said. The researchers state themselves, that most of what we do on a daily basis is initiated by what they refer to as "integrated regulation." They go on further to describe how "integrated regulation" is a phenomenon that occurs through relating to other (social norms and expectations). They agree that this is perfectly healthy and something to strive for. In fact, they have an entire spectrum of types of extrinsic motivation, some good, some bad. However, like the scientists who came before Kepler; those who used "epi-cycles" to describe the movement of the solar system, these researches have made things a lot more complicated than need be. Let's apply Occam's razor here as well. My video essay makes the case that we should just look at motivation as motivation. The analysis needs to be on the activity, not the person. If a kid is not enjoying the activity, it is because they are not experiencing the activity in the same way someone else is. end of story. If you want them to experience the "joy of reading" for example, then you have to offer and external incentive to keep them going until they experience it. This is how the world works.

All I can say is dammnnn! Impressive. I got angry just reading your description of the situation. I can only imagine how it felt observing it in reality.

That's exactly why none of my clients will see this video, unless they stumble upon it on the interweb. I keep my "philosophy channel" separate from the channels I use for business. I have a good relationship with the parents of all my students and many of them subscribe to the philosophy I preach. However, this video series is more for the discussion board here and whoever else is specifically interested in child development. I tried to be a little more sensational or, animated in my delivery of ideas in the videos so to grab attention. Other than that, I'm very empathetic and diplomatic with my clients. Thanks for caring though. I'm printing the study out right now and will be reading it. I'll get back to you about my thoughts on it after I'm done.

No problem(I didn't think you were nitpicking). I'm glad that I have people to talk to about this.

Your right. I havent thought of that. For some reason I just assumed that by virtue of being on adult and surviving 30 plus years of life, they have overcome something, or have had to be persistent in some activity in order to see results. Thanks for that insight.

I'm hard pressed to find any value beyond happiness or biological equilibrium. Oh yes. The parents who offer extrinsic rewards through negotiation are 100% successful in getting their kids through less intrinsically rewarding experiences. All of these kids, and I stress all of them, excel at the piano, or at least, develop according to the time table that I put forth. I of course have to do my job well. But, I have talked to the kids, and I have an open, honest relationship with all my students, and they have told me how they didn't like doing something at first, and that they wanted to stop, but because their parents were persistent with them, they persevered. Now these kids don't even blink an eye when I ask them to do something that is a means to an end, something tedious and repetitive, not an end in itself. This is because they have the experience now, the life experience, which guides them; they know it will pay off. On the flip side, if a (lazy)parent sees that their child is not enjoying a certain activity that is a part of learning a craft, like playing the piano, they will make the erroneous conclusion, partly out of ignorance, and partly out of convenience, that their child is not "intrinsically motivated" to play the piano. They will then withdraw their child from the activity, thus starting a pattern to be repeated over and over again with every endeavor that little person undertakes. Stefan wants to foster virtue through philosophy. You can't do that with "bad philosophy." Let's get rid of these bad ideas that infiltrate the minds of parents, and people in general. We don't want to grow children devoid of character; children ready to throw in the towel when something gets rough or is momentarily unpleasant. This will be a disaster of epic proportions for future generations and will work against everything we as philosophers, especially on this board, want to see come to fruition.

Thank you for clarifying. However, I can't say that I have ever felt that an action has been imposed upon me by something external to the action. So, empirically speaking, in looking at my own life, I can't relate to your statement. Towards the end of my first video I argue that it is very difficult to know the source motivation of someone's action. With children, it is even harder, because children don't typically have a lot of self knowledge. So, given that fact, if you agree with it, it seems to undermine the usefulness of these two labels, "intrinsic" and "extrinsic." For who can decide what the truth is? Matt, I thought said that I agreed with you. "Being happy" is equivalent to "biological equilibrium." I address this in the beginning of my first video. Organisms initiate action in order to maintain a physical equilibrium. It's the reality of being a carbon based life-form.

Yes. The whole point is to have the struggle. It's the worst thing you can do as a parent; withdraw your child from an activity because the kid is having a mood swing. This was my initial motivation for making the videos. I hate when I hear people refer to someone they admire, or a precocious child, as "intrinsically motivated." Even worse, when they say things like "she has a natural drive to learn." It is so pretentious. As if there is some elite species of human that is intrinsically virtuous. It's analogous to hearing people refer to certain children as "gifted." I can't stand it. I suspect it is a way to control or shame people who won't do something unless they get a tangible reward. I can just hear every 2nd grade teacher saying things like this: "Oh, little johnny, you should want to learn for learning's sake", look at little Suzy over there, she doesn't need a reward, learning is her reward. She's "intrinsically motivated." And as a result, there will be a character judgment on the child, and all efforts to get the kid to have a certain pleasurable experience with a certain activity will cease while the teachers and academics try to figure out why he isn't "intrinsically motivated."

This video, the 5th video in the series, summarizes my main points and gets to the heart of the issue. So, maybe it would be best to watch this one first. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suEGl1rF_7Q&list=PLFEc85AsYpeapnmaWULIBVb2kP2LGoxdu&index=5

Thanks for this info no, I think you misunderstood that part. All motivation is internal. All motivation comes from an internal biological drive. The question is, what activities are "ends themselves", what activities have rewards that are "intrinsic" to that activity. The misnomer is applying the quality of "intrinsic" or "extrinsic" to the person and not the activity or experience. This conflation of terms completely muddles things up and caused one to deal with either themselves or someone else, like a child or student, in an erroneous way. Wait, there is evidence that the terms are useful? I completely disagree with the conclusions of the research. I feel that labeling yourself or someone else as "intrinsically" or "extrinsically" motivated is a fallacy that leads to negative consequences for many people. That's what my whole video series is about. "An action imposed from an external source" makes no sense and is completely unscientific. Skip to my last video to see what the negative consequences are of this sort of thinking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hSVoqQ5_AU

For some people, sure. But if you dig deep enough, I'm sure this are other reasons, probably revolving around social approval. Anyway, If solving a math problem is an "end in itself" (making someone happy) than that's fine. yes, because happiness is not an activity. However, usually, if an activity is an "end in itself" it will cause emotional/physical satisfaction. Yes, and no. Remember, all human beings are "intrinsically" motivated. All motivation comes from within. However, I don't refer to people as being intrinsically motivated or extrinsically motivated, I refer to activities as having intrinsic value or extrinsic value. This was the misnomer I was talking about in the video. Are you asking me whether the behavior of typing words down onto a monitor and posting a video onto this forum is an "end in itself"? Than I can say, certainly not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BW-16N3RIwY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac6GNM2o9oo&list=PLFEc85AsYpeapnmaWULIBVb2kP2LGoxdu

not an analogous situation

Right, but I disagree with Stefan on this point. I believe the store owner is a victim of both the state and Garner and that Garner was, in a subtle way, violating the NAP. When examining the situation, the precise situation, and looking at the two dealers and their activities on the street corner in juxtaposition, the store owner has guns pointed at him and Garner doesn't. If the store owner sells "loosies" or doesn't pay taxes, the cops/IRS will come for him. If Garner sells loosies and doesn't pay taxes, the government will not come for him, unless someone complains. The evidence is clear, why else was Garner able to make a living doing this? It's because the state doesn't care about petty street criminals, they in a way enable their activity. The only way petty street criminals get caught is if someone complains. But the legitimate store owner, is always watched by regulating bodes and the IRS. Garner knows guns are pointed at the store owner and took advantage of that reality. Like I said in my second video with the picture of Al Capone, Garner likes the state, the state functions like a business partner. Garner needs the state to survive, therefore, he is a statist. If you are a statist, you are in violation of the NAP. Before you criticize my position, please watch that video and tell me where my logic fails. I would appreciate it. Thanks

nice video

If Garner's "business" was benefiting the store, then why would the store owner call the cops on him?