Whether you agree there are 16 desires or not, he said there is not any way to reduce all of these desires to just two types.
Or just one. Now bear with me, but sometimes I wonder if Freud was right. There's only one real desire: to get laid.
Why are you writing this software?
Because people need it.
Why can't they just use something else?
Because mine's better.
Why is yours better?
Because it handles these 27 things no one else has considered.
Why don't you just share those 27 things with the world?
Because I want to be the one to do it.
Why do you want to be the one to do it?
So that I can earn admiration, recognition, and lots of money.
Why do you want admiration, recognition, and money?
So I can get a date.
Isn't there an easier way to attract women?
Not for me.
I think some of us have realized (perhaps after the fact) that getting laid is actually overrated. It's the game that's fun, not actually getting laid. Furthermore, this game is really #$@*ing shallow and stupid.
Still others have realized that it's not getting laid that matters, it's the ability to get laid, and to keep it coming. Part of that is having something material, which (though not strictly necessary) is quite useful for getting laid.
Once you realize one or both of these points, you pretty much stop caring about getting laid (i.e. why bother?), and start chasing your dreams again.
This is all probably for the better, in the end, because getting laid (or not) doesn't seem to correlate as well with having meaningful relationships, and frankly, I've seen too many bright friends waste their potential by spending their prime years trying to game members of the opposite sex (emphasis on the plural).
Then one wonders what motivates the following groups of people:
- The happily married. Achievement has nothing to do with sexual satisfaction in a marriage; that is either secure or it isn't. You might as well try to win your mother's love.
- Women. The sexual 'market' looks totally different from a woman's perspective. Do you see a guy you'd like to sleep with? Ask him. He'll probably say yes. If women acheive in order to get laid, they are trying too hard.
- Those who have taken some sort of lifetime vow of celibacy. Clergy, monks, some missionaries.
I think that covers more people than it misses!
Ascribing mean and petty motivations to all action says more about the speaker than it does about humanity. Study closely the great men of history--those who had an abundance of motivation--and such explanations clearly fall flat. You can practically feel the heat of intrinsic motivation, of their pride and conviction and vision.
Would a corollary be that good-looking, well built men (and women, too) are less motivated? Or maybe being motivated is what really gets men laid (or, at least, married).
Maybe for the college students and young people, but what about married people? It's not like people suddenly stop doing what they love after doing someone they love.
Sex is only one thing which can bring you to an euphoric state. There are also drugs, and exercising control over your surroundings, etc.
MMORPGs have everything to do with being in the zone, nothing to do with sexuality; these two motivations are both exceptionally powerful. I remember an experiment with rats, where an electrode was hooked up directly to the center in the brain that generates the "in the zone" feeling; the rats pushed the lever to fire that electrode continually, until they died of starvation. MMORPGs, computer games in general, Wikipedia, checking e-mail, Hacker News... all operate based on the desire to zone in.
Now, the popularity of well-paid parasitic professions in the contemporary US (law, most prominently, where the marginal value of a new lawyer is negative) reveals that the desire for money is very strong as well; but is the desire for money always the same as the desire for sexual relations? I don't see Dick Cheney living it up like Bill Clinton...
Of course, multiple motivations can be present at once; but I think that good work, at least in computer areas, requires the desire to zone in as one of these motivations.
1. You don't see Dick Cheney living it up like Bill Clinton because he can afford to kill his hookers after he finishes with them, and then kill the people who dispose of the bodies. He's smart enough to avoid publicity.
2. The rewards you are referring to (email, HN, MMORPG) have to do with dopaminergic pathways, dopamine release, and the nucleus accumbens.
You're right, it was the dopamine system I was thinking of -- the phrase had escaped me.
On Cheney: I think it's possible to say when someone's having a sybaritic lifestyle and when they're not; certainly someone who's as eagerly discussed by the media as Cheney now is (while Clinton's allowed to live his rather un-Presidential post-Presidential years in media silence).
This isn't a defense of Cheney, though. I would call him less nightmarish if he had the excuse of wanting money as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself. It seems to be a common vice, this thinking of life as Donkey Kong, and if you die with a high enough score you get to leave your initials on the machine at the end...
Maybe intrinsic motivations should be defined as those things (e.g. curiosity, desire for power) that we like just for the sake of them, whereas extrinsic motivations are things we like because they get us to the intrinsic motivations. It's quite possible that most people don't really like money just for the sake of money, and that they just like like stuff that money buys.
There's certainly no denying the experimental evidence that monetary rewards seem to dampen interest in activities if you give them and then take them away.
The research behind Self-Determination-Theory would also suggest that most people probably share a relatively small subset of the motivations that this guy is talking about.
That article consists of nothing but repeated statements "There is no proof," without any reference to numerous studies showing evidence of the verisimilitude of Intrinsic Motivation.
It's like sticking your fingers in your ear and saying "lalala I can't hear you."
Warren Buffett's son described him thus: He likes to be right. It's just that when he's right, he makes a lot of money.
In support of the article, a community is better off if people have (or develop) different motivations, in accordance with division of labour. Dawkins would probably damn any genetic basis of this as group selection, but it does make everyone better off.
I agree that more research is required; but pop-psychology will always prefer simple explanations (intrinsic good! extrinsic bad!). I do.
Anyone know what his 16 categories are? I think the researcher's title is link-bait. I bet some of them are (arguably) intrinsic.
Dawkins would probably damn any genetic basis of this as group selection, but it does make everyone better off.
You contradicted yourself. Dawkins, at least in "The Selfish Gene", is much more subtle than most people give him credit for (subtlety makes for terrible sound-bites, like "Dawkins would damn...").
If an individual is part of a community in which there is a diversity of genes and a division of labor so that every individual in that community is more likely to reproduce their genes than individuals not in that community, then for each individual their bundle of genes will thrive. That is straight-up Dawkins. There is nothing to damn.
The title of the article is a bit misleading. This guy doesn't seem to be saying that intrinsic motivation doesn't exist, just that it isn't quite as simple as an intrinsic/extrinsic dichotomy would make it seem, which seems fair enough. However, to make the claim that there are 16 basic desires that motivate people (as this researcher does) is a simplification as well.
Any sort of quantization of the motivating factors in a person's life obviously cannot completely convey the true reality of the situation whether the number of factors is 2 or 16. This sort of quantization is certainly useful in talking about what motivates an individual, but given that it is a model and not reality itself, it's tough to say that one is more right than the other (or any other for that matter).
True. The entire article provides a context that somewhat weakens that statement though--as I read it anyway. I was left with the impression that he thought it was more of an oversimplification than a fabrication. Though it's tough to argue against a quote that spells things out as explicitly as you have!
The article does not support the claim with evidence, but argues the point. For me the most valuable bit was the suggestion at the end, that “Too many studies that supposedly prove intrinsic motivation have serious flaws in logic, or too many important uncontrolled variables,” he said. “There needs to be more scientific rigor.”
The theory behind why material reward makes you perform worse than usual is: while thinking on the problem, thoughts about the reward take up some expensive resources in the brain. Compared to intrinsic rewards, extrinsic ones are a novelty for the brain, so it can't help but build plans about some new possible "futures".
> “There is no reason that money can't be an effective motivator, or that grades can't motivate students in school,” he said.
Ok, well then what about this [1] video from this [2] submission?
This makes me think about something else entirely: It should be easier to draw connections between submissions like these. It should be easier to link repetitive discussions into a cohesive whole. It should be easier to build something grand from the time we invest in social news communities. As it is, it often feels like a waste of time. Someone please build this. My time's spoken for.
Reiss is saying: "some people call X the set of motivations which get called intrinsic, but actually there's no set X which is really shared between everyone". As an example, children can be motivated by curiosity or by grades and competition (an "extrinsic" motivator).
I imagine he'd agree that individuals have primary and secondary motivations, where secondary ones are all about filling some combination of primary ones. He's just saying that the primary ones differ between people (and maybe between times of day), and thus trying to debunk the idea that some motivators traditionally thought of as extrinsic (e.g. monetary reward) can never be primary.
Let's go straight to gold-leaf hat: corporations should fund research into drugs whose sole effect is to make people feel motivated when they hear the company loyalty song.
Here's a question: is there any place for value in science??
The researcher who is the focus of the article doesn't seem to think so. I've read a few books suggesting that that is exactly what science could use. What do you think?
Or just one. Now bear with me, but sometimes I wonder if Freud was right. There's only one real desire: to get laid.