Punished by Rewards (Really?)

[LovePrevails]

 

I think a better title would have been "Punished by incentives." A lot of businesses today are talking about the studies showing the cases in which incentives can hurt performance. What they find is that in some specific circumstances people drastically underperform when offered monetary incentives. There was a study done in Sweden (I think) where they showed that if you offered people $50 to donate blood they are something like half as likely to donate than if you just appeal to their conscience. Other studies show that creative work and certain kinds of problem solving suffer when people are offered incentives, probably because they feel less self motivated. Monetary incentives do seem to work when people are doing work that could be considered boring or drudge work.

 

An example in real life is open source software. If ten years ago I told you that a group of motley programmers, working for free without a central authority, would produce a product that would annihilate Microsoft in the market, you would think I was nuts. But that's exactly what happened with the Apache web server. And Microsoft poured millions into their project.

 

I really think this kind of thing shows the strength of voluntarism honestly. When we are self motivated we can do many things simply for the joy of it.

 

Sadly the present education system has the habit of habituating people so thoroughly to extrinsic motivation (in the form of punishment, rewards,grades, etc.)

that by the time they come out the are hardly able to self-motivate into pursuing any projects at all!

[SaintElsewhere]

I think in a voluntary society we might actually see certain "boring" jobs becoming more valuable and high paying. In a truly free market, without the reliance on diplomas, etc, there is less of a capital investment in the creative thoughtful, and altruistic jobs. There is more people in the market for these jobs because they are desirable for their own sake, more competition driving down the value of this labor. You will see people who may be janitors for four days out of the week so they make enough to work for the job they love composing a symphony which they get paid very little for. I don't want to be too utopian about this, but if a voluntary society does end up with a more natural distribution of wealth-- which I believe it will naturally-- we will see that more people will benefit by the production and efficiency of different goods and services. Which is why I don't worry about people talking about robots taking over our jobs, etc. Production and efficiency benefits EVERYBODY in a true free market.

[LovePrevails]

sorry posted the wrong video link

[cab21]

so if we donate to fdr, we are punishing stefan?

[LovePrevails]

I think a better title would have been "Punished by incentives." A lot of businesses today are talking about the studies showing the cases in which incentives can hurt performance. What they find is that in some specific circumstances people drastically underperform when offered monetary incentives. There was a study done in Sweden (I think) where they showed that if you offered people $50 to donate blood they are something like half as likely to donate than if you just appeal to their conscience. Other studies show that creative work and certain kinds of problem solving suffer when people are offered incentives, probably because they feel less self motivated. Monetary incentives do seem to work when people are doing work that could be considered boring or drudge work.

 

 

 

thanks for those clarifications really useful!

so if we donate to fdr, we are punishing stefan?

 

no when we donate that is not as a carrot to encourage him to do more

we are supporting his work in what he is already doing

[jpahmad]

Is it just me, or is Alfie Kohn a statist?  Here is a quote form his book on competition:

 

 

"The point is this: if there is enough of the necessities to go around but they are not going around,

the debate must shift to the impact of competition on matters of distribution. Can the inequities

be blamed on competition itself? Even if not, the key question is whether more competition

would rectify the situation. It is hard to imagine how it could. Whoever has more resources is far

more likely to win a contest, thus giving her even more resources for the next contest, and so on

until the opponent is utterly vanquished or someone steps in to stop the competition. Government

regulations and income transfer mechanisms--which free-market apologists correctly identify as

limitations on pure competition--are all that prevent inequities even more pronounced than those

now in existence."

[LovePrevails]

he is definitely a liberal

 

I think he supports the Scandinavian models of Social Democracy like many liberals in academia.

 

I can forgive him for that because he does such important research.

[jpahmad]

he is definitely a liberal

 

I think he supports the Scandinavian models of Social Democracy like many liberals in academia.

 

I can forgive him for that because he does such important research.

 

But it shows a flaw in his logic.  It's a big flaw.  So, this opens up the possibility of other big misteps in his reasoning process. 

 

For one thing, this quote points to an obvious contradiciton.  He can't uphold cooperation as the utimate human ideal and support the use of force at the same time.

[cab21]

no when we donate that is not as a carrot to encourage him to do more

we are supporting his work in what he is already doing

 

i thought that a reward was to support work a person is already doing?

 

people only get a championship, after they win. they don't get a championship in order to play more to try and win.

 

say a teacher says "ill give feedback on work you submit for my review", is that a carrot or supporting work a person is already doing?

[TDB]

Has anyone read Alfie Kohn's book "Punished by Rewards"? Just from reading the overview, I think that it may have some really great arguments--especially around the futility of using punishment as a way to influence others. But I'm skeptical about the general idea that rewards actually represent punishment. Isn't the whole market system based on rewards and incentives?More importantly, what do you think about using rewards as a way to influence your children? [...]For those of you who have read the book, do you think it was worth the read?

Sometimes reading a book is not about absorbing information, it's about confronting a different perspective. I recommend the book, though as I recall, it might not be a bad idea to skim a bit. Just because the market system uses rewards and incentives, that does not mean everyone gets them right or understands how best to use them. The basic idea I took from Kohn was that the path to happiness lies in applying your passion, and that extrinsic rewards can goof up intrinsic motivation. Not that rewards are always everywhere counterproductive, but that badly designed incentives can ruin morale, and even well designed incentives are not the whole story. Kohn's books do suffer a bit from "don't do this" syndrome, that is, he goes on and on about what doesn't work, less informative about how to engage your creative passion or inspire your coworkers as a manager. At least, that' s how I remember it, I probably read it 15 years ago. I listened to his parenting book more recently, it had a similar "don't do this" feel to it.

But it shows a flaw in his logic.  It's a big flaw.  So, this opens up the possibility of other big misteps in his reasoning process.

You thought you could read a psychologist uncritically? He found a piece of the puzzle, and latched onto it. His left-wing ideology perhaps helped him to accept it. His confirmation bias prevented him from applying it more broadly. In this he is hardly alone. Are you really so certain you have discovered all the lies you have told yourself? My self-knowledge is not that perfect yet.

[jpahmad]

Sometimes reading a book is not about absorbing information, it's about confronting a different perspective. I recommend the book, though as I recall, it might not be a bad idea to skim a bit.Just because the market system uses rewards and incentives, that does not mean everyone gets them right or understands how best to use them. The basic idea I took from Kohn was that the path to happiness lies in applying your passion, and that extrinsic rewards can goof up intrinsic motivation. Not that rewards are always everywhere counterproductive, but that badly designed incentives can ruin morale, and even well designed incentives are not the whole story.Kohn's books do suffer a bit from "don't do this" syndrome, that is, he goes on and on about what doesn't work, less informative about how to engage your creative passion or inspire your coworkers as a manager. At least, that' s how I remember it, I probably read it 15 years ago. I listened to his parenting book more recently, it had a similar "don't do this" feel to it.You thought you could read a psychologist uncritically?He found a piece of the puzzle, and latched onto it. His left-wing ideology perhaps helped him to accept it. His confirmation bias prevented him from applying it more broadly. In this he is hardly alone. Are you really so certain you have discovered all the lies you have told yourself? My self-knowledge is not that perfect yet.

 

I'm not criticizing him as a person.  But when you put forth a conclusion based on reason and evidence, it has to be as air-tight as possible.  If it is not, then it has to be revised.  No big deal.

 

According to Alfie, there is no place in human society for games, sports, or anything of that nature. 

 

In a free society, people can choose to compete with each other or not.  If you want to move to a commune and live in a resource based economy, you're free to do it.

 

And please define for me "intrinsic motivation."  I'm not convinces that it is anything distinct from "extrinsic motivation."  Isn't every activity we pursue an attempt to bring ourselves to a state of gratification or emotional equilibrium?

[LovePrevails]

Aristotle believed that women had less teeth then men.

the distinction is not just about intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

 

it's about INTERNAL and EXTERNAL motivation

 

So if I need to earn some extra cash I could sure take on some extra hours, and that is an extrinsic motivationI'm not doing it because I love working

but it's still an internal motivation

 

that is very much different from my wife saying if you don't work more we won't be able to go on holiday

so I'll tell you what, you take on the extra hours and I'll sweeten the deal by giving you the best bj you've ever had in your life ;)

[TDB]

I'm not criticizing him as a person. But when you put forth a conclusion based on reason and evidence, it has to be as air-tight as possible. If it is not, then it has to be revised. No big deal.

Insight is rare and perfection is nonexistent. I take what I can get.

And please define for me "intrinsic motivation." I'm not convinces that it is anything distinct from "extrinsic motivation." Isn't every activity we pursue an attempt to bring ourselves to a state of gratification or emotional equilibrium?

If I am paid to cook someone else's dinner, and the money is all I care about, that's extrinsic. If I want to cook my family's dinner, and I am motivated to make it delicious and learn from the experience for the sake of the experience and as part of my identity, self-expression, that's intrinsic. To put it crudely, it's the hooker versus the girlfriend (assuming your relationship is healthy, and she feels genuine desire). Of course, we could imagine a horny hooker, who had both motivations, and a girlfriend with issues, who has neither. Very similar to the distinction between capital goods and consumer goods, capital leads indirectly to gratification, consumption gets there directly. Similar but distinct: Howard Roark was intrinsically motivated to create useful buildings, extrinsic motivation distracted Keating.

the distinction is not just about intrinsic and extrinsic motivation it's about INTERNAL and EXTERNAL motivation.

I'm not sure I see the distinction you are making. 

So if I need to earn some extra cash I could sure take on some extra hours, and that is an extrinsic motivationI'm not doing it because I love workingbut it's still an internal motivation.

By this measure, is anything ever external?

that is very much different from my wife saying if you don't work more we won't be able to go on holidayso I'll tell you what, you take on the extra hours and I'll sweeten the deal by giving you the best bj you've ever had in your life ;)

I say that is extrinsic. I'm not sure whether you agree or not.

[jpahmad]

Insight is rare and perfection is nonexistent. I take what I can get.If I am paid to cook someone else's dinner, and the money is all I care about, that's extrinsic. If I want to cook my family's dinner, and I am motivated to make it delicious and learn from the experience for the sake of the experience and as part of my identity, self-expression, that's intrinsic. To put it crudely, it's the hooker versus the girlfriend (assuming your relationship is healthy, and she feels genuine desire). Of course, we could imagine a horny hooker, who had both motivations, and a girlfriend with issues, who has neither. Very similar to the distinction between capital goods and consumer goods, capital leads indirectly to gratification, consumption gets there directly. Similar but distinct: Howard Roark was intrinsically motivated to create useful buildings, extrinsic motivation distracted Keating.I'm not sure I see the distinction you are making.  By this measure, is anything ever external?I say that is extrinsic. I'm not sure whether you agree or not.

 

 

The hooker is gratified because she gets money for her service.  The wife/girlfriend is gratified because she wants to see her husband happy.  Both women are gratified, and the gratifications are not derived from the act of sex.  So, by your definition, both are extrinsic.  Right?

[TDB]

The hooker is gratified because she gets money for her service.  The wife/girlfriend is gratified because she wants to see her husband happy.  Both women are gratified, and the gratifications are not derived from the act of sex.  So, by your definition, both are extrinsic.  Right?

If we assume the girlfirend's primary motivation is the happiness of her partner, it is extrinsic. If she feels desire and experiences pleasure, it is intrinsic. In a healthy relationship, presumably there would be elements of both.

[jpahmad]

If we assume the girlfirend's primary motivation is the happiness of her partner, it is extrinsic. If she feels desire and experiences pleasure, it is intrinsic. In a healthy relationship, presumably there would be elements of both.

 

 

I agree.  In fact, I think there are elements of both in every situation imaginable.  The question then becomes one of degree.  The language commonly used to describe motivation seems to imply that it is either one or the other, i.e., one is either intrinsically motivated or extrinsically motivated. 

 

Something that is purely intrinsically motivating should be an "end in itself", like eating when you're hungry.  There are only a few things in life that I would say are "ends in themselves."  For men, sex is definitely one of them.  Maintaining an emotional equilibrium is one of them.  However, reading, writing, and arithmetic, certainly aren't ends in themselves.  In fact, I would argue that anything to do with education is not an "end in itself."  Therefore, you can't expect someone to be intrinsically motivated to do it.

[TDB]

I agree.  In fact, I think there are elements of both in every situation imaginable.  The question then becomes one of degree.

Yes. But the original point was about Kohn, and his hypothesis that sometimes having someone else use extrinsic motivators can have a negative effect on long-term intrinsic motivation. I've lost track of how we got here from there.

The language commonly used to describe motivation seems to imply that it is either one or the other, i.e., one is either intrinsically motivated or extrinsically motivated.  Something that is purely intrinsically motivating should be an "end in itself", like eating when you're hungry.  There are only a few things in life that I would say are "ends in themselves."  For men, sex is definitely one of them.  Maintaining an emotional equilibrium is one of them.  However, reading, writing, and arithmetic, certainly aren't ends in themselves.  In fact, I would argue that anything to do with education is not an "end in itself."  Therefore, you can't expect someone to be intrinsically motivated to do it.

Reading about something that fascinates you is intrinsic. Writing about an idea that excites you is intrinsic (example = everything written in FDR forum). Some people even find arithmetic intrinsically motivating, they are called mathematicians. True, this is not what is happening at every moment during education, especially in school. But clearly, education can ignore this or make use of it, and making use sounds likely to be much more effective. Saying it and doing it are not the same thing either. It sounds easy.

[jpahmad]

Reading about something that fascinates you is intrinsic.

 

Exactly.  That's because you want to find out information about that subject that fascinates you.  This is much different than saying that "the act of reading is intrinsically rewarding."  If that were the case, there would be no problem with getting children to learn how to read!  It would be like eating ice-cream to them.

[TDB]

Exactly.  That's because you want to find out information about that subject that fascinates you.  This is much different than saying that "the act of reading is intrinsically rewarding."  If that were the case, there would be no problem with getting children to learn how to read!  It would be like eating ice-cream to them.

We can never say that "the act of X is intrinsically rewarding" even when X = sex. It always depends on the person's interests and mood. We can only say, "this person in these circumstances found this act intrinsically rewarding."

[jpahmad]

We can never say that "the act of X is intrinsically rewarding" even when X = sex. It always depends on the person's interests and mood. We can only say, "this person in these circumstances found this act intrinsically rewarding."

 

O.k, so it's all subjective right?

[TDB]

O.k, so it's all subjective right?

We are talking about someone's thoughts, motives, and feelings. So yes, emphatically, subjective.

[Mike Larson]

Ok, I think I get this whole extrinsic/intrinsic concept now. Here is how I see it. If a person performs an action to get a reward, the motivation is extrinsic to that specific action, but intrinsic to the reward. So the motivation is always intrinsic to the object of final intent (or to the object/action that a person believes will, itself, satisfy some need). The concern a parent might have in offering toys to a child as a reward for practicing the piano, is that the child's ability to play the piano might not eventually replace toys as his object of final intent.

 

Internal motivation can be either intrinsic or extrinsic. External motivation is the motivation of someone other than yourself. External motivation can encourage or discourage internal motivation depending on the approach. But every action I take necessarily requires internal motivation.

[Clark Gorny]

 My humble opinion on this subject is that offering a reward for a voluntary action should always be secondary to sitting down and trying to communicate, being patient and giving them time to digest what it is your trying to teach them.

 

 If you do decide to offer a reward be conscious of why you are doing so. In every case that you do offer a reward you also need to continue to communicate with them and be honest why you want them to do it, eventually eliminating the need for a reward.

 

 - I think its worth reading the book regardless.

[jpahmad]

My humble opinion on this subject is that offering a reward for a voluntary action should always be secondary to sitting down and trying to communicate, being patient and giving them time to digest what it is your trying to teach them.  If you do decide to offer a reward be conscious of why you are doing so. In every case that you do offer a reward you also need to continue to communicate with them and be honest why you want them to do it, eventually eliminating the need for a reward.  - I think its worth reading the book regardless.

I agree completely. Nine times out of Ten, if you do all of the above, you won't need to use a "reward."However, you don't want to inadvertently offer an extrinsic reward without realizing it. For example, let's take reading. If I tell my child that reading is "good", then I am giving him/her extrinsic motivation to read. Because the child will think that they can't be good unless they read.Actually, if you want to avoid any "extrinsic" motivation, then the only thing that you can say to the child to "intrinsically" motivate them is that such activity is "fun", or "feels good." This communicates to the child that the activity is an end in itself and doesn't need any further justification.When it comes to teaching piano. I always ask my kids when they first begin taking lessons this question:"What's the point in playing the piano?"They shrugI then give them the answer: "Because it's fun"They totally get it. It makes perfect sense. I'm now in a situation where I have to make sure the kid is having fun, or prove to them that whatever I ask them to do (drills, scales, tedious repetition of phrases etc..) will lead to them having even more fun.It's not that hard to do. And, no "extrinsic" reward is offered.However, I do still use "extrinsic" rewards when I feel they're needed. But, this makes up less then 10% of the reasons why kids show up at my home to get lessons. Also, I don't have any control over what their parents are telling them at home. So, I can't be certain there is nothing else going on in terms of motivation.

[LovePrevails]

In order to further the conversation here I have made a special effort to ask Dayna Martin relevant questions to this conversation in our recent interview

[jpahmad]

In order to further the conversation here I have made a special effort to ask Dayna Martin relevant questions to this conversation in our recent interview

 

 

Antony, should children be encouraged to follow their whims? Or encouraged to only follow their rational self-interest?

[TDB]

Antony, should children be encouraged to follow their whims? Or encouraged to only follow their rational self-interest?

Depending on the development of their brains, there may not be much difference. As in, following their whims is a form of exploration. Learning, which is in their rational self-interest, involves exploration. So explore!

[jpahmad]

Depending on the development of their brains, there may not be much difference. As in, following their whims is a form of exploration. Learning, which is in their rational self-interest, involves exploration. So explore!

 

Is there a point or age at which we should discourage them from following their whims?

[LovePrevails]

it's kind of a false dichotomy don't you think?

 

how does the parent even know what their rational self-interest is?

 

 

edit: I remembered there is a great section on the subject in this one as well in the first 15 minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvAfGJKmyHs#t=555

[jpahmad]

So essentially, after listening to the video, I gather that you should just treat your child in the same manner as you would a friend.  A friend to whom you are morally responsible for feeding and housing.  That makes sense to me.  However, I do discourage my friends from chasing what I would consider a whim (one-night stands for example) if I think it is not in their rational self-interest.  There are also things like motivation.  I motivate my friends to do or not do certain things (without using force).  If I can do this with my friend, can't I do this with my child? 

[TDB]

Is there a point or age at which we should discourage them from following their whims?

question of interpretation. My impression is that Stef was heavily influenced by Rand, so as assume many others on this forum might be also. Rand used the word "whim" with a very negative connotation, as if it opposed rationality and objectivity. I am not enough of a Rand fan to parse this out properly. "Inspiration" and "curiosity" seem less ambiguous, I can endorse those for all ages. "Whim", I am not sure.