Why We Do What We Do: Understanding Self-Motivation

by Edward L. Deci, Richard Flaste

If you reward your children for doing their homework, they will usually respond by getting it done. But is this the most effective method of motivation? No, says psychologist Edward L. Deci, who challenges traditional thinking and shows that this method actually works against performance. The best way to motivate people—at school, at work, or at home—is to support their sense of autonomy. Explaining the reasons why a task is important and then allowing as much personal freedom as possible in carrying out the task will stimulate interest and commitment, and is a much more effective approach than the standard system of reward and punishment. We are all inherently interested in the world, argues Deci, so why not nurture that interest in each other? Instead of asking, "How can I motivate people?" we should be asking, "How can I create the conditions within which people will motivate themselves?" "An insightful and provocative meditation on how people can become more genuinely engaged and succesful in pursuing their goals." — Publisher's Weekly

Genres: Psychology, Nonfiction, Self Help, Personal Development, Education, Business, Science

240 pages, Paperback

First published June 13, 1995

About the author

Edward L. Deci is a Professor of Psychology and Gowen Professor in the Social Sciences at the University of Rochester, and director of its human motivation program. He is well known in psychology for his theories of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and basic psychological needs.

Reviews

[Ben · Rating 3 out of 5]

Recommended highly, but with significant caveats (thus the three stars).

The simple, brilliant insight of this book for me was as follows (vastly simplified from the author's full theory, of course):

People do things effectively -- whether it is to work, to learn, or to cooperate in any social relationship -- when they are "self-motivated". This means they must be (1) technically capable of doing what they are doing, (2) understand, not just "know", why they are doing that they are doing, (3) feel confident about knowing what they need to do to accomplish the work, and (4) agree with the personal outcome of that work.

The book does a good job of taking this "well, I suppose that makes sense" notion and grounding it in science and defining it more concretely. The brilliance of the book -- and why I'd recommend it -- is that it so clearly outlines how simple "good" versus "bad" work/teaching/cooperative environments can be identified (and thus hopefully fixed). The book delves into the refined distinctions (beyond my over-simplification above) that the need for a good personal outcome is not necessarily the same as good global outcome, nor is understanding why a task is being done necessarily the same as a task being pleasant.

If only the book stopped there...ugh! Instead the author seems to feel the need to show how somehow this makes humans morally good "by nature"...

The downside is that the author does not stop with the clear definition and examples of self-motivation. He takes the well-grounded science and drifts off in broader conclusions that sound a lot more like witch-doctor, Freudian, pseudo-science than well-defined science. Enter anecdotes that support statements but hardly prove them. Enter corollaries that may be true but certainly don't follow from the original, well-defended premise. This drifting too far from the science was summed up for me in the author's notion of a people having a "true spirit" (to clarify: I'm not denying the existence of a "true spirit", I'm pegging down the author, who is a scientist, for basing his conclusions on the existence of a vague, never-scientifically-defined concept.)

Here's a example of the drifiting-from-science, taken from the concluding chapters:

"Being free does not mean doing your own thing at the expense of others, however. Rather, it involves concern for others and respect for the environment, because those are manifestations of human connectedness. Freedom involves being open to one's inner nature, and there one finds the tendencies for both relatedness and autonomy."

The above may be "true" in a poetic sense, but as soon as the word "because" in the above paragraph, we're no longer talking science here. Ultimately, the author is saying "tendencies" of humans' "inner nature" cause unselfish freedom. That's quite plainly not a scientific argument anymore than saying it is the inner nature of birds to want to fly, and therefore they have wings...

Lastly, there's the annoyance that - especially in these extrapolation-heavy sections - the author repeats and repeats and repeats the same terms and concepts over and over really to the point where (in addition to hampering the readability of the work) it feels almost there's hope the repetition will bolster the truth of the questionably-scientific argument. (If you don't hate the words "autonomy" and "introject" by the time you're done with the book, I compliment your ability to endure.) It's too bad that pseudo-science muddies the very strong, positive core message of the book.

All in all, I have say this is a highly recommended read -- just be ready to keenly discern the legitimate science from the logical fallacies. I recommend balancing Deci's need to "prove" that humans are morally good by nature with a more brutally logical approach of an author like Stephen Pinker.

[Mani · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have a few messages for all of you reading this book.
don't waste your time on work that you don’t enjoy. It is obvious that you cannot succeed in something that you don’t like. Patience, passion, and dedication come easily only when you love what you do. IT IS stupid to be afraid of others’ opinions. Fear weakens and paralyzes you. If you let it, it can grow worse and worse every day until there is nothing left of you, but a shell of yourself. LiSten to your inner voice and go with it. Some people may call you crazy, but some may even think you‘re a legend. Take control of your life e.. Even if it's for studying gfor an exam like the usmle.. Take full responsibility for the things that happen to you. Limit bad habits and try to lead a healthier life. Find a sport that makes you happy. Most of all, don’t procrastinate. Let your life be shaped by decisions you made, not by the ones you didn’t.Appreciate the people around you.. Your wife/girlfriend, your friends and relatives will always be an infinite source of strength and love. That is why you shouldn’t take them for granted. It is difficult for me to fully express my feelings about the importance of these simple realizations, but I hope that you will listen to someone who has experienced how valuable time is. We care so much about the health and integrity of our body that until death, we don’t notice that the body is nothing more than a box - a parcel for delivering our personality, thoughts, beliefs and intentions to this world. If there is nothing in this box that can change the world, then it doesn’t matter if it disappears. I believe that we all have potential, but it also takes a lot of courage to realize it. You can float through a life created by circumstances, missing day after day, hour after hour. Or, you can fight for what you believe in and write the great story of your life. I hope you will make the right choice. Leave a mark in this world. Have a meaningful life, whatever definition it has for you. Go towards it. The place we are living in is a beautiful playground, where everything is possible. Yet, we are not here forever. Our life is a short spark in this beautiful little planet that flies with incredible speed to the endless darkness of the unknown universe. So, enjoy your time here with passion. Make it interesting. Make it count! And remember God is Great as He will always help you achieve all your dreams.

[Don · Rating 5 out of 5]

Why We Do What We Do is one of those books I wish I'd read years ago. It's essentially a primer on self-determination theory, which is a grand theory explaining, just as the book's title suggests, why we humans do what we do. The theory holds that in order to flourish we must have three basic psychological needs meet -- the needs to live with authenticity, to feel competent in our work, and to forge close connections with others. One Goodreads reviewer complains that Deci at times "drifts off in broader conclusions that sound a lot more like witch-doctor, Freudian, pseudo-science than well-defined science." I think that's a fair criticism, but it doesn't stop me from giving this a full five stars, as most of the book's claims are supported by solid research, and its implications are profound and truly life-changing. Moreover, unlike the fascinating but academic and difficult Self-Determination Theory, this book is eminently readable.

[Leit · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hmmmm...well I suspect I suffer from the malady of wanting to read more 'textbook' like renditions of psychological/sociological material because I just can't get into the whole Daniel Pink era of (what feels like to me) really simplified extrapolations of scientific research. I prefer to read the 'drier' stuff and draw my own conclusions...

With this one, the conclusions and recommendations drawn and made by Deci just seemed so very intuitive and common sense given the basic outcomes of the research, but also, frankly just from my everyday experience with family, friends, co-workers and my own human nature.

Overall I I do believe this is a good formatting of an essential set of concepts centered around the nature of how extrinsic vs. intrinsic motivations interact with our systems of learning and working within our everyday world.

[Joséphine · Rating 3 out of 5]

Okay, I can't write a good review for this book because I listened to it without paying enough attention, and I stopped halfway through. Also, I'm really no expert in psychology.

The first chapters were the best: defining self-motivation, autonomy, independance, showing why preserving someone's autonomy is so important, and why motivation has to come from the inner self, not from the outside, especially not in controlling ways. For example in a certain study, telling students in group 1, "remember this page, you'll have a test on this afterwards" leads to a much more superficial understanding of the material than telling students in group 2 "try to remember this page so you can explain the content to someone else afterwards". Ha, who would have guessed? But it's still nice to see it black on white. And yes, there were some more subtle findings, which I wish my terrifying history teacher in sixième had known about.

But at some point in the book, the author ends up repeating himself, drawing conclusions for every aspect of life, dispensing moral advice to all people in "one up" positions (parents, educators, managers, etc.), and that was less pertinent imo. Still, I can only recommend the first few chapters.

[Gerrit Gmel · Rating 5 out of 5]

My manager gave me this book about 5 years ago when I got my first managerial position. I loved it then and I thing to it was time for another read. It’s still as good as the first time and I will almost certainly read this again in the future.

It reads like pop psychology (well… it kind of is), but it makes enough subtle points to not have that be off-putting.

It gives a fascinating portrait of intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation, the difference between autonomy and independence, and much more. You’ll find these concepts universally applicable in your own life and it will help you understand some behaviours of people around you.

[Lou · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting but you get the point halfway through.

[Nelson Zagalo · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Why We Do What We Do: Understanding Self-Motivation" é um bom livro mas não vai além disso. Aquando da sua leitura precisará de se levar em conta dois elementos: o primeiro, que o livro é de 1995; e o segundo que Edward Deci, conjuntamente com Richard Ryan, são duas das maiores autoridades no campo da Motivação. Porque digo isto? Porque aquilo que Deci aqui apresenta é para nós em 2015 algo já assimilado, apesar da sociedade muitas vezes o esquecer, mas se o é hoje aceite deve-se a estes dois investigadores. E sendo de 1995, o que aqui se diz era ainda recente à altura, hoje já não é. Depois, o livro acaba por sofrer de um problema clássico, sendo académico o autor e sabendo que os públicos são distintos, procurou agradar a todos, acabando por fragilizar a obra. Se a primeira parte funciona bastante bem na desconstrução teórica do modelo que suporta a “Self-Determination Theory”, a segunda parte é fraca, com Deci a entrar quase pelo caminho da autoajuda, com ideias simples e simplistas, demasiado senso comum e pouco suporte para afirmações tão largas e complexas. Dito isto, descrevo apenas a parte do livro que realmente vale a pena enfatizar.

A teoria de motivação aqui apresentada foi criada ao longo de décadas por Deci e Ryan, tendo sido denominada como “Self-Determination Theory” (SDT). Como o próprio nome indica, a teoria parte de uma base que diz que a intensidade da nossa motivação está directamente ligada à nossa determinação para alcançar um objectivo. Deste modo Deci começa por elencar a distinção entre a motivação extrínseca e a intrínseca. No caso da extrínseca, somos motivados por algo exterior ao objectivo em si, ele apenas é um meio (ex. tirar boas notas na escola, para ganhar uma consola). No caso da intrínseca, refere-se a realizar algo, porque se pretende isso mesmo (ex. aprender a tocar piano porque nos dá prazer). Se à partida podemos pensar que a motivação intrínseca é a única relevante, não é o caso. O que a teoria de Deci refere, é a determinação para agir, não se ela é interna ou externa, contudo ao enfatizar a determinação do próprio, ela refere que quando se motiva, quem é motivado tem de estar consciente e determinado a seguir essa motivação.

Por exemplo ao explicarmos a uma criança que precisa de estudar para ter um futuro melhor, estamos a colocar-lhe o objectivo exterior na frente, mas não o fazemos obrigando, antes dando a escolher, entre um futuro melhor ou pior, cabendo à criança decidir. No mesmo sentido, quando alguém trabalha como lixeiro, em princípio não é por se sentir movido por tal dever, mas pela recompensa financeira que daí advém, sendo que numa sociedade livre, este não é obrigado a tal, podendo sempre procurar e escolher outros trabalhos.

Deste modo, não basta dizer que pretendemos motivar intrínseca ou extrinsecamente alguém, o que temos de fazer é garantir uma motivação autodeterminada, e para o garantir Deci elenca três variáveis necessárias à sua obtenção: "Autonomia", "Competência", e "Relacionamento". Ou seja, para garantir um indivíduo motivado, precisamos de lhe conferir autonomia, oferecer-lhe liberdade de escolher o seu caminho; precisamos de garantir que o objectivo está ao alcance das suas capacidades, não sendo demasiado fácil, nem demasiado difícil; e por fim garantir a existência de uma relação entre o motivado e o motivador, ou o grupo de pessoas que suporta o objectivo da motivação. Quando estas três variáveis se cumprem o nível de motivação atinge o seu ponto mais elevado, deteriorando-se sempre que uma destas variáveis não é cumprida.

Destes três elementos, apenas um é verdadeiramente novo, a autonomia. No caso da competência, é algo que Vygotsky já tinha identificado há bastantes anos e que ficou conhecido por Zona de Desenvolvimento Proximal, e que Bruner descreveria também como processo de Scaffolding (os andaimes de ajuda à aprendizagem, e manutenção do interesse), muito utilizado nos tutoriais multimedia e de videojogos. Já no caso do relacionamento, é a condição de sobrevivência da espécie mamífera, fundamental na componente de gregarismo, tendo sido evidenciada nos mais diversos estudos, desde o cérebro Triúnico à Empatia.

Assim no caso da autonomia, o que temos é um processo de garantia da participação do motivado na escolha para a motivação. Procura-se assim envolver de algum modo a pessoa a ser motivada na decisão, garantindo a sua determinação para agir. A escolha e decisão pode ser menor, o que interessa é garantir ao indivíduo que este é ouvido, e que de algum modo existe uma consequência da sua vontade. Deci dedica bastante espaço à discussão da autonomia, desde logo começando por a opor ao controlo, assim como a diferenciando da independência. No caso da independência, apesar desta apelar à liberdade do indivíduo tal como a autonomia, só esta faz referência a que esta acção tenha de ser desligada dos demais, daí que Deci referencie que no caso da motivação acontece precisamente o contrário, a liberdade de escolha não pode ser desligada da vontade de estar ligado aos outros. Deci dá o exemplo dos adolescentes que se afirmam pela sua vontade de se afirmarem como diferentes dos pais (autónomos), mas ao mesmo tempo iguais aos amigos dos próprio grupo (relacionamento).

Por fim quero ainda frisar um tópico muito interessante que toda esta teorização acaba por levantar, e que é profundamente político, mas que nos ajuda a compreender melhor o mundo em que nos movemos. Deci dá conta do modelo motivacional americano, ou capitalista, e depois realiza algumas comparações com o modelo comunista, que este encontrou quando serviu de conselheiro na Bulgária, logo após a queda do muro de Berlim. Assim Deci vai mostrar os dois extremos do espectro da motivação, ou a amotivação, de um lado o controlo do capitalismo, do outro a inconsistência e o caos do comunismo.

No caso do capitalismo, temos toda uma sociedade montada para exercer controlo e obrigar o indivíduo a realizar acções que grande parte das vezes não deseja. Trabalhar para comprar um carro ou uma casa maiores do que as suas reais necessidades, uma satisfação material, que até se ser pressionado pela publicidade ou opinião dos outros, não se considerava sequer. Por outro lado, no comunismo, por força de se almejar a igualdade entre os indivíduos, não resta espaço à autonomia, o indivíduo queda-se num limbo, incapaz de compreender o que é esperado dele enquanto membro do grupo, perdendo-se e conduzindo à necessidade de impor regimes totalitaristas para fazer vingar os ideais. Assim temos que qualquer destes dois extremos contribuem inevitavelmente para a amotivação, criando não seres humanos, capazes, saudáveis, criativos e determinados, mas antes nada mais do que simples autómatos.

Para fechar, apenas concluir que a motivação está no cerne daquilo que faz de nós seres humanos, é o garante da nossa volição, da nossa liberdade, e assim do sentir da própria vida.

Blog: http://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com/...

[Elaine Cunningham · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent book for parents, teachers, employers, managers, and anyone else who wants a better understanding of how motivation works. The book is short (under 250 pages) and very dense, and it focuses on a few simple but profound concepts. In short, Deci believes the basis for motivation is autonomy, relatedness, and competence. He argues that external controls, including rewards and punishments, are ultimately ineffective.

This was the first book on my 2024 reading list, and I recommend it to anyone who is setting goals for the coming year. A thoughtful reading of this book will not only suggest a path toward reaching these goals, it will also help you assess whether or not these goals are truly authentic and meaningful.

[Basmaish · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am very interested in the idea behind this book. Parts of it are insightful and parts seemed to be a repetition of what was previously said.

I am currently going through my own bout of de-motivation so some of what was in here rang true and offered a different way to look at it.

But there’s something about the way the examples are written in this book to support their studies that I wasn’t a fan of at all. I skimmed over most of them which was hard considering how they’re in between paragraphs but I felt their analysis was self explanatory that the examples just made it dull.

[Megha Nayyar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting book. Intrinsic vs Extrinsic motivation was one of my favorite concepts. Every activity is either done to prove something to other people (extrinsic) or because you genuinely want to do it (intrinsic).

[Amaan Pirani · Rating 5 out of 5]

Self determination theory is an incredibly illuminating theory on human motivation. Unlike behaviorism, a theory that posits humans are incentivized by reward systems, self determination theory argues that intrinsic motivation is far more powerful than extrinsically "controlled" motivation (in fact the author's argue reward systems create the least powerful form of extrinsic motivation, an even less powerful type of motivation than internal motivation).
Unfortunately, most people try to motivate using techniques instilled by behaviorism (control via incentives) and thus in fact they fail at motivating others.

Of course, this book explores pretty interesting motivational situations - for example, how does a parent instill the value of hard work in their children? There are many acticities in life that are necessary but unpleasant, indeed. One approach is to create a ton of pressure - which may result in the student doing the work out of external fear, resulting in introjected values (i.e. the per son internally regulates activities and acts as the parent wants but does not accept the value as their own). The author argues a better approach is for a parent to 1. Give reasoning behind the value they're trying to instil in the child 2. Interview the child to understand their pov but 3. Ultimately leave the decision of whether to accept the value to the child (a process called integration of the unpleasant value). Ryan and deci argue that introjection causes anxiety and integration is more ideal. There's many other levers to provide integration (unconditional love, interviewing the child with respect to their other goals, linking a goal with the child's core need for relatedness or autonomy or competence, etc.)

I've been a fan of Decis theories for some time and have found it a useful guide in living my life. As an example of the application of these theories, let's take a classic question: "is money a good motivator." Deci and Ryan, would argue that it clearly is not if extrinsically motivated. Yet, if money supports an individual's quest for autonomy, relatedness, or competence (the three levers of internal motivation) then it can be something to work towards as an ancillary but not primary goal.


Some takeaways from the book

0. There are three levers of internal motivation: autonomy, relatedness, and competence.
1. Behaviorism is a school of thought that indicates that rewards motivate, not the theory of self determination
2. If praise is non controlling praise will increase competence; females have more likelihood to feel like praise is controlling because of socialization. Ultimately whether praise is motivating comes down to how controlling the recipient feels it is - If they feel the praise is directed to control them it will not motivate.
3. Rewards can still be good at motivating - if they are not given a controlling style. They should be given as an acknowledgement of good work. That said there's a lot of research indicating rewards can reduce intrinsic motivation and thus have harmful effects (i.e. people not conducting any activity which is not rewarded).

[Wiebke Kuhn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Based in decades of research about how people get motivated, the message of the book is quite clear: Develop an autonomous self that has resilience in the face of people wanting to control you, and you will live a better life.
The ramifications for any profession that can be considered a service -- education, medical, government are that we need to treat people in ways that empower them to be their autonomous selves rather than try to control them.
On a more granular, education-focused, level, his research may be troubling to some: grades and competition are control-based and thus instill fear and drop performance over the long run. The idea that we should teach so that our students learn autonomously, without the pressures of grades and exams must certainly be counterintuitive to many, but his point is very much that we live in a society that is controlling and manipulating, and education would be one way for us to counter such trends.

[Chanel Earl]

The information in this book is great! I am so glad I read it, and it has changed my thoughts on healthy habits, parenting, teaching, and society as a whole.

This book is not written well. It doesn't have nice prose, and it lacks structure and organization. Because of that, I struggled reading it.

[Shania · Rating 4 out of 5]

Actually quite interesting, but also I felt like I was reading a bit of the same stuff over and over again. However that could also just be because it took me so long to finish that I didn’t remember all the small details from the last chapter…

[Alessya · Rating 2 out of 5]

Extremely dry writing with no helpful examples is what made my star rating

[April · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a life coach, I appreciated reading about the concepts in this book around intrinsic motivation and how to create more of that for ourselves to encourage acting with authenticity and autonomy.

“An alternative approach begins not with blame and control, but with asking why people are behaving irresponsibly in the first place—why they are being violent, engaging in unhealthy behaviors, going hopelessly into debt, or ignoring their children in order to amass a fortune. This approach takes the individuals’ perspective, focuses on the motivation underlying their irresponsibility, and explicates the social forces that influence that motivation. It then addresses the factors that can lead people to behave more responsibly.” pg. 2

“This book is about human motivation and it is organized around the important distinction between whether a behavior is autonomous or controlled. Etymologically the term autonomy derives from being self-governing. To be autonomous mens to act in accord with one’s self—it means feeling free and volitional in one’s actions. When autonomous, people are fully willing to do what they are doing, and they embrace the activity with a sense of interest and commitment. Their actions emanate from their true sense of self, so they are being authentic. In contrast, to be controlled means to act because one is being pressured. When controlled, people act without a sense of personal endorsement. Their behavior is not an expression of the self, for the self has been subjugated to the controls. In this condition, people can reasonably be described as alienated.” pg. 2

“To the extent that a behavior is not autonomous it is controlled, and there are two types of controlled behavior. The first type is compliance, and it is compliance that authoritarian solutions hope to accomplish. Compliance means doing what you are told to do because you are told to do it. . . .
The other response to control is defiance, which means to do the opposite of what you are expected to do just because you are expected to do it. Compliance and defiance exist in an unstable partnership representing the complementary response to control. Where there is one, there is also the tendency for the other, even though one or the other is typically dominant within an individual. Thus, we find some people who are highly compliant, always seeming to do what the situation demands, and we find others who seem to defy all the demands and prods of authorities. But even with these people, where one response to control dominates, the tendency for the other will still be there and could come out in subtle ways. A subordinate who is outwardly obedient to all the boss’s demands might, for example, engage in secret sabotage as retaliation.” pg. 3-4

“Authenticity necessitates behaving autonomously, for it means being the author of one’s actions—acting in accord with one’s true inner self. The key to understanding autonomy, authenticity, and self is the psychological process called integration. Various aspects of a person’s psyche differ in the degree to which they have been integrated or brought into harmony with the person’s innate, core self. Only when the processes that initiate and regulate an action are integrated aspects of one’s self would the behavior be autonomous and the person, authentic. It is in this sense that to be authentic is to be true to one’s self.” pg. 4

“Quite the contrary, as people become more authentic, as they develop greater capacity for autonomous self-regulation, they also become capable of a deeper relatedness to others.” pg. 6

“It should be clear that authenticity cannot be understood in terms of outward behaviors alone; one must look to the motivations that underlie them. . . . It is only by considering people’s motivation for behaving—for going to church, doing their homework, dieting, having children, or, for that matter, stealing a loaf of bread—and examining the extent to which it is autonomous that we can address issues of authenticity, and ultimately, of responsibility.” pg. 6-7

“To the contrary, however, all the work that Ryan and I have done indicates that self-motivation, rather than external motivation, is at the heart of creativity, responsibility, healthy behavior, and lasting change. External cunning or pressure (and their internalized counterparts) can sometimes bring about compliance, but with compliance come various negative consequences, including the urge to defy. Because neither compliance nor defiance exemplifies autonomy and authenticity, we have continuously had to confront an extremely important—seemingly paradoxical—question: How can people in one-up positions, such as health-care providers or teachers, motivate others, such as their patients or students, who are in one-down positions, if the most powerful motivation, leading to the most responsible behavior, must come from within—if it must be internal to the self of the people in the one-down positions?” pg. 9-10

“How can people create the conditions within which others will motivate themselves?” pg. 10

“A master-slave relationship exists to some extent within everyone. People can regulate themselves in quite autonomous and authentic ways, or alternatively in quite controlling and dictatorial ways, pressuring and criticizing themselves. The extent to which it is one versus the other depends on the degree of resolution of that master-slave dichotomy.” pg. 11

“Behaviorist dogma assumes that there is no inherent motivation to learn, but this does not square with the fact that young children—in preschools and at home—ceaselessly explore and manipulate the objects they encounter. They challenge themselves to become competent, apparently just for the enjoyment of doing it. Children are not passively waiting to be drawn into learning by the offer of rewards but rather are actively engaged in the process of learning. Indeed, they are intrinsically motivated to learn.” pg. 20

“Henri’s point, quite simply, is that being intrinsically motivated has to do with being wholly involved in the activity itself and not with reaching a goal (whether the goal be making money or making a picture).” pg. 21

“Monetary rewards undermined people’s intrinsic motivation.” pg. 26

“Dictators control and dictators are despised. But money also controls. When people say that money motivates, what they really mean is that money controls. And when it does, people become alienated—they give up some of their authenticity—and they push themselves to do what they think they must do. One take on the meaning of alienation is that it begins as people lose touch with their intrinsic motivation, with the vitality and excitement that all children possess, with the doing of an activity for its own sake, with the state of being that Robert Henri called a more than ordinary moment of existence.” pg. 29

“Deadlines, imposed goals, surveillance, and evaluations were all found to undermine intrinsic motivation. That, of course, made sense because they all represent frequently used strategies for pressuring and controlling people. People experience them as being antagonistic to their autonomy, so these events drain people’s sense of enthusiasm and interest in the controlled activities.” pg. 31

“Providing choice, in the broad sense of that term, is a central feature in supporting a person’s autonomy. It is thus important that people in positions of authority begin to consider how to provide more choice. . . . It is not always easy to provide choice, but it has become increasingly clear that there will be positive advantages if you do.” pg. 34

“The main thing about meaningful choice is that it engenders willingness. It encourages people to fully endorse what they are doing; it pulls them into the activity and allows them to feel a greater sense of volition; it decreases their alienation. When you provide people choice, it leaves them feeling as if you are responsive to them as individuals. And providing choice may very well lead to better, or more workable, solutions than the ones you would have imposed.” pg. 34

“When rewards were given with a controlling style, they had a substantially negative effect on intrinsic motivation, and they left people feeling more pressured and less interested. But when they were given in a noncontrolling way, simply as an acknowledgement of good work, they did not have the detrimental effects. These results therefore seemed to be saying that it is the controlling intent of rewards that sabotages their attempts to motivate others, destroying the very motivation they had been intended to promote.” pg. 38

“Autonomy support, which is the opposite of control, means being able to take the other person’s perspective and work from there. It means actively encouraging self-initiation, experimentation, and responsibility, and it may very well require setting limits. But autonomy support functions through encouragement, not pressure. Providing that encouragement without slipping over into control would seem to be possible, but by no means easy. We already knew that being autonomy supportive can be ore difficult—requiring more effort and more skills—than being coercive.” pg. 42

“Limit setting is extremely important for promoting responsibility, and the findings of this study are critical for how to do it. By setting limits in an autonomy-supportive way—in other words, by aligning yourself with the person being limited, recognizing that he or she is a proactive subject, rather than an object to be manipulated or controlled—it is possible to encourage responsibility without undermining authenticity.” pg. 43

“Extrinsic control all too often gets people focused only on the outcomes, and that leads to shortcuts that may be unsavory, or just sad. As such, they are a far cry from the uplifting experiences that intrinsic motivation can bring.” pg. 45

“Intrinsic motivation is associated with richer experience, better conceptual understanding, greater creativity, and improved problem solving, relative to external controls. Not only do controls undermine intrinsic motivation and engagement with activities but—and here is a bit of bad news for people focused on the bottom line—they have clearly detrimental effects on performance of any tasks that require creativity, conceptual understanding, or flexible problem solving.” pg. 51

“Motivation requires that people see a relationship between their behavior and desired outcome, and instrumentalities are the linkages that allow people to see these behavior-outcome relationships. Instrumentalities can be created at the level of economic systems, at the level of an organization, and at the level of interactions between two individuals such as a parent and child. If people do not believe that their behavior will lead to something they desire—whether the lack of instrumentality is the fault of the system, the organization, or an individual in a one-up position—they will not be motivated. The desired outcomes can be intrinsic satisfactions, or they can be extrinsic rewards, but people have to believe that some outcomes will accrue from their behavior or they will not be motivated to behave. . . [In Bulgaria] People did not believe that productive behavior would lead to any meaningful outcomes, so they displayed very little productive behavior.” pg. 59

“For behavior-outcome linkages to serve as motivators, people must understand them, see them as relevant to their lives, and have the capabilities for utilizing them. There are densely populated areas in our inner cities that are full of people who have fallen out of the system because they see no possibility of operating within it. The standard instrumentalities are not relevant to their lives. Poverty, violence, a lack of realistic expectations about a secure future [have left them feeling unmotivated to participate in mainstream American society].” pg. 61

“Feeling competent is important both for extrinsic motivation and for intrinsic motivation. Whether behavior is instrumental for extrinsic outcomes such as bonuses and promotions, or for intrinsic outcomes such as enjoyment of the task and feelings of personal accomplishment, people must feel sufficiently competent at the instrumental activities to achieve their desired outcomes.” pg. 64

“Decades ago, the personality psychologist Robert White wrote a compelling paper about ‘The Concept of Competence’ in which he argued that people yearn so strongly to feel competent or effective in dealing with their environment that competence could be thought of as a fundamental human need. . . .
White’s theorizing suggests that there is a second important psychological need—beyond autonomy—that underlies intrinsically motivated behaviors. People, impelled by the need to feel competent, might engage in various activities simply to expand their own sense of accomplishment. When you think about it, the curiosity of children—their intrinsic motivation to learn—might, to a large extent, be attributed to their need to feel effective or competent in dealing with their world.” pg. 65

“The feeling of competence results when a person takes on and, in his or her own view, meets optimal challenges. Optimal challenge is a key concept here. Being able to do something that is trivially easy does not lead to perceived competence, for the feeling of being effective occurs spontaneously only when one has worked toward accomplishment. . . . One does not have to be best or first, or to get an ‘A,’ to feel competent; one need only take on a meaningful personal challenge and give it one’s best.” pg. 66

“Providing others with challenges that will allow them to end up feeling both competent and autonomous, will promote in them greater vitality, motivation, and well-being.” pg. 70

“For the type of engagement that promotes optimal problem solving and performance, people need to be intrinsically motivated. That, as we have seen, begins with instrumentalities—with people understanding how to achieve desired outcomes—and with people feeling competent at the instrumental activities. Then, it is facilitated by interpersonal contexts that support people’s autonomy. With these important ingredients, people will be likely to set their own goals, develop their own standards, monitor their own progress, and attain goals that benefit not only themselves, but also the groups and organizations to which they belong.” pg. 73

“There are two main types of contexts that can turn a vital life into a disaffected one. . . Social contexts that are extremely inconsistent or chaotic, that make it impossible for people to figure out what is expected of them and how to behave competently so as to achieve intrinsic or extrinsic outcomes, will lead to a general thwarting of the human spirit. It will leave people with little or no motivation. We say it produces amotivation. The second and less obvious is the type that has been the primary focus of this book—namely, controlling environments that demand, pressure, prod, and cajole people to behave, think, or feel in particular ways. These are the environments that promote automatons—people who engage in instrumental reasoning, comply with demands, are, in a sense, only half alive, and, once in a while, are prompted to defy the controls.” pg. 83

“. . . when it comes to competence and autonomy, it’s really person’s own perceptions that matter. To be intrinsically motivated people need to perceive themselves as competent and autonomous; they need to feel that they are effective and self-determining. Someone else’s opinion does not do the trick.” pg. 86

“They key to whether people are living autonomously is whether they feel, deep within themselves, that their actions are their own choice. It is a psychological state of feeling free, and it is in the eye of the behaver, so to speak.” pg. 87

“The real job involves facilitating their doing the activities of their own volition, at their own initiative, so they will go on doing the activities freely in the future when we are no longer there to prompt them.” pg. 92

“The two forms of internalization are: introjection, which Fritz Perls likened to swallowing a rule whole rather than digesting it; and integration, which involves ‘digestion’ and is the optimal form of internalization. To hold a rigid rule that pushes you around—that declares, demands, and demeans—and to act in accord with that rigid rule means that the rule has only been introjected, so it does not form the basis for truly autonomous performance of the activity. Autonomous functioning requires that an internalized regulation be accepted as your own; the regulation must become part of who you are. It must be integrated with yourself. Through integration, people become willing to accept responsibility for actives that are important but not interesting—activities that are not intrinsically motivating.” pg. 94

“Ego involvement develops when people are contingently esteemed by others, so it goes hand in hand with introjection of values and regulations. When self-esteem is hinged on performance outcomes, people struggle to maintain a facade. They pressure themselves to appear a certain way to others so they will feel good about themselves. This, of course, detracts from interest and enthusiasm. Indeed, it bolsters a false self while continuing to undermine development of true self.” pg. 115

“Think of it in terms of the master and slave. The master in your head thinks you should be thin and hates you for being fat. So the master criticizes and threatens, cajoles and humiliates. And, not surprisingly, although a part of you tries to please the master, another part of you wants to defy, to get back at the master. That of course is easy enough to do: Just stay fat. The problem is that the master is you too, so spiting the master is spiting yourself.” pg. 117

Book: borrowed from SSF Main Library.

[Karson · Rating 4 out of 5]

The title of this book doesn't tell the whole story. If I didn't know any background about the author it is not something I would have picked up.

Some background: Edward Deci and Richard Ryan are the founders of Self Determination Theory. I became interested in SDT in graduate school (Special Education) and wrote a paper on the theory and its relevance in alternative educational settings. The theory has really shifted the way I look at education.

The theory states:

All people have 3 basic psychological needs; competence, autonomy and social connection. Competence is the need to feel good at something - like there is at least one area where you could be the teacher. Autonomy is the need to feel like you have some control in your daily activities and your life in general. Social connection is a positive rapport with at least a few other human beings.

People in "one-up" positions (teachers, bosses, politicians) can either thwart or nurture the fulfillment of these needs in people in "one-down" positions (students, employees, voters) that are in their care. A person in a "one-up" position has the power to create a climate where all three psychological needs are considered.

When an autonomy supportive community that allows opportunity for people to gain competence is achieved it's members will experience more internal motivation, fulfillment, curiosity and vitality.

That's basically the gist of the theory. The author goes into several intriguing forays throughout the book. A couple of the most interesting are 1)people with high ego involvement and what I will call 2)toxic internalizations. An example of a person with a high ego involvement is someone whose identity is easily threatened by others because they have rigidly internalized values like strength, intelligence and courage for example. Their self esteem is threatened whenever they are around other people with high levels of the three qualities. They will therefore get into pissing contests (sorry) with other people with those qualities because they are threatened by them.

An example of a "toxic internalization" is a message that gets implanted into your brain as you develop for example, "i will only have a positive rapport with you if you are good at sports." If a 5 year old gets this message from a caregiver it is really threatening because it limits their autonomy and freedom. If they want to have a whole host of important needs met, then they need to be an athlete and the kid might not have an athletic bend. As the kid develops into adulthood they internalize this message and might shame themselves if they are not good at a physical challenge. Basically the adult creates a slave/master relationship within themselves so it becomes very difficult for them to participate in activities that genuinely nurture their true selves because their true selves are buried under a bunch of "toxic internalizations."

There are a lot more interesting asides. The power in this theory for me is how transformative it can be when it is applied. People who have never felt like their voice has been heard will really blossom in an autonomy supportive setting. Reading about this theory really highlights how constrictive our society really is for some people. I have found that it is a pretty productive and meaningful lens in which to view humans. If you really want to respect other people in a deep way, I think applying this theory is a good way to start trying to do that.

[Sarah Cupitt · Rating 3 out of 5]

3 stars? WIP: “They needed the numbers, so they directed their creativity and resourcefulness toward getting those numbers, rather than toward effective performance.”

- the common approach has often been to double down on control. This means demanding accountability, enforcing stricter rules, and relying on rewards or punishments to set things straight. But these approaches often backfire, worsening the very problems they aim to solve.
- When individuals act autonomously, they’re guided by their values and feel a sense of freedom and authenticity. They’re more likely to embrace responsibility because their actions align with their true selves. But when control takes over – whether from external pressures or internalized expectations – people feel alienated, disconnected from their own motivations, and less invested in their actions.
- The response to control generally manifests in two ways: compliance or defiance. While compliance might appear cooperative, it often breeds resentment or quiet rebellion beneath the surface. Defiance, on the other hand, is an outright rejection of authority, fueling a cycle of resistance and stricter control. Neither path leads to the meaningful, lasting change that only genuine self-motivation can provide.
- Once a reward is involved, people’s focus shifts. Instead of enjoying the activity for what it is, they see it as a means to an end. And when the rewards stop, they no longer find the activity as interesting as they once did.
- People crave autonomy. They want to feel like they’re the ones steering their own ship. Take that away – by adding deadlines, surveillance, or even well-meaning rewards – and motivation tends to plummet.
- When external rewards dominate, they create a dependency. People stop the behavior as soon as the reward disappears. It also nudges them toward shortcuts: why invest in quality or authenticity when the quickest route to the reward will do?
- The final thing to consider here is how we can use a sense of competence as motivation. Simply put, people need to see how their actions will lead to meaningful results. Without this clarity, motivation falters.
- Autonomy is how we move toward true freedom. When we’re driven by material success or battling against societal norms, we’re making choices that are ultimately controlled by inner pressures

[Steven Woloszyk - (Wa-LUSH-ick) · Rating 4 out of 5]

B. F. Skinner, who many believe to be the father of behavioral psychology, believed in consequences. If good behavior is rewarded, it will be repeated. If we punish bad behavior, it will cease.

This has been a mainstay with parenting, teaching, coaching, and in the business world for the better part of the 20th century and continues to be a prevailing thought today.

Then we have Edward L. Deci and his band of psychologists that say, “Wait, hold up everybody!”

Deci says that motivation is derived from “intrinsic” factors, not “extrinsic” ones. In other words, the carrots and sticks only go so far. In this book, he gives us countless studies that prove his point.

Deci says that rewards and punishments make us feel controlled. He says that we may see some temporary bump in motivation with rewards, such as giving money for good grades on a report card, but that this motivation will be fleeting and when the reward is removed, the drive is gone.

Deci says we want choices. We desire autonomy. We do not wish to feel controlled. He says that when we parents, teachers, coaches, and leaders provide clear communication with the outcomes of certain behaviors and combine that will offering choices, then we will see motivation that comes from inside which is far more sustainable than external factors.

I learned of Deci from Daniel Pink’s book Drive. Pink’s Drive, published in 2012, is an updated and more modern version of Deci’s, published in 1995. They’re both great books and rebuff the previous thoughts of Skinner and show that to really motivate we need to go beyond the carrots and sticks.

This book receives 4.4 stars on Amazon after 60 reviews. Goodreads gives it 3.95 stars after 833 ratings and 62 reviews. I gave it 4 stars. It is a great read for just about anyone, since we all have some responsibility for helping others find drive and motivation.

#FridaysFind #MIAGD #Deci #Drive #Motivation #WhyWeDoWhatWeDo #CarrotsAndSticks #Pink

[Jung · Rating 5 out of 5]

What drives us to act? Is it external rewards like money, recognition, or praise, or is it something deeper and more intrinsic? These questions lie at the heart of "Why We Do What We Do" by Edward L. Deci and Richard Flaste. The book delves into human motivation, exploring why certain goals energize us while others drain us. Through a focus on intrinsic motivation—the drive that comes from within—it argues that fostering autonomy, rather than relying on controlling environments, is the key to creativity, fulfillment, and long-lasting success.

Life often presents us with difficult challenges, from financial hardships and strained relationships to societal pressures and unhealthy habits. In response, people frequently turn to control—imposing stricter rules, offering rewards, or issuing punishments to encourage compliance. While these methods might seem effective on the surface, they often exacerbate the very problems they aim to fix. Compliance and defiance are common reactions to control. Compliance breeds resentment and quiet rebellion, while defiance fosters cycles of resistance. Neither leads to meaningful, lasting change.

The authors suggest an alternative: fostering autonomy. When people feel free to act in ways that align with their values, they take genuine responsibility for their actions. Autonomy builds a sense of authenticity, enabling individuals to connect with their inner motivations. This approach is not only transformative for individuals but can also lead to more engaged families, workplaces, and communities.

A core theme of the book is the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Psychologist Harry Harlow’s studies with monkeys showed that curiosity alone could drive them to solve puzzles, without the need for external rewards. Similarly, children are naturally curious and eager to learn, but this intrinsic drive often diminishes as they grow older and are subjected to reward systems and rigid rules. Deci’s own research found that introducing rewards for activities people already enjoy shifts their focus. Instead of engaging for the joy of the task, people start to see it as a means to an end. When the rewards disappear, so does their interest.

This overemphasis on extrinsic motivators leads to alienation, disconnecting people from their internal desires and creativity. Competition, another common motivator, has similar drawbacks. The pressure to win can sap the joy out of activities, even for those who succeed. People crave autonomy, not control. Environments that offer meaningful choices and encourage personal agency allow motivation to flourish. For example, letting students choose essay topics or giving employees input on projects can reignite their inner drive. Respect and collaboration are essential, as heavy-handed control only stifles motivation.

Another significant insight from the book is the concept of competence as a motivator. People are driven by a desire to see how their efforts lead to meaningful outcomes. However, when extrinsic rewards dominate, individuals may resort to shortcuts or manipulative behaviors, prioritizing short-term gains over quality and authenticity. True fulfillment comes from intrinsic motivation, where the process itself is rewarding. This state, often described as “flow,” is characterized by deep engagement and creativity, whether in art, sports, or work.

Extrinsic rewards, like salaries, are sometimes necessary but should be used sparingly and thoughtfully. When rewards or praise feel controlling, they can undermine motivation. Feedback, whether positive or negative, must be delivered with care. To motivate effectively, it’s crucial to support autonomy, provide optimal challenges, and show individuals how their efforts contribute to a larger purpose.

The book also examines the psychological roots of motivation, contrasting the internal focus of Freudian psychoanalysis with the external focus of behaviorism. Deci advocates for a middle ground: “empirical humanism.” This perspective views humans as proactive organisms driven by a desire to grow, explore, and integrate different aspects of themselves. Motivation thrives when environments support autonomy, competence, and connection. When these needs are undermined, motivation and behavior suffer.

A key challenge is encouraging people to internalize values and regulations. The process of internalization can take two forms: introjection and integration. Introjection involves acting out of guilt or obligation, often leading to half-hearted compliance. Integration, on the other hand, aligns external values with personal identity, fostering genuine commitment. For example, a child might internalize the value of contributing to their household and start taking out the trash willingly. To promote integration, leaders, parents, and educators should provide clear rationales, acknowledge feelings, and minimize pressure.

Society, however, often works against autonomy. Many people are influenced by “introjects”—internalized expectations about who they should be. These pressures, such as the need to be wealthy or successful, can lead to the creation of a “false self” that prioritizes external validation over authenticity. The pursuit of extrinsic aspirations, like fame or material success, is often linked to lower life satisfaction and mental health challenges. True autonomy involves aligning actions with personal values, not societal expectations. It fosters genuine self-esteem, which is stable and not dependent on meeting others’ standards.

Autonomy-supportive environments can transform classrooms, workplaces, and families. For example, teachers can involve students in deciding how they learn, and managers can collaborate with employees on projects. These approaches enhance motivation and performance by valuing individual perspectives and fostering ownership. In healthcare, autonomy-supportive doctors empower patients to make their own choices, leading to better outcomes. Similarly, workplaces that prioritize employee autonomy see greater engagement and creativity.

The book emphasizes that autonomy is not about rejecting all constraints but about making choices that align with core values. True freedom comes from living authentically, balancing personal goals with social responsibilities. This approach builds trust, collaboration, and resilience, creating environments where individuals and communities thrive.

In summary, "Why We Do What We Do" offers a compelling argument for the importance of intrinsic motivation in shaping human behavior. People are most fulfilled and effective when they feel autonomous, competent, and connected to others. By fostering autonomy-supportive environments, we can inspire deeper engagement, creativity, and personal growth. The book challenges us to rethink how we motivate ourselves and others, emphasizing the transformative power of authenticity and self-directed action.

[Tony · Rating 3 out of 5]

Again, I was assigned this book for reading for a class, and I have a mixed opinion. The content, meaning the ideas, concepts and implications of the author's message, is probably in the 4-5 star range. Deci's research showed very interesting things about what motivates us, and more importantly what doesn't. A few key points: rewarding someone for an activity they would have intrinsically enjoyed, results in them engaging in that activity less when the rewards are removed, even though they naturally enjoyed the activity. Parents, especially mothers, influence the level of materialism in children through the amount and type of attention they give, and as adults the materialism is expressed as undue attention on aspirations such as wealth. Finally, our relationships with our health care providers can be affected by the attitude and level of autonomy supported by the provider.

So on to the bad news. I don't know what editor signed off on this book, but they weren't thinking about the audience. With such interesting content to share, why did it have to be so blasted boring? Most of it read like a research paper. I understand that it was written by academics, and they can't help but include a heavy dose of "boring" into anything they write, but that is why I blame the editor. Just like a computer program that isn't user friendly isn't tolerated in the marketplace, no matter is usefulness, books should not be allowed on the printing press that haven't been checked for delivery. There are so many things that could have been done to get this message across, the presentation here is a one-star effort at best.

So, with all of this said, I will average this out to a cool 3 stars.

[Tim · Rating 4 out of 5]

"At the heart of human freedom is the experience of choice." This was a very well researched and interesting study of the importance of letting individuals be "autonomy-supportive" or in other words making choices because of their own internal motivation. There are so many applications in this book from parenting to teaching and government. The importance of not being controlled and the responsibility that come with it are what lead us as humans to become most actualized. Definitely recommended for anyone in a leadership position.

[Andrew Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating account of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation; the dangers of 'incentivising' desired behaviour, and the power of autonomy - and therefore of autonomy-support as a key strategy for educators and leaders.

[Stacy · Rating 2 out of 5]

Good information, but could have been a lot more concise. I've read textbooks that are more interesting to read. I forced myself to read most of it because it was recommended reading for work.

[Thomas Fackler · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don't think it did a very good job of relating to its title, but there was an interesting discussion of freedom, responsibility, and authenticity throughout, which made for good reflective material.

---
notes:

20210215

1
"Acting out …"

What about acting in?
Circumstances.
Place.
Structure.
Systems.

"... irresponsibility …"

What is this thing? A lack of open arms?

2
"When controlled, people act without a sense of personal endorsement."

There is the easy insight of giving up agency and so as to give up responsibility. A fascinating direction to define and then compare those two modes; their isolation being impossible.

alienation
sense of self
identity
solipsism

autonomy; authenticity
control; alienation

3
"... resists the pressures to succumb to …"

But is this a control? When one has infinite freedom one acts authentically. Who has inifinite freedom except the Independent Gods, The Skew Gods, The Gods of the Uninterpreted Planes?

The premise breaks down on page 3 if we do not think of the examples as wanting to do x, but, due to a lack of autonomy, doing y; a tightrope. The assumption, which is maybe unavoidable because of anthroposocial genetic tendencies, is that much of what we do is geared towards not only individual survival, but group survival and maybe species survival. These structures are quickly overwhelmed by metaphysical noise e.g. thought.

(The tightrope reminds me of Nietzsche.)

"... it is compliance that authoritarian solutions hope to accomplish."

Might be worth reading this book alongside 'Why We Poo What We Poo'

Movement (no pun intended) from the nameless authority to the named.

compliance
defiance

4
rebellion
conformation

Integration is a dynamic process, but what process isn't. Shall we always assume dynamics?

4-5
psychoses of control
psychoses of autonomy

5
i perceive that x is expected of me, or worse that x is necessary for my function in society, but i am denied x and so must either choose to defy expectations, society, or cease to exist.

6
narcissism as preoccupation with other's affirmation of myself

8
"... socializing agent."

social physics: what is a socializing agent? How might they be grouped according to observations?

authority creates the social context.

But mightn't it be that the social context creates the authority and that the inversion is rarely anything but forced?

9
the vast majority of us might, at any given time, be aimless wanderers in the social landscape. That old metaphor of the human brain comes to mind: it is constantly functioning, but different areas assume different tasks and so, at any given moment the rest of the brain is a useless appendage - until the useless bit is called to activity …

This book with its one-up/one-down metaphor seems to maintain the concept of outside motivation e.g. "... fostering the motivation of …" TBD

10
"..., "how can people create the conditions within which others will motivate themselves?""

group decision-making

20
"They challenge themselves to become competent, apparently just for the enjoyment of doing it."

22-23
"... understanding the real world through analogy."

30
idea independent of hypothesis, but can motivate it

experiment motivated by hypothesis - test hypothesis - mold or destroy theory

32
watching competition

20210217

46
"... "instrumental reason" …"

47
What qualifies a thing as measurable? What qualities do measurable things have?

48
How much of this research is generalizable across cultures?

51
Public education may not be a creative process.

53
What about the people who read and the pizzas are a by-product? 'Oh, look, I'm already doing this thing that gives me these things. Guess I'll get a pizza for free when I'm done reading.' I wonder about them. How did they become as they are?

64
Levels of fabricated existence. Our lives are not plane. A structure designed to soften might also smother. We are piece-meal designing the heat death of the universe.

***

A web of feelings:
feeling effective
feeling productive
feeling immersed
feeling nothing as in flow
feeling nothing as in emptiness
feeling nothing as in satori

feeling a thread unravel
feeling others
feeling something as in anything
feeling pain
feeling soft
feeling pudgy
feeling the lips turn up at the corners

feeling warmth
feeling warmth escape
feeling unbounded
feeling imaginary

65
The Concept of Competence, Robert White

66
Relational structure. Conveyance of personal systems to others and other's personal systems to oneself.

I watched as everything went into the sieve. I knew there were grades of granularity. Everything went in. The only instant was gravity.

I had been through that system. I was still in that system. I could think about both. Down was where the constant was. I did not know the best position for myself. Everything else seemed to tumble around me. Everything else seemed so structured.

I knew I was confused. There must have been somewhere to go at some point that was outside enough so that only the pull would be. Only the pull. Only.

And then I could orient myself. Maybe stand. Maybe lay. Eyes opened. Eyes closed.

And everything would be oriented.

I haven't found this, I think. I keep a picture in my mind. I call it a dream. Or reality. I don't know.

It is not solid or ephemeral. It follows me. I follow it.

We draw ourselves.

To something. As something. The difference is in telling.

I argued with myself about whether or not it was a machine. "Can everything be a machine," I asked. It seemed metaphysical. It seemed wanton. It seemed craven. To dwell in a field that was so self-designed that I assumed I could never break free. Was this another constant? Could I set it up with it feeling empty; knowing that it would empty one day; that it was only a constant for a variable amount of time?

These thoughts could have plagued me. They have. They are essence in their inconstancy. Maya maybe, but I would not condemn them to a particular world view. I have seen them everywhere out of the corners of my eyes.

67
"Because the task was one where people could not really tell how well they were doing, it was possible to give positive feedback that was believable no matter how well they actually did."

70
Potential correlation in the relationship of competence and autonomy.

I wonder about the time component. There is a push for rapid acquisition - an acquisition curve from ignorance to competence. Autonomy is another curve. I don't see them connected except where they are parallel and personal.

Granting complete autonomy requires something of either society or an individual. Society must accept the motion of time as independent of its constraints. A business making widgets cannot do this. EMTs are good at this. If they do not start alive then, most likely, their patients will not. Cops may be less so - once this difficulty is over they can move on.

The requirements of societal change for complete autonomy are antithetical to our modern systems. An extreme example is Nazi Germany. Autonomy was evil.

How do we create systems of autonomy while changing our concepts of life?

The language of optimization does not necessitate a time constraint.

The incandescent screen. The various knobs. Each one controlled an ever-decreasingly relevant component of the system to which it was connected.

An annual pilgrimage, ending in an increasing line, passed past the controls. Many who passed through made their way back to the beginning of the line, now in barges spanning the oceans, so that they might see if what they thought they had noticed might be true.

It was difficult to know which one was the controller. Their picture was released quarterly. Some who made it back to the beginning of the line, and who claimed eidetic memory also claimed that they knew who the current controller was. Some of them could draw. Inevitably the controller appeared as themselves or as the face of someone they had dreamed of the most or someone who could not draw because memory was incapable of fragmentation.

80
"... implicit within life … is the … complex, yet organized …"

81
Much of what our experimentation told us was that person x in circumstance y given stimulus z did a and person l in circumstance y given stimulus z did b and every variation. This was the vast majority of our results and they were important and replicable, just not fundamental.

83
Hegelian tyranny raises its organismic head.

87
"But surely it is true that we can all feel within ourselves, at least intuitively, if we are autonomous."

I wonder if this is actually so and if there is an empirical way to assess it.

"When people are either complying with or defying controls, they are not being autonomous and they can know that."

This statement contains at least two independent statements. "... complying with or defying controls …" and "... not being autonomous …". A third, possibly independent, but likely dependent statement is "... they can know that …". To comply or not comply, knowing that one is doing so, pretentiously with forethought, might be a sign of autonomy.

20210222
introject
organismic

These words really jump out at me. Also his use of dialectic, usually when he's got two things that are the same, but he's saying they are different, but united in the dialectic.

I do wonder if introjection is a media effect?

20210225

149
"... understand where their rights end and others' rights begin."

mark twain

The difficulty of telling a person that what they have, who they are, is not enough. One sense of education. The countermanding of curiosity. This is different from self-discovery - that what a person is, what they have, who they are is dynamic.

151
"... every choice had its consequences."

Seeing this is its own scale.

181
Preceding gestalt influences future gestalt.

188
"People give their own meanings to the stimuli they encounter, …"

199
How they soar, these dancers, light and airy and without any contrived burden. Each in love with the moments that have brought them here and all that did not hinder their ecstasy.

200
Speak of constraints and who we really are.
Know thyself; one who listens patiently
containing distance and all that is far,
seeing structure, mutable ecology,
debating love with and without favor,
finally knowing those who thwart freedom
by our mutual desire for…

[Samuel Massicotte · Rating 5 out of 5]

Why We Do What We Do is one of the greatest books I’ve read in a long time. It functions under the humanist premise that we all have an intrinsic motivation for things that interest us, that we are able to foster and grow this intrinsic motivation for work and relationships. However, the author argues that the world has attempted to shape behaviour not by helping intrinsic motivation grow, but rather through external controls; either through incentives or through force (i.e. punishment). Otherwise the world attempts to control people through introjections - expectations and norms that force people to act the way they believe they should act. This is what explains, according to Deci, the loss of intrinsic motivation that people should have for their work, their relationships, and the way they interact with constraints. But we are able to foster and let these intrinsic motivations grow if we give more leeway to individuals, more control over how they do things and why they do things.
On the surface, this idea is very intuitive and very positive. Motivational psychology has grown immensely as a field, and Deci seems to have been an important part of this growth. It shares much of its premisses with humanist psychology (i.e. Rogers and Maslow). However, there still remains important obstacles to this way of thinking in my mind. Firstly, it takes for granted that everyone has this intrinsic motivation and curiosity. This can be argued against; babies are born with different temperaments, can either be easy, difficult, throw tantrums easily or can be slower or faster to respond. Before someone is even born, there can be a huge diversity of individual differences that will impact a babies’ temperament, and in effect the ease with which they become motivated to explore and act on the world (see epigenetics, gene-environment interactions, gene-environment correlations, etc). Thus, children can be either very easy to motivate or very hard to motivate. In the latter case, you have to drastically change the environment surrounding the child to foster their motivation. Secondly, it takes a strong stance on free will; intrinsic motivation can come from within no matter your environment. However, if that is the case, that would go into conflict with the scientific worldview that everything has a cause. A human being is dynamically, but still only, a result of the interaction between genetic predispositions and environment. If the environment brings forth the possibility for someone to be intrinsically motivated to act with purpose, it will depend on how the person interprets the information and if they have the genetic predispositions that facilitate this interpretation. And so, Deci goes against the grain of reductionism with his claim of free will. He is not radical in this stance, as you would see with Sartre, it is much more a soft free will stance.
On the whole, I found the work very interesting, very optimistic and very inspiring. I think anyone who aims to foster their own intrinsic motivations or of someone else’s should consider reading this book. It is full of great stories, solid research, analogies and explanations. It is impactful, dare I say even powerful. It convinced me to sign up for the human motivation course happening next year at my university. It deserves its full five stars for me and nothing else.

[Nhun Nhun · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ngày xưa hồi mình đọc cuốn Nho giáo, thấy có những quan điểm kiểu “Nhân chi sơ, tính bổn thiện”, hay “Nhân chi sơ, tính bổn ác”, mình nghĩ là: Sao cũng được, nhìn qua lăng kính màu xanh, màu đỏ, màu hồng hay xám thì thế giới vẫn là thế giới.
Nhưng đợt này khi đọc Why we do what we do, mình bỗng nghĩ: Ồ, nó không chỉ đơn giản là chọn kính nhìn thế giới, mà từ những quan điểm khác biệt người ta có thể đề xuất những biện pháp tác động xã hội khác nhau: Kiểm soát hay khuyến khích sự tự chủ. Mình tin là tác giả cuốn này chọn “tính bổn thiện” để bắt đầu, vì chủ trương của ông là khuyến khích sự tự chủ.
Trong 2 phần đầu, nội dung được trình bày kiểu dạng lặp lại + tăng cấp độ:
Từ “chúng ta cần sự tự chủ”
Đến “chúng ta cần sự tự chủ và có năng lực…”
Rồi “….cần sự tự chủ, năng lực” và phải thấy được mối quan hệ nhân quả giữa hành vi - hậu quả”
Sau đó là
“…. cần sự tự chủ, năng lực và sự kết nối”
(và lại là sự kết nối từ bản ngã đích thực…)
*
Cách trình bày lý thuyết và những nghiên cứu, thực nghiệm đan xen, thuyết phục người đọc và dễ theo dõi nội dung.
Bên cạnh những trục kiến thức xuyên suốt thì những nội dung xung quanh cách ứng xử trong các tình huống được nêu trong bài hay sự phán đoán về hành xử của cá nhân trong thí nghiệm giúp mình nhiều.
Đặc biệt là Chương 8: Bản ngã trong thế giới xã hội, vừa đọc mà não mình vừa bắn pháo bông ậm ùm, cái sự đồng điệu mà mình có với những ví dụ trong sách vốn đã xuyên suốt ngay từ đầu, nhưng tới chương sách này thì gần như bùng nổ. Mình dừng lại trước một trang sách đến cả chục lần, đọc, ngẫm, gửi cho bạn bè và viết những dòng suy nghĩ không ngừng nảy ra.
*
Phần 3 và Phần Kết luận, tác giả cung cấp những góc nhìn và cách thức khuyến khích sự tự chủ hay các hành vi lành mạnh, sự tự chủ trong kiểm soát.
Khi đọc phần này, mình cũng gỡ được khá nhiều định kiến, như là với người nghiện rượu, thuốc lá. Một cách nhìn nhân văn hơn…
Từ đó nhìn ra vấn đề trong cách tương tác của chính mình, nhu cầu thay đổi trong đó để đạt được điều mình muốn hoặc đơn giản là chấp nhận những gì đang diễn ra.
Bên cạnh đó cũng là cách nhìn xác thực hơn về sự kiểm soát, những trang hay tuyệt về cảm xúc của con người.
Ở chương cuối, cả cuốn như được hội tụ lại, ta được đọc về tự do - mà ở đây, là sự tự do đích thực khi được lựa chọn cách nhìn nhận và hành xử với những điều xảy ra xung quanh, thay vì bất tuân hay tuân thủ, thay vì bị vướng vào những giá trị nội nhập.

[Grace · Rating 3 out of 5]

In fairly simple writing, Why We Do What We Do: Understanding Self-Motivation by Edward L. Deci and Richard Flaste explains that humans perform best when they are totally “autonomous” with themselves and free from extrinsic motivations such as fame, money, and external pressures. 

The process of reading not only served as a valuable learning experience but also triggered moments of thoughtful self-reflection. The book's reasoning of how "people can be controlling with themselves to satisfy their introjects...pressure (one)self, to force (one)self to act, or to feel as if (one may) have to do something is to undermine (one's) own autonomy," can allow one to identify how emulations of role models, aim for perfection and attempts to meet societal ideals can lead to the development of a false sense of self and attrition of a sense of self-worth, because self-satisfaction is contingent on whether introjects have been satisfied (or not). 

A downside to the book is that arguments or theories are corroborated with generalizations and numerous personal anecdotes instead of verifiable, concrete experimental data. A lack of discussion on the nature of the experiments (such as sample size of tested subjects or the controlled variables of an experiment) makes it difficult to affirm the reliability of experimental data and the authors' theories. 

Some of the anecdotal evidence even appear to be contrived to fit the “world of psychology.” On one occasion, the author reflects on an encounter with “a flight attendant who had a rubber band around his right wrist," and wonders “if he was using it as a behaviour modification technique where if you feel a particular rage or have a certain obsessive thought, you snap the rubber band” (193). Apparently, “the pain breaks up the thought pattern...by associating it with an unpleasant stimulation.” Why must the author automatically connect such a trivial item (a rubber band) to psychology? One who observes the world with a lens devoid of psychological views would merely assume that the rubber band had been worn hastily after untying a plastic container of airplane food for a passenger.

Nevertheless, the book will provide to be an insightful read and opportunity for self-analysis. 



  

[Erik · Rating 4 out of 5]

Deci challenges much of the conventional wisdom of teachers, managers, medical doctors and others in authority on how to get students, employees, and patients to do what is supposedly best for them.

Carrots and sticks are usually less effective than the authorities seem to think. On small tasks threats and incentives can make a difference. For example, if you pay employees by the piece to produce items, then you'll probably encourage those employees to make more items.

But if you want students to learn and remember knowledge beyond the test, if you want employees to do better and more creative work for your company, and if you want patients to commit to a course of treatment needed to get healthy, then outside motivation is not enough. In fact, external rewards and punishments may backfire, sapping any real motivation, which must come from inside a person herself.

Deci thinks that we should support the autonomy of the people we're responsible for managing or directing. We can and should still have goals and we should still correct mistakes. But it's better to involve your employees in creating your goals and to let your students diagnose their own mistakes, as long as they have the knowledge to do so. If not, then a teacher can act as a coach, offering students the resources they need to achieve their own success.

In the end, Deci is writing not just about performance or even fulfillment, but about freedom. What does it mean to live as a free person? Autonomy, which is not about just doing your own thing, but also about relating to others. Duty turns out to be the greatest satisfaction, which is an optimistic message indeed.