Intrinsic & Extrinsic Motivation FALLACY!

[jpahmad]

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

[Matt D]

In the case of the math problem, one doesn't solve the math problem in order to solve the math problem; one solves the math problem because it makes him happy.

 

Is it logical to say that being happy is the only possible intrinsically motivated activity? I would say no, because happiness is not an activity. In that case, I think we could define intrinsic motivation as the desire to do something which will make us happy during or after the activity without any further steps between the activity and happiness.

 

What do you think, jpahmad? Were you intrinsically motivated to post this?

[GYre0ePJhZ]

First of all, cool of you to put yourself on the spot like this.

 

The terms intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation come from Deci & Ryan's Self-Determination Theory which is a "macro theory of human motivation and personality, concerning people's inherent growth tendencies and their innate psychological needs.  It is concerned with the motivation behind the choices that people make without any external influence and interference. SDT focuses on the degree to which an individual’s behavior is self-motivated and self-determined" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination_theory

 

I have not seen all of your content on this (it is in total a bit too long for the time I have available right now), but I do agree with you, philosophically, in that motivation without any external influence is a misnomer. We all have those we admire, advisors, parents, and a life lived with unique experiences that can be said to atleast have some influence on your motivations. However, these terms are useful in explaining human happiness as evidenced by empirical research on the matter. My opinion on this is that the key difference is whether a person feels that an action is imposed from an external source or feels that an action comes from a place where many options are available. I.e., you feel free versus limited in your options. This feeling can, of course, be based on irrational thinking/expectations, but it still does explain a lot of what makes people feel good about what they are doing.

[jpahmad]

In the case of the math problem, one doesn't solve the math problem in order to solve the math problem; one solves the math problem because it makes him happy.

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

Is it logical to say that being happy is the only possible intrinsically motivated activity?

yes, because happiness is not an activity.  However, usually, if an activity is an "end in itself"  it will cause emotional/physical satisfaction.

 

 

 

 In that case, I think we could define intrinsic motivation as the desire to do something which will make us happy during or after the activity without any further steps between the activity and happiness.

 

 

 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.

 

 

What do you think, jpahmad? Were you intrinsically motivated to post this?

 

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

[jpahmad]

 

 

The terms intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation come from Deci & Ryan's Self-Determination Theory which is a "macro theory of human motivation and personality, concerning people's inherent growth tendencies and their innate psychological needs.  It is concerned with the motivation behind the choices that people make without any external influence and interference. SDT focuses on the degree to which an individual’s behavior is self-motivated and self-determined" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination_theory

 

 

Thanks for this info

 

 

 

 

I have not seen all of your content on this (it is in total a bit too long for the time I have available right now), but I do agree with you, philosophically, in that motivation without any external influence is a misnomer.

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.

 

 

 

 However, these terms are useful in explaining human happiness as evidenced by empirical research on the matter. My opinion on this is that the key difference is whether a person feels that an action is imposed from an external source or feels that an action comes from a place where many options are available. I.e., you feel free versus limited in your options. This feeling can, of course, be based on irrational thinking/expectations, but it still does explain a lot of what makes people feel good about what they are doing.

 

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

[MMX2010]

I haven't watched your videos, but will watch them later. 

 

I agree with your statement here: "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." - because I think the majority of people study psychology to control other people.  And so I don't trust people who study "intrinsic motivation" versus "extrinsic motivation". 

 

To me, you either "Did The Thing" or "Didn't Do The Thing".  Actions are more important than beliefs or motivations. 

[jpahmad]

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

[MMX2010]

I liked your video a lot, J. P. 

 

I posted this on another thread.  http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/06/amy_schumer_offers_you_a_look.html   It's a very long, meandering article by "The Last Psychiatrist" - but the take home message is in the middle.

 

 

 

Slightly off topic but here's an important example: say you yell every day at an/your eight year old girl for sloppy homework, admittedly a terrible thing to do but not uncommon, and eventually she thinks, "I'm terrible at everything" and gives up, so the standard interpretation of this is that she has lost self-confidence, she's been demoralized, and case by case you may be right, but there's another possibility which you should consider: she chooses to focus on "I'm terrible at everything" so that she can give up.  "If I agree to hate myself I only need a 60?  I'll be done in 10 minutes. "

It is precisely at this instant that a parent fails or succeeds, i.e. fails: do they teach the kid to prefer (find reinforcement in) the drudgery of boring, difficult work with little daily evidence of improvement, or do they teach the kid to prefer (find reinforcement in) about 20 minutes of sobbing hysterically and then off to Facebook and a sandwich?  Each human being is only able to learn to prefer one of those at a time.  Which one does the parent incentivize?

If you read this as laziness you have utterly missed the point. It's not laziness, because you're still working hard, but you are working purposelessly on purpose. The goal of your work is to be done the work, not to be better at work.

For a great many people this leads to an unconscious, default hierarchy in the mind, I'm not an epidemiologist but you got it in you sometime between the ages of 5 and 10:

 

<doing awesome>

is better than

<feeling terrible about yourself>

is better than

<the mental work of change>

You should memorize this, it is running your life.  "I'm constantly thinking about ways to improve myself."  No, you're gunning the engine while you're up on blocks.  Obsessing and ruminating is a skill at which we are all tremendously accomplished, and admittedly that feels like mental work because it's exhausting and unrewarding, but you can no more ruminate your way through a life crisis than a differential equation.  So the parents unknowingly teach you to opt for <b>, and after a few years of childhood insecurity, you'll choose the Blue Pill  and begin the dreaming: someday and someplace you'll show someone how great you somehow are.  And after a few months with that someone they will eventually turn to you, look deep into your eyes, and say, "look, I don't have a swimming pool, but if I did I'd drown myself in it.  Holy Christ are you toxic."

"Well, my parents were really strict, they made me--"  Keep telling yourself that.  Chances are if your parents are between 50 and 90 they were simply terrible.  Great expectations; epic fail.  Your parents were dutifully strict about their arbitrary and expedient rules, not about making you a better person.  "Clean your plate!  Go to college!"   Words fail me.  They weren't tough, they were rigidly self-aggrandizing.  "They made me practice piano an hour every day!" as if the fact of practice was the whole point; what they did not teach you is to try and sound better every practice. They meant well, they loved you, but the generation that invented grade inflation is not also going to know about self-monitoring and paedeia, which is roughly translated, "making yourself better at piano."

"You don't know how hard it is to raise kids," says someone whose main cultural influence in life was the Beatles.   The fact that you will inevitably fail in creating Superman is not a reason not to try.   Oh:  I bet I know what you chose when you were 8.

The mistake is in thinking that misery and self-loathing are the "bad" things you are trying to get away from with Ambien and Abilify or drinking or therapy or whatever, but you have this completely backwards. Self-loathing is the defense against change, self-loathing is preferable to <mental work.> You choose misery so that nothing changes, and the Ambien and the drinking and the therapy placate the misery so that you can go on not changing. That's why when you look in the mirror and don't like what you see, you don't immediately crank out 30 pushups, you open a bag of chips. You don't even try, you only plan to try. The appearance of mental work, aka masturbation.   The goal of your ego is not to change, but what you don't realize is that time is moving on regardless.

 

 

The tie-in to your video is the parent who witnesses their child struggling with an activity, and withdraws the child from that activity because of the struggle.  This withdrawal perfectly reinforces the "Doing Awesome" is better than "Feeling Bad About Yourself" is better than "The Mental Work of Change" - because the parent prefers that the child feels bad about himself by saying "That activity is pointless, and I don't have to engage in it.", rather than allowing a child to struggle through the difficulty of acquiring the skill. 

 

Furthermore, have you ever noticed that most people's hobbies are activities they're good at or enjoy doing, despite being terrible.  Few golfers or video game players are hobbyist who initially sucked at golf / video games - but worked hard enough to become experts.  They're almost always naturally good athletes or gamers who persist in the activity, because they're awesome at it. 

 

-----------

 

Lastly, a discussion about "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" motivation is toxic (most of the time).  This is because the question, "Am I intrinsically or extrinsically motivated to accomplish Task X?", attempts to label oneself as "Good" or "Bad" depending on how one answers the question. 

 

But that same article says, "in narcissism believing something is preferable to doing something because the former is about you and the latter is about everyone else."  So discussing your own intrinsically-motivated or extrinsically-motivated personality shifts the focus away from the actions you'll undergo - (a) avoid the activity, (b) do the activity reluctantly, or © only do the activity if a helpful, friendly expert is guiding you - and towards a self-focused, introspective inquiry. 

 

Parents, in my opinion, would be better served focusing on the task a child is struggling with and determining whether they-themselves value the task before imposing anything on the child. 
 

[jpahmad]

 

The tie-in to your video is the parent who witnesses their child struggling with an activity, and withdraws the child from that activity because of the struggle. 

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

Lastly, a discussion about "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" motivation is toxic (most of the time).  This is because the question, "Am I intrinsically or extrinsically motivated to accomplish Task X?", attempts to label oneself as "Good" or "Bad" depending on how one answers the question. 

 

 

 

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."

[GYre0ePJhZ]

Apologize for misrepresenting you.

 

I do think you misrepresent my arguments too though. I did apply the terms to activities and experience. So when you quote me writing: "An action imposed from an external source" and say that it is completely unscientific you are not arguing against what I actually was writing. What I wrote was: "whether a person feels that an action is imposed from an external source". This makes it clear that I am talking about the experience of where a motivation to do something comes from. I.e., does a person experience the motivation as coming from extrinsic factors (e.g. rewards, force) or from intrinsic factors: "I enjoy doing this as an end in itself". Notice that I am talking about an experience in relation to an acivity and not as a label of the personality of someone.

 

People that label, judge or shame anyone (including oneself) as good or bad depending on the answer to whether one is intrinsically or extrinsically motivated to do something are engaging in a non-sequitor. Therefore, it is not an argument against the usefulness of the distinction. Useful in this context means that the concepts help explain the reality of why people do what they do and the resulting experience of an activity due to this reason (the theory fit the data). After all, words are tools.

 

To sum up: I think you bring up good critiques of how these terms are used, but I disagree with them being unscientific.

[Matt D]

 I.e., does a person experience the motivation as coming from extrinsic factors (e.g. rewards, force) or from intrinsic factors: "I enjoy doing this as an end in itself".

 

So far no one has addressed my initial comment, granted I didn't make the point very well, that we don't do an activity for the sake of doing the activity but rather we do the activity because we are rewarded with happiness. Thus being happy would be the only thing we can say is intrinsically motivated. When mastering a particular skill we either do it because it makes us happy (what is typically called intrinsic motivation) or because it leads to something else which makes us happy (what is typically called extrinsic motivation). So I don't really understand why having those two terms is important....

[MMX2010]

So far no one has addressed my initial comment, granted I didn't make the point very well, that we don't do an activity for the sake of doing the activity but rather we do the activity because we are rewarded with happiness. Thus being happy would be the only thing we can say is intrinsically motivated. When mastering a particular skill we either do it because it makes us happy (what is typically called intrinsic motivation) or because it leads to something else which makes us happy (what is typically called extrinsic motivation). So I don't really understand why having those two terms is important....

 

It's important because parents use those terms to erroneously "psycho-analyze" their children (or themselves), rather than focus on the task of effective parenting. 

 

J.P. explained it beautifully here, "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."

[GYre0ePJhZ]

Matt: I want to make sure I understand what you are arguing. You think that people do things because they think it will make them happy? Thus, whether people do things because the activity makes them happy or because it leads to something else that makes them happy does not matter.

 

Is this accurate of your position?

[jpahmad]

Apologize for misrepresenting you.

 

I do think you misrepresent my arguments too though. I did apply the terms to activities and experience. So when you quote me writing: "An action imposed from an external source" and say that it is completely unscientific you are not arguing against what I actually was writing. What I wrote was: "whether a person feels that an action is imposed from an external source". This makes it clear that I am talking about the experience of where a motivation to do something comes from. I.e., does a person experience the motivation as coming from extrinsic factors (e.g. rewards, force) or from intrinsic factors: "I enjoy doing this as an end in itself". Notice that I am talking about an experience in relation to an acivity and not as a label of the personality of someone.

 

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?

So far no one has addressed my initial comment, granted I didn't make the point very well, that we don't do an activity for the sake of doing the activity but rather we do the activity because we are rewarded with happiness. Thus being happy would be the only thing we can say is intrinsically motivated. When mastering a particular skill we either do it because it makes us happy (what is typically called intrinsic motivation) or because it leads to something else which makes us happy (what is typically called extrinsic motivation). So I don't really understand why having those two terms is important....

 

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.

[Matt D]

It's important because parents use those terms to erroneously "psycho-analyze" their children (or themselves), rather than focus on the task of effective parenting. 

I agree with you. I think parents use this language to avoid asking the child why he/she enjoys the activity.

 

Is this accurate of your position?

Yes

 

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.

JP, I missed your reply entirely. My apologies.

 

I would still question whether the activity has intrinsic value or whether "biological equilibrium" (aka happiness) has intrinsic value. I agree there is a fallacy with regard to how intrinsic/extrinsic is mostly used to describe the individual student. My thesis is that using intrinsic in either context is a fallacy. 

 

Have you had success getting parents, teachers to change their instruction as a result of explaining the misnomer?

[MMX2010]

I agree with you. I think parents use this language to avoid asking the child why he/she enjoys the activity.

 

No.  They usually use this language to express bewilderment that their child doesn't enjoy an activity. 

 

 

As in, "Johnny sucks at reading, but I want him to read anyway.  But I also don't have any solid moral arguments with which to make him read.  Why isn't Johnny intrinsically motivated to read?" 

[GYre0ePJhZ]

 

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?

 

I agree with you that it is often very difficult to know the source motivation of someone's action due to limited self-knowledge and that this undermines the usefulness of the labels. Still, people do give reasons for their actions and they often report that it is important to them whether they do it because the activity makes them happy or to get a reward that will make them happy later on. Statistically speaking, this seems to be a pattern.

 

This discussion reminds me of this meme:

: 

 

I will withdraw from this thread now as I don't feel I have enough time to participate further. It has been fun. Thanks jpahmad for bringing up important issues.

[jpahmad]

 

I would still question whether the activity has intrinsic value or whether "biological equilibrium" (aka happiness) has intrinsic value. I agree there is a fallacy with regard to how intrinsic/extrinsic is mostly used to describe the individual student. My thesis is that using intrinsic in either context is a fallacy. 

 

I'm hard pressed to find any value beyond happiness or biological equilibrium.

 

 

 

 

Have you had success getting parents, teachers to change their instruction as a result of explaining the misnomer?

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.

[MMX2010]

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. 

 

Have you ever asked these parents whether they-themselves have accomplished something amazing through struggle?  (For example, the Pick-Up Artist, Krauser, describes how he approached 500 women, unsuccessfully, before he figured out how to pick up women.  And another PUA, Roosh, insists that a man must perform a minimum of 100 approaches as part of his own program.) 

 

If you press hard enough, you'll almost certainly reveal that the parent has no experience with determined effort through tedium, and is passing on this non-experience to their children.  Naturally, I don't know whether pressing a parent like this is a "good idea", in terms of getting them to hire you - but I'm wondering whether you've pressed this way. 

[jpahmad]

 

 

If you press hard enough, you'll almost certainly reveal that the parent has no experience with determined effort through tedium, and is passing on this non-experience to their children.  Naturally, I don't know whether pressing a parent like this is a "good idea", in terms of getting them to hire you - but I'm wondering whether you've pressed this way. 

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.

[Matt D]

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. 

 

I'm sure they have overcome something in their life, but if they didn't have the connection with their teacher as a child (like you have with your students) then I don't think they will feel the same satisfaction at mastering a skill. Instead they will feel the momentary relief from anxiety or judgment (negative economics). 

 

I like the explanation that Dr. Hallowell gives in his book The Childhood Roots of Adult Happiness. The cycle begins with connection, then play, followed by practice, mastery, and finally recognition. As you say, peacefully coaxing them to move through this cycle is to their long-term benefit and will lead to greater satisfaction in their adult lives.

 

JP, I'm sorry that I nitpicked at your description of intrinsic value. I don't think my critique added anything to the debate.

[jpahmad]

 

JP, I'm sorry that I nitpicked at your description of intrinsic value. I don't think my critique added anything to the debate.

 

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

[GYre0ePJhZ]

Here is an article that summarize the intrinsic-extrinsic motivation theory from the standpoint of the founders of the theory. Search for it on scholar.google.com and I think you should be able to access it. I think it is important to keep in mind that there is a difference between how psychologists use these terms and how people who for their own selfish agendas transmogrify and apply them into something hideous.

 

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68.

[MMX2010]

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.

 

Be very careful if you press a parent to expose that they've never struggled to accomplish anything important.  You'll be showing a narcissist clear evidence of their narcissism, and that never goes well.

 

Also, remember that your videos are meant to focus parents on the job of parenting.  But narcissistic parents only want to discuss parenting in terms of how they feel about their own parenting, and they literally expect everyone to praise their "superior parenting".  So every focusing-attempt on the job of parenting will provoke resistance (if not outright rage). 

[jpahmad]

 

Be very careful if you press a parent to expose that they've never struggled to accomplish anything important.  You'll be showing a narcissist clear evidence of their narcissism, and that never goes well.

 

Also, remember that your videos are meant to focus parents on the job of parenting.  But narcissistic parents only want to discuss parenting in terms of how they feel about their own parenting, and they literally expect everyone to praise their "superior parenting".  So every focusing-attempt on the job of parenting will provoke resistance (if not outright rage). 

 

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.

Here is an article that summarize the intrinsic-extrinsic motivation theory from the standpoint of the founders of the theory. Search for it on scholar.google.com and I think you should be able to access it. I think it is important to keep in mind that there is a difference between how psychologists use these terms and how people who for their own selfish agendas transmogrify and apply them into something hideous.

 

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68.

 

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.

[jpahmad]

Here is an article that summarize the intrinsic-extrinsic motivation theory from the standpoint of the founders of the theory. Search for it on scholar.google.com and I think you should be able to access it. I think it is important to keep in mind that there is a difference between how psychologists use these terms and how people who for their own selfish agendas transmogrify and apply them into something hideous.

 

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68.,

 

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.

[GYre0ePJhZ]

It definitely seems like people use SDT on faulty grounds to further their own agendas while stealing scientific credibility. Personally, I find that utterly disgusting on so many levels.

 

On what you write about the Occam's razor I don't feel I really have enough knowledge to evaluate that one way or the other. But I am thinking it might be contextual. I.e., what we use it for or what we want to investigate. For your use it seems perfectly valid to use the Occam's razor.

 

I do want to correct something I said earlier though: "My opinion on this is that the key difference is whether a person feels that an action is imposed from an external source or feels that an action comes from a place where many options are available. I.e., you feel free versus limited in your options." I don't agree with this since externally motivated behaviors might be a result of healthy negotiation. The use of the word imposed is therefore totally misplaced.

 

I am not sure whether I have much to add this conversation by now, but I want to thank you for helping me think more clearly on this topic. I hope you found our discussion fruitful as well.

 

Take care and good luck with your educational endeavours.

[jpahmad]

I am not sure whether I have much to add this conversation by now, but I want to thank you for helping me think more clearly on this topic. I hope you found our discussion fruitful as well.

 

Take care and good luck with your educational endeavours.

Likewise

[Matt D]

 Thus it is through internalization and integration that individuals can be extrinsically motivated and still committed and authentic."

 

 

I'm reading Dan Pink's book Drive at the moment. He mentions Deci in his introduction and there's a chapter called 'Why Carrots and Sticks Don't Work'. Immediately after that chapter is a subchapter which goes through the exceptions to that rule. I'll let you know what I find out once I get to that point!

 

...but enough with the science, what about the personal?!

I'm curious to know what kinds of motivation were used when you all were growing up. Was it effective? @JP - sorry if you mentioned that in your videos already as there are some I haven't watched.

 

I'm assuming there is a reason the people on this thread are interested in the topic, at least I think that's the case for myself. I'd be happy to share if you like.

[jpahmad]

 

 

...but enough with the science, what about the personal?!

I'm curious to know what kinds of motivation were used when you all were growing up. Was it effective? @JP - sorry if you mentioned that in your videos already as there are some I haven't watched.

 

I'm assuming there is a reason the people on this thread are interested in the topic, at least I think that's the case for myself. I'd be happy to share if you like.

 

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.