Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Motivation

(Conceptual) Success (Digression: But isn't all success conceptual?):

I can't remember if I've written in my world my theory that this world is a meritocracy.

By this I mean that the world rewards (merits) and grants advantages to those who would work hard.

This is what the American ideal of success is: that those who work hard will be rewarded (merited) for their efforts.

I make the distinction between a more man-made merit system, which has to do with recognition, and another more individual-based, or non-recognition based success.

Perhaps an example would help. Consider a bureaucratic conglomerate of people and a person who is promoted. She could only be promoted in this way by the recognition of a "higher up". Her success is predicated on the fact that she did something, that it was recognizable, and somebody(s) actually recognized it. The promotion is thus a merit (reward) for working hard.

The hitch is comes when people are not recognized, and they are not promoted-rewarded-merited for their hard work and actions.

Ready for the switch?

I believe that to some extent, people who work hard will be rewarded for working hard with or without the corporate recognition.

This looks like the person who does a good job, enough to triumph over competitors. I consider a more naturalistic environment: inventing the invention (re: using the wheel, fire, or another primitive invention) was the reward itself. In this way, the world rewarded the success. The promotion was using fire, using the wheel, and other primitive inventions.

Of course, to be in a bureaucratic position in as a situation means that we're a little bit removed from such a system. Which leads us to...

The caveat:
People are not always rewarded in the way they need to be rewarded by nature for their actions. Even if the actions the person takes are the correct ones, and the right ones, that doesn't mean that the person will be merited in the way that they want to be merited, need to be recognized.
Say for example you come up with electric cars when there is no gas crisis, in the way that people have been doing since the invention of the car.

A lot of times a long term investment means sort of committing to the fact that you won't get paid back immediately. In fact I think this is somewhere to the heart of the matter.


Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Motivation, the philosophy of Attributes, and Isaiah Berlin's Two Liberties:

Intrinsic motivation is that motivation which comes from the self. That is, the individual self. The common illustrative examples are the motivation to play games and have fun.

What's the big motivation to play frisbee? Playing frisbee. What's the big motivation for going on dates with beautiful people? Going on dates with beautiful people. What's the big motivation for solving a math problem? A lot of times (gasp) it's just solving the problem.

Intrinsic motivation (intrinsic meaning internal) is contrasted and immediately defined opposite Extrinsic motivation, which is simply motivation that does not come from the individual.

Extrinsic motivation might therefore be getting an A + for that math problem, being paid to do a job, getting a punch-in-the-face "pain reward" if you're into masochism, and basically rewards that are not necessarily for being in the act of doing it, but rather from doing it. They are one step removed.

This is remarkably parallel to seminal political Philosophy work Two Theories of Liberty by Isaiah Berlin, which says that negative liberty is freedom from coercion, while positive liberty is freedom to do something. Berlin argues that we should emphasize legislating negative freedom, because positive freedom is really hard to legislate (being so ambiguous and all).

What's the biggest problem with Berlin's theory and how does it apply to intrinsic-extrinsic motivation?

The biggest problem with Berlin's theory is that it is really hard to legislate the difference between positive and negative liberty.

I ask, with this spirit of Berlin criticism in mind, is it so easy to draw the line between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation?

The conflict:

In an experiment on Chimpanzees, which is (semi) famous and I got out of James Kalat's introduction to Psychology book, chimpanzees were given a toy wood block-puzzle to open and close. They opened and closed the puzzle with glee. This is a representation of intrinsic motivation.

In subsequent trials, the scientists put a raisin in the puzzle, which the chimpanzees opened and therefore found a reward for what they had done. Following this, the chimpanzees were less enthusiastic about solving the toy wood block-puzzle.

The point: Intrinsic motivation is better than extrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation decreases intrinsic motivation.

My Isaiah Berlin-Criticism's Criticism: How could you tell the difference? At which point was it intrinsic motivation, and at which point was it extrinsic motivation and how do we know that one caused the other to fail, or succeed.

Isn't it intrinsic motivation to work towards a goal that is still one step removed?


Support for the Caveat to the Chimp problem:

Warren Buffett is said to have rewarded his children by paying for them to clean their rooms.

I also have a business consultant friend who rewards his children by paying them for completing chores. (Intrinsic motivation psychologists: where's the joy in doing chores anyway? Mary Poppins calling, certainly).


Hedonism is self-fulfilling, anyway, to some extent. This is part of our rouge theory of attributes; that thought is the feeling of hearing music playing, whereas extension might be the vibrations of the strings, the compression of the sound waves, the written notation of music, and the friction between the rosin, the bow, and the string.