motivation to achieve
lalow66
A few days ago at my 8 year old sons soccer game, one of the other mothers made a comment after her son scored a goal, that that goal brought his total up to enough money to get the new ironman video game. In other words, she pays him 5 dollars for each goal he scores at our rec league (we dont officially keep score) soccer games. I know of one other mother there who does the same thing.
At first the idea of it seemed even sillier than someone paying their kids for grades but then I thought it was about the same.
The more I thought about it the more I wondered what these people are thinking. I get that some people think that until a child has the intrinsic motivation to do something than giving them extrensic motivation is important but this is a sport that these kids supposedly cant get enough of and love. I know people that pay their kids to read for that reason.
I dont realy have a question about this but am trying to understand.
At first the idea of it seemed even sillier than someone paying their kids for grades but then I thought it was about the same.
The more I thought about it the more I wondered what these people are thinking. I get that some people think that until a child has the intrinsic motivation to do something than giving them extrensic motivation is important but this is a sport that these kids supposedly cant get enough of and love. I know people that pay their kids to read for that reason.
I dont realy have a question about this but am trying to understand.
Sandra Dodd
Professional athletes make more if their team wins, sometimes. Do
they make more, individual players, for points? In the long-run,
maybe, if they're famous, but within a game is the "take" ever
apportioned according to performance of players?
Sandra
they make more, individual players, for points? In the long-run,
maybe, if they're famous, but within a game is the "take" ever
apportioned according to performance of players?
Sandra
Pam Sorooshian
On 5/18/2010 2:42 PM, Sandra Dodd wrote:
players put it into their contracts to get bonuses based on things like
"no goals scored against" for a goalkeeper or "number of assists" for a
midfielder or "goals scored" for a forward. They also get bonuses for
wining championships, etc.
-pam
> In the long-run,I'm not sure what you mean by "the take." But, professional soccer
> maybe, if they're famous, but within a game is the "take" ever
> apportioned according to performance of players?
players put it into their contracts to get bonuses based on things like
"no goals scored against" for a goalkeeper or "number of assists" for a
midfielder or "goals scored" for a forward. They also get bonuses for
wining championships, etc.
-pam
dapsign
> maybe, if they're famous, but within a game is the "take" everSome baseball players (the SUPER successful ones) also have bonuses written into their contracts based on the number of hits per season and number of winning games per season (for pitchers). A whole team will get a bonus if they win Championships or the World Series. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other "incentives" in contracts too.
> apportioned according to performance of players?
Dina
BRIAN POLIKOWSKY
I highly suggest two book for you to understand how rewards hurt and not help.
Drive by Daniel Pink
Punished by Rewards by Alfie Kohn
Alex Polikowsky
http://polykow.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unschoolingmn/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Drive by Daniel Pink
Punished by Rewards by Alfie Kohn
Alex Polikowsky
http://polykow.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unschoolingmn/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Vidyut Kale
"I get that some people think that until a child has the intrinsic
motivation to do something than giving them extrensic motivation is
important but this is a sport that these kids supposedly cant get enough of
and love. I know people that pay their kids to read for that reason."
The reward as motivation didn't bother me so much as the symbolism of the
reward in the relationship. Motivation is motivation. I don't see why one
kind is better than the other unless it somehow excludes the other. Fair
enough if a kid wants to earn pocket money playing soccer rather than mowing
lawns - whether he enjoys it or not. However, i am concerned about how we as
parents may attach value to certain kinds of outcomes and promote them,
perhaps leading to associations about what we value in them.
I mean if it were an employee or a professional player, it is performance
they are getting paid for, and it is being paid to deliver taken to
appreciative levels. Deliver outstanding, get paid more - kind of thing. The
professional is paid to do his job to begin with. It is what the whole
relationship between the payer and payee is about. I don't know if I would
be able to create those kinds of dynamics and still balance them out with a
whole life perspective with my own child. Or perhaps I fear that I may not
be able to convey what i see as precious eloquently enough to register along
with the 'hard facts' of money. I'd better get to work on appreciating him
better anyway :D
Vidyut
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
motivation to do something than giving them extrensic motivation is
important but this is a sport that these kids supposedly cant get enough of
and love. I know people that pay their kids to read for that reason."
The reward as motivation didn't bother me so much as the symbolism of the
reward in the relationship. Motivation is motivation. I don't see why one
kind is better than the other unless it somehow excludes the other. Fair
enough if a kid wants to earn pocket money playing soccer rather than mowing
lawns - whether he enjoys it or not. However, i am concerned about how we as
parents may attach value to certain kinds of outcomes and promote them,
perhaps leading to associations about what we value in them.
I mean if it were an employee or a professional player, it is performance
they are getting paid for, and it is being paid to deliver taken to
appreciative levels. Deliver outstanding, get paid more - kind of thing. The
professional is paid to do his job to begin with. It is what the whole
relationship between the payer and payee is about. I don't know if I would
be able to create those kinds of dynamics and still balance them out with a
whole life perspective with my own child. Or perhaps I fear that I may not
be able to convey what i see as precious eloquently enough to register along
with the 'hard facts' of money. I'd better get to work on appreciating him
better anyway :D
Vidyut
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joyce Fetteroll
On May 19, 2010, at 2:33 AM, Vidyut Kale wrote:
be true. But motivation is wrapped up in emotion and someone's
relationship with what they're doing.
I think it would be difficult for a child not to change their
relationship with soccer if they were being paid by the goal, even if
it was for pocket money instead of incentive to do better (or do their
"best" or whatever the parent believes they're encouraging.)
It would also change their relationship with the team from one of
working for the *team* to score goals rather than for them to score
goals. I doubt any parent would be helping a kid earn pocket money by
watching TV ;-) The parent will pay for what they value. Even saying
"Good job!" can be problematical if the parent is focusing on
accomplishing a task that's generally seen as admirable by society
rather than the child and their relationship with what they've done.
It's better to tune into what the child feels rather than what they've
accomplished. (So a parent can sincerely say "Cool!" when a child says
they've beaten a level on a game that was giving them trouble. :-)
The discussion ties in with a video someone posted on Facebook
yesterday about motivation. They did studies on how rewards influenced
performance. They found that rewards for purely mechanical skills
increased performance. But when a task that needs even rudimentary
cognitive skills (I think is how it was put) is rewarded, the
performance actually decreases. Totally counterintuitive. They even
had the experiment repeated in India where the decent reward ($50) for
doing puzzles and shooting baskets stretched to 2 months salary.
Didn't matter. The outcome was the same: performance decreased.
The video is fascinating in that it also goes onto explore how some
innovative companies are tapping into people's intrinsic motivation to
work on and improve in what they enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Motivation is motivation. I don't see why oneIf people were mechanical beings and motivation were fuel that might
> kind is better than the other unless it somehow excludes the other.
be true. But motivation is wrapped up in emotion and someone's
relationship with what they're doing.
I think it would be difficult for a child not to change their
relationship with soccer if they were being paid by the goal, even if
it was for pocket money instead of incentive to do better (or do their
"best" or whatever the parent believes they're encouraging.)
It would also change their relationship with the team from one of
working for the *team* to score goals rather than for them to score
goals. I doubt any parent would be helping a kid earn pocket money by
watching TV ;-) The parent will pay for what they value. Even saying
"Good job!" can be problematical if the parent is focusing on
accomplishing a task that's generally seen as admirable by society
rather than the child and their relationship with what they've done.
It's better to tune into what the child feels rather than what they've
accomplished. (So a parent can sincerely say "Cool!" when a child says
they've beaten a level on a game that was giving them trouble. :-)
The discussion ties in with a video someone posted on Facebook
yesterday about motivation. They did studies on how rewards influenced
performance. They found that rewards for purely mechanical skills
increased performance. But when a task that needs even rudimentary
cognitive skills (I think is how it was put) is rewarded, the
performance actually decreases. Totally counterintuitive. They even
had the experiment repeated in India where the decent reward ($50) for
doing puzzles and shooting baskets stretched to 2 months salary.
Didn't matter. The outcome was the same: performance decreased.
The video is fascinating in that it also goes onto explore how some
innovative companies are tapping into people's intrinsic motivation to
work on and improve in what they enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Kelly Halldorson
>>>They found that rewards for purely mechanical skillsincreased performance. But when a task that needs even rudimentary
cognitive skills (I think is how it was put) is rewarded, the
performance actually decreases. Totally counterintuitive. They even
had the experiment repeated in India where the decent reward ($50) for
doing puzzles and shooting baskets stretched to 2 months salary.
Didn't matter. The outcome was the same: performance decreased.<<<
This to me make sense and is not surprising at all. To put it simply...If you have this monetary reward in your brain you have all kinds of thinking going on about that cluttering up your focus. You could be either planning what to do with the money, stressing about not getting it, fearful of losing it (because when you take on the task some folks might take ownership of it already)...and any number of other things you are trying to simultaneously work out.
>>The video is fascinating in that it also goes onto explore how someinnovative companies are tapping into people's intrinsic motivation to
work on and improve in what they enjoy.<<<
I agree cool video. I didn't get some of the political connections he made. Some made sense others I think were way off...just the political stuff.
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (7)
Recent Activity: a.. New Members 21
Visit Your Group
MARKETPLACE
Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests.
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest . Unsubscribe . Terms of Use.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
keetry
==professional soccer players put it into their contracts to get bonuses based on things like "no goals scored against" for a goalkeeper or "number of assists" for a midfielder or "goals scored" for a forward. They also get bonuses for wining championships, etc.==
That makes sense in relation to professional sports where the ultimate goal is profits. The more wins the team has, the more money the owner makes so the more money gets trickled down. I'm not sure how it applies to parents paying their young children to play well. Sports are very important to some parents for the future of their children. They're hoping for college scholarships. They envision their 4 and 5 year olds becoming professional athletes from playing tee ball or tot soccer or baby basketball or whatever it's called.
Money is what makes the world go 'round, right? Everyone does everything for money. The only reason people work is to get paid. If you do something for a living (like raising your own children) that doesn't come with a paycheck, your work is highly undervalued. I hate that on questionnaires there's no box for stay at home parent. It's homemaker these days because that's more politically correct than housewife. I don't make homes, though. If I did I'd probably be either really rich or bankrupt right now. Ok, I'm going off on all kinds of tangents so I'll shut up now.
Alysia
That makes sense in relation to professional sports where the ultimate goal is profits. The more wins the team has, the more money the owner makes so the more money gets trickled down. I'm not sure how it applies to parents paying their young children to play well. Sports are very important to some parents for the future of their children. They're hoping for college scholarships. They envision their 4 and 5 year olds becoming professional athletes from playing tee ball or tot soccer or baby basketball or whatever it's called.
Money is what makes the world go 'round, right? Everyone does everything for money. The only reason people work is to get paid. If you do something for a living (like raising your own children) that doesn't come with a paycheck, your work is highly undervalued. I hate that on questionnaires there's no box for stay at home parent. It's homemaker these days because that's more politically correct than housewife. I don't make homes, though. If I did I'd probably be either really rich or bankrupt right now. Ok, I'm going off on all kinds of tangents so I'll shut up now.
Alysia
Rebecca M.
Joyce Fetteroll wrote:
I did a blog post about motivation and learning, based on Peter Gray's blog, Alfie Kohn's work, and Dan Pink's TED Talk. Here's a blurb:
"In a very recent TED Talk, Dan Pink talks about why we have it all wrong. This fits so well with Alfie Kohn's work, Punished by Rewards. Even though Pink is primarily talking about motivation in business settings, his ideas are definitely applicable to educational settings as well. He says that an extrinsic reward/punishment (carrot/stick) model is detrimental to motivation and that true motivation requires three intrinsic components: autonomy, mastery, and purpose. And he can quote the research that proves it."
Giving a child money for goals may seem all about reward but punishment is automatically built in. A child who doesn't score doesn't get money. That's a punishment, regardless of the "good intention" of the parent offering the reward.
Rewards for something like this takes away the intrinsic pleasure involved in sports and turns it into something quite different (and ups the pressure/stress) quite dramatically.
- Rebecca
> The discussion ties in with a video someone posted on FacebookDaniel Pink has some fantastic things to say about motivation. He's also done a TED Talk that I quite like: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html
> yesterday about motivation. They did studies on how rewards influenced
> performance. They found that rewards for purely mechanical skills
> increased performance. But when a task that needs even rudimentary
> cognitive skills (I think is how it was put) is rewarded, the
> performance actually decreases. Totally counterintuitive. They even
> had the experiment repeated in India where the decent reward ($50) for
> doing puzzles and shooting baskets stretched to 2 months salary.
> Didn't matter. The outcome was the same: performance decreased.
I did a blog post about motivation and learning, based on Peter Gray's blog, Alfie Kohn's work, and Dan Pink's TED Talk. Here's a blurb:
"In a very recent TED Talk, Dan Pink talks about why we have it all wrong. This fits so well with Alfie Kohn's work, Punished by Rewards. Even though Pink is primarily talking about motivation in business settings, his ideas are definitely applicable to educational settings as well. He says that an extrinsic reward/punishment (carrot/stick) model is detrimental to motivation and that true motivation requires three intrinsic components: autonomy, mastery, and purpose. And he can quote the research that proves it."
Giving a child money for goals may seem all about reward but punishment is automatically built in. A child who doesn't score doesn't get money. That's a punishment, regardless of the "good intention" of the parent offering the reward.
Rewards for something like this takes away the intrinsic pleasure involved in sports and turns it into something quite different (and ups the pressure/stress) quite dramatically.
- Rebecca
keetry
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJcI just posted this on my FB and emailed it to my husband. Very interesting.
Love,
Alysia
Vidyut Kale
"I think it would be difficult for a child not to change their
relationship with soccer if they were being paid by the goal, even if
it was for pocket money instead of incentive to do better (or do their
"best" or whatever the parent believes they're encouraging.)"
I agree. However, it may still be more fun than mowing lawns :D
I see this as a case of a parent's interest in soccer. The child's interest
may or may not be or may change. I don't think it would do much damage to
the child-soccer relationship. If the passion is there, it will remain,
otherwise, it will be lawn mowing - am able, will earn. I see more of a risk
to the parent-child relationship.
At least in my life it panned out like that. Dad used to promise me money
for solving the crossword in the newspaper correctly. My relationship with
crosswords is pretty much the same, but I began realizing how much of the
appreciation I got was based on achievement. It was the relationship with
the father that started getting holes. I still enjoy crosswords and its ages
since they got me any money.
of course, my experience may not be the only possibility, just that i don't
see what change would money bring to the enjoyment of soccer if it exists.
Vidyut
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
relationship with soccer if they were being paid by the goal, even if
it was for pocket money instead of incentive to do better (or do their
"best" or whatever the parent believes they're encouraging.)"
I agree. However, it may still be more fun than mowing lawns :D
I see this as a case of a parent's interest in soccer. The child's interest
may or may not be or may change. I don't think it would do much damage to
the child-soccer relationship. If the passion is there, it will remain,
otherwise, it will be lawn mowing - am able, will earn. I see more of a risk
to the parent-child relationship.
At least in my life it panned out like that. Dad used to promise me money
for solving the crossword in the newspaper correctly. My relationship with
crosswords is pretty much the same, but I began realizing how much of the
appreciation I got was based on achievement. It was the relationship with
the father that started getting holes. I still enjoy crosswords and its ages
since they got me any money.
of course, my experience may not be the only possibility, just that i don't
see what change would money bring to the enjoyment of soccer if it exists.
Vidyut
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-It would also change their relationship with the team from one of
working for the *team* to score goals rather than for them to score
goals.-=-
If the coach discovered a parent was paying a child per goal and that
was keeping the child from passing the ball...
Marty does SCA armored combat. He is generous with his opponents and
gives them the benefit of the doubt. This makes me a proud mom. It
frustrates the knight to whom Marty is squired, because he's trying to
coach Marty to win. All these years I've been coaching Marty to be a
nice guy.
Luckily that other coach is my friend Jeff. He understands. There
have been times Marty has courteously yielded a fight to a guy who was
being a butt, though, and then LOTS of people are cranky at Marty for
not standing up and winning. But Marty is not a "win at any cost"
kind of guy, and there's a fine line between claiming a victory over
someone who's not being very honorable (and the crowd will go wild),
and winning in a way that tips toward not being honorable himself (and
the crowd goes quiet).
I've watched my husband, Keith, in that sport for 30 years. I've had
students who were tournament fighters. I've helped Keith with
squires. It's quite an involved sport and the repercussions last a
long time. Earlier this week Jeff and I were talking about an
important tournament Keith lost to his best friend (at that point
becoming former best friend) who used a six-foot spear, in a
tournament when sword and shield were expected. Jeff, who hadn't even
joined the club when that incident occurred, knew the details of the
story. It involved chivalry and dishonesty, and I was not sorry that
Keith lost, even though it would have made me queen. After that
fight, Henry looked like a jerk, and Keith looked like an honorable guy.
Nowhere in 30 years of SCA fighting could it ever, EVER have improved
anything for someone to be offered money per blow or fall or victory.
Because I know there are a few SCA participants in the readership
here, the translation is
Marty: Lord Bardolf Gunwaldtsson
Keith: Jarl Gunwaldt Gulbjorn
Jeff: Duke Artan MacAilin
the infamous spear-win: Atenveldt Crown Tournament at Coronado
Monument, fall 1979
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
working for the *team* to score goals rather than for them to score
goals.-=-
If the coach discovered a parent was paying a child per goal and that
was keeping the child from passing the ball...
Marty does SCA armored combat. He is generous with his opponents and
gives them the benefit of the doubt. This makes me a proud mom. It
frustrates the knight to whom Marty is squired, because he's trying to
coach Marty to win. All these years I've been coaching Marty to be a
nice guy.
Luckily that other coach is my friend Jeff. He understands. There
have been times Marty has courteously yielded a fight to a guy who was
being a butt, though, and then LOTS of people are cranky at Marty for
not standing up and winning. But Marty is not a "win at any cost"
kind of guy, and there's a fine line between claiming a victory over
someone who's not being very honorable (and the crowd will go wild),
and winning in a way that tips toward not being honorable himself (and
the crowd goes quiet).
I've watched my husband, Keith, in that sport for 30 years. I've had
students who were tournament fighters. I've helped Keith with
squires. It's quite an involved sport and the repercussions last a
long time. Earlier this week Jeff and I were talking about an
important tournament Keith lost to his best friend (at that point
becoming former best friend) who used a six-foot spear, in a
tournament when sword and shield were expected. Jeff, who hadn't even
joined the club when that incident occurred, knew the details of the
story. It involved chivalry and dishonesty, and I was not sorry that
Keith lost, even though it would have made me queen. After that
fight, Henry looked like a jerk, and Keith looked like an honorable guy.
Nowhere in 30 years of SCA fighting could it ever, EVER have improved
anything for someone to be offered money per blow or fall or victory.
Because I know there are a few SCA participants in the readership
here, the translation is
Marty: Lord Bardolf Gunwaldtsson
Keith: Jarl Gunwaldt Gulbjorn
Jeff: Duke Artan MacAilin
the infamous spear-win: Atenveldt Crown Tournament at Coronado
Monument, fall 1979
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-Money is what makes the world go 'round, right? Everyone does
everything for money. The only reason people work is to get paid. -=-
You drove off a cliff on that one.
MANY people work at jobs they don't love because they want the money.
Other people leave a well-paying job to do something because they love
it.
In studies in the 1970's on what motivates people to work, if people
were giving situations in which there wasn't really anything
productive to do but they still got paid, some were really unhappy.
Some people at ANY job will take on more than they "have to do," to
keep store rooms organized or to bring muffins in or to decorate for
Christmas.
Maybe you're defining work as something for which people are paid. In
that case my argument changes. But I've seen (and done) work for fun,
work for community improvement, for friendship.
Marty ran an orc ball game every Sunday for over a year because he
wanted to. It wasn't so organized that someone couldn't come and play
who had never played before. It wasn't so high-pressure that if
someone didn't show up anyone was angry. There weren't static teams.
Except for a couple of times moms went and took photos, there's not
even any evidence of it. There were no spectators to speak of, no
trophies, no records of wins or goals. They played for the thrill of
playing.
Our friend Bo has basketball similarly in a park after dark. Used to
be one night a week and he would get ten guys if he was lucky. Marty
went recently. It's up to three times a week and there were 24 guys.
Is that work or play? Marty ALWAYS showed up with the boffers and the
ball (a playground ball with a face and a wig; they went through half
a dozen different balls). Bo ALWAYS shows up with the basketball.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
everything for money. The only reason people work is to get paid. -=-
You drove off a cliff on that one.
MANY people work at jobs they don't love because they want the money.
Other people leave a well-paying job to do something because they love
it.
In studies in the 1970's on what motivates people to work, if people
were giving situations in which there wasn't really anything
productive to do but they still got paid, some were really unhappy.
Some people at ANY job will take on more than they "have to do," to
keep store rooms organized or to bring muffins in or to decorate for
Christmas.
Maybe you're defining work as something for which people are paid. In
that case my argument changes. But I've seen (and done) work for fun,
work for community improvement, for friendship.
Marty ran an orc ball game every Sunday for over a year because he
wanted to. It wasn't so organized that someone couldn't come and play
who had never played before. It wasn't so high-pressure that if
someone didn't show up anyone was angry. There weren't static teams.
Except for a couple of times moms went and took photos, there's not
even any evidence of it. There were no spectators to speak of, no
trophies, no records of wins or goals. They played for the thrill of
playing.
Our friend Bo has basketball similarly in a park after dark. Used to
be one night a week and he would get ten guys if he was lucky. Marty
went recently. It's up to three times a week and there were 24 guys.
Is that work or play? Marty ALWAYS showed up with the boffers and the
ball (a playground ball with a face and a wig; they went through half
a dozen different balls). Bo ALWAYS shows up with the basketball.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-
of course, my experience may not be the only possibility, just that i
don't
see what change would money bring to the enjoyment of soccer if it
exists.-=-
Soccer is a team sport. It's not a crossword puzzle.
Soccer shouldn't involve the relationship between each player and his
parents.
They should be working as a team and the parents should be letting the
coach provide motivation.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
of course, my experience may not be the only possibility, just that i
don't
see what change would money bring to the enjoyment of soccer if it
exists.-=-
Soccer is a team sport. It's not a crossword puzzle.
Soccer shouldn't involve the relationship between each player and his
parents.
They should be working as a team and the parents should be letting the
coach provide motivation.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joyce Fetteroll
On May 19, 2010, at 11:45 AM, keetry wrote:
will do technically challenging work for money and then spend their
limited free time doing more technically challenging work of their own
choosing for no money. The examples he gave were the development and
continued growth of Linux, Apache and Wikipedia. All built by people
doing work for nothing.
Why do Sandra, Pam, Schuyler, Alex, Meredith, I and so many others
spend hours and hours each week answering questions without getting
paid? Nobility only motivates so far ;-) It's fun. It's challenging.
I'm still challenged by the "Why are you so mean?" accusation to find
a way to explain in a way the questioner will get it why it seems like
that and why it needs to be as it is. :-)
Money can create the impression of value and maybe that's what you're
bemoaning. The work of a stay at home mother isn't seen as valuable as
even a nanny ;-)
If I'm remembering the studies right, they judged people's perception
of quality on the same product but in one part of the study it was
free, in the other there was a small price. The one people had to pay
for was perceived as having a higher quality.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Everyone does everything for money. The only reason people work isActually one of the points in the video is the phenomenon that people
> to get paid
will do technically challenging work for money and then spend their
limited free time doing more technically challenging work of their own
choosing for no money. The examples he gave were the development and
continued growth of Linux, Apache and Wikipedia. All built by people
doing work for nothing.
Why do Sandra, Pam, Schuyler, Alex, Meredith, I and so many others
spend hours and hours each week answering questions without getting
paid? Nobility only motivates so far ;-) It's fun. It's challenging.
I'm still challenged by the "Why are you so mean?" accusation to find
a way to explain in a way the questioner will get it why it seems like
that and why it needs to be as it is. :-)
Money can create the impression of value and maybe that's what you're
bemoaning. The work of a stay at home mother isn't seen as valuable as
even a nanny ;-)
If I'm remembering the studies right, they judged people's perception
of quality on the same product but in one part of the study it was
free, in the other there was a small price. The one people had to pay
for was perceived as having a higher quality.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
BRIAN POLIKOWSKY
<<<The discussion ties in with a video someone posted on Facebook
yesterday about motivation. They did studies on how rewards influenced
performance. They found that rewards for purely mechanical skills
increased performance. But when a task that needs even rudimentary
cognitive skills (I think is how it was put) is rewarded, the
performance actually decreases. Totally counterintuitive. They even
had the experiment repeated in India where the decent reward ($50) for
doing puzzles and shooting baskets stretched to 2 months salary.
Didn't matter. The outcome was the same: performance decreased.>>>
I was going to say that that is what I read in the book Drive by Daniel Pink and I went to see the
youtube video and it is Daniel Pink! I say it again that this is a great book for anyone to read.
Alex Polikowsky
http://polykow.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unschoolingmn/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
yesterday about motivation. They did studies on how rewards influenced
performance. They found that rewards for purely mechanical skills
increased performance. But when a task that needs even rudimentary
cognitive skills (I think is how it was put) is rewarded, the
performance actually decreases. Totally counterintuitive. They even
had the experiment repeated in India where the decent reward ($50) for
doing puzzles and shooting baskets stretched to 2 months salary.
Didn't matter. The outcome was the same: performance decreased.>>>
I was going to say that that is what I read in the book Drive by Daniel Pink and I went to see the
youtube video and it is Daniel Pink! I say it again that this is a great book for anyone to read.
Alex Polikowsky
http://polykow.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unschoolingmn/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
keetry
> -=-Money is what makes the world go 'round, right? Everyone doesActually, I was being sarcastic. I was thinking maybe that's what the parents who use money as a motivator in the way being discussed think. That's exactly the type of attitude I do not want to pass on to my kids. I want them to do things because they want to, they enjoy it, they think it's important or the right thing to do, not just because they are going to get paid.
> everything for money. The only reason people work is to get paid. -=-
>
> You drove off a cliff on that one.
>
> MANY people work at jobs they don't love because they want the money.
> Other people leave a well-paying job to do something because they love
> it.
>
> In studies in the 1970's on what motivates people to work, if people
> were giving situations in which there wasn't really anything
> productive to do but they still got paid, some were really unhappy.
> Some people at ANY job will take on more than they "have to do," to
> keep store rooms organized or to bring muffins in or to decorate for
> Christmas.
>
> Maybe you're defining work as something for which people are paid. In
> that case my argument changes. But I've seen (and done) work for fun,
> work for community improvement, for friendship.
I think if you have to pay a child to make goals that they wouldn't make otherwise, the child probably isn't into the game that much. Seems to me that if the child really loved the game, he would play his best (which would mean scoring lots of goals is that was a skill) without needing any other motivator. Once you add money to the mix, even if the child does love the game, it changes the dynamics. Then it becomes about how much money the child can make rather than having fun and doing his best.
Alysia