[Xmca-l] Re: Intrinsic / Extrinsic Motivation

Sun Aug 25 15:27:28 PDT 2019

Wagner--Thanks for getting things straight. I was particularly interested
in your in-laws. We often think of families and in-laws as thoroughly
pre-capitalist institutions that have little to contribute to Politics with
a capital "P" and Culture with a capital "C", but the story of the AIDS
epidemic and the subsequent normalization of gay marriage is probably
better understood as a story of molecular changes on the part of
touched families and stricken in-laws than as an unmotivated but
mysteriously almost simultanteous change of heart on the part of
politicians or some Gog vs. MaGog battle in the culture wars.

Isn't your distinction between small farmers who are interested in land for
the same reason that they are interested in living on the one hand and
large agrobusiness who are interested in land only and only in so far as it
impacts trade one example of intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation? And isn't
that distinction in turn simply an example of more/less mediated motivation?

That said, the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation has a
lot to answer for in studies of foreign language learning. Lambert and
Gardner (in Quebec) made a fatuous distinction between learning a language
to get a promotion at work and learning a language to integrate into
society, and the questionnaires they developed dominated work in foreign
language learning motivation for a whole generation. Even studies of why
and how toddlers in Seoul are learning English had to begin with a
recitation of the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation,
and how it had been operationalized in the work of Lambert and Gardner.
Gardner himself  said later he found out you could really discover a lot
more about the language learning motivation of immigrants to Quebec with a
bottle of wine....

David Kellogg
Sangmyung University

New Article:
Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky’s
pedology, Bruner’s constructivism and Halliday’s construalism in
understanding narratives by
Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663

Some e-prints available at:
https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 5:26 AM David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu> wrote:

> The case of schooling is often the starting point for discussion of
> motivation, because it’s of such practical concern there.
>
> When we take this setting as neutral, as Deci and Ryan do, then we are
> left with the happenstance of who “enjoys” the school activity in its own
> right, versus who has to be coerced in some way.
>
> This seems to me the most superficial level of analysis possible.
>
> There may be some sensations that are physically pleasurable, like eating
> and mating, but that’s about it as far as that goes.
>
> Nobody’s school curriculum consists of eating or mating, and everything
> beyond that is socioculturally mediated.
>
>
>
> The magic of Dewey’s school was not that he managed to find activities
> that everyone found “inherently interesting or enjoyable.” The magic was
> that through the culture of the school he was able to constitute a cultural
> setting through which kids came to see participation in school as
> consistent with their identity and life goals (no citation, here, because
> I’m speculating).
>
> Couching the intrinsic / extrinsic distinction at the level of what people
> happen to find “inherently interesting or enjoyable” seems to me to rob it
> of its potential psychological significance as well as its practical
> utility for education.
>
> What I want to say is that intrinsic motivation is the motivation
> associated with identity and life goals, and that extrinsic motivation is
> everything else (excepting, perhaps, immediate gratification of physical
> pleasures).
>
>
>
> Does that make any sense?
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> *On
> Behalf Of *Glassman, Michael
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 25, 2019 11:32 AM
> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Intrinsic / Extrinsic Motivation
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> The earliest I have read about extrinsic and intrinsic motivation (the
> earliest is was mentioned) was, as with so much else in John Dewey –
> Democracy and Education.  It may have been mentioned earlier and it was
> probably an idea floating around. I would be it came up at some of the
> salons at Jane Addams place. The general distinction (I don’t think
> dichotomy is the correct word here) is that the extrinsic reward is
> something that an agent is offering an individual (in Dewey’s case a child)
> to get them to do something. Dewey’s criticism is – for lack of a better
> word – pragmatic.  Extrinsic rewards tend to fade or disappear. If somebody
> it paying you to do something and the reason you are doing it is because
> they are paying you, then you stop doing it when you stop getting paid.
> There is nothing inherently bad in this but it is not what Dewey might call
> vital experience, it doesn’t change the way you approach the world, has not
> impact on lifelong learning. However if you are doing something because you
> want to do it, without an outside agent or the outside agent is superfluous
> then there is a greater chance you will keep doing. The action is not
> dependent on anybody else. So Andy I think your example or somebody
> attending a political meeting because they enjoy is actually intrinsic
> motivation while somebody attending a meeting because they want to get
> things done is extrinsic, in other words they will stop attending if they
> don’t think things will get done (something like this has been defined as
> political efficacy). If I read this wrong I apologize.
>
>
>
> The reason I think it might be unwise to consider it a dichotomy is
> because of the way the two have been define since Bandura. It is more of a
> process. You need to start with extrinsic motivation but through a process
> of feedback (yes, Bandrua like cybernetics) and positive reinforcement
> through success it slowly becomes intrinsic. It is one of the fundamental
> tenets of socio-cognitive theory.
>
>
>
> I have no idea why socio-culturalists do not like this, it seems to fit
> pretty well, but I am interested to here.
>
>
>
> As for Deci and Ryan’s self-determination theory I don’t really think of
> intrinsic motivation as innate (do they say that).  It is more emergent.
> You have to have the right circumstances, which include autonomy,
> relatedness, and competence and this perfect storm leads to intrinsic
> motivation. But it is difficult to attain without it. Can you call that
> innate?
>
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> *On
> Behalf Of *Andy Blunden
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 25, 2019 11:53 AM
> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Intrinsic / Extrinsic Motivation
>
>
>
> Artin, is there any chance that your 'trouble' can be expressed in a
> paragraph here?
>
> Andrew, I also suspect that the making of the distinction into a
> dichotomy, a behaviourist interpretation of the distinction and an
> ahistorical understanding of the idea may cause others to reject it,
> throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
>
>
>
> We have politicians in this country, and I do believe that some of them
> participate in the practice of politics for the purpose of furthering and
> even perfecting that practice, maybe only a few, but some. But I am sure
> that there are some who in there for other purposes, mostly enrichment
> and/or fame. True, it is not a dichotomy; some who are there in order to
> advance political practice also enjoy the game and the fame in can bring.
> But to collapse the two would be madness. The practice of politics has an
> object which is not self-enrichment. Individual motivation must be judged
> against that concept of politics.
>
> A while ago I was giving a talk on my book "Origins of Collective Decision
> Making," explaining the ethical and instrumental differences between
> Consensus and Majority, and a young anarchist said she *enjoyed*
> consensus much more than majority decision making. That there could be
> reason for choosing one mode of action rather than another other the
> pleasure derived had not occurred to her. I was, I admit, a bit shocked.
> This case brings out the subtlety of the distinction. Acting in political
> meetings for the sheer pleasure of doing it is actually an *extrinsic*
> motive, whereas acting in meetings to produce good decisions implies
> *intrinsic* motivation. But superficially, it seems to be the other way
> around.
>
> In a certain context, e.g. playing tennis, doing it for the pleasure of
> doing it counts as an intrinsic motivation, and when you become a
> profession and maybe then start playing for the prize money and adulation*,
> *rather than in the perfection of the game, then that is extrinsic
> motivation. It depends on whether tennis is taken as a game or a sport,
> professional or otherwise.
>
> But maybe it is just the difficulty in making a nice clear dichotomy which
> sets people against the distinction?
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------
>
> *Andy Blunden*
> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ethicalpolitics.org%2Fablunden%2Findex.htm&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7C06f0c1682de14a76217308d7297a52d9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C0%7C637023477695143200&sdata=gkYcR2yjZ0MgXBBQoAQmXkGm6IjxRFjrS659FbhEG%2Bk%3D&reserved=0>
>
> On 26/08/2019 12:34 am, Coppens, Andrew wrote:
>
> I don’t know much about a characteristically CHAT objection to the
> distinction but, to my mind, the main problem is in how intrinsic
> motivation is characterized (i.e., acultural, ahistorical) and that
> extrinsic motivation is set up as its opposite (i.e., not just a
> distinction but a dichotomy). These two features of the theory create many
> problems regarding what I need a theory of motivation to help explain.
>
>
>
> My objections might counter some primary CHAT texts, but there are a
> number of reasons I can imagine being OK with that.
>
>
>
> / Andrew
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Andrew D. Coppens
>
> UNH Education Dept., 302 Morrill Hall
>
> 603-862-3736, @andrewcoppens
>
> Schedule a meeting: calendly.com/acoppens
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Andy Blunden
> <andyb@marxists.org> <andyb@marxists.org>
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 25, 2019 1:28:40 PM
> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Intrinsic / Extrinsic Motivation
>
>
>
> *Caution - External Email*
> ------------------------------
>
> For some reason which I have never understood many CHAT people seem to be
> set against this distinction. And yet the distinction is intrinsic to A N
> Leontyev's Activity Theory. In addition, Alasdair MacIntyre uses it to, in
> my opinion to great effect, such that I cannot imagine a theory of
> motivation that lacked this distinction.
>
> What is the problem?
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------
>
> *Andy Blunden*
> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ethicalpolitics.org%2Fablunden%2Findex.htm&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7C06f0c1682de14a76217308d7297a52d9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C0%7C637023477695143200&sdata=gkYcR2yjZ0MgXBBQoAQmXkGm6IjxRFjrS659FbhEG%2Bk%3D&reserved=0>
>
> On 25/08/2019 1:00 pm, David H Kirshner wrote:
>
> I’m reading a behaviorally oriented account of intrinsic and extrinsic
> motivation by authoritative authors Ryan and Deci (2000):
>
> “The most basic distinction is between *intrinsic motivation*, which
> refers to doing something because it is inherently interesting or
> enjoyable, and *extrinsic motivation*, which refers to doing something
> because it leads to a separable outcome [one undertaken for instrumental
> reasons]” (p. 55).
>
>
>
> This seems to me an impoverished account for a variety of reasons, most
> pressingly because it attempts to naturalize what is pleasurable or
> intrinsically motivating as inherent to the organism, without respect to
> individuals as people, engaged in socioculturally constituted life
> histories.
>
>
>
> Does the construct of intrinsic / extrinsic motivation surface anywhere in
> sociocultural theory?
>
> Alternatively, can anyone point me toward a sociocultural critique of the
> intrinsic / extrinsic construct?
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> Ryan R. M., & Deci E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations:
> Classic definitions and new directions. *Contemporary Educational
> Psychology, 25*, 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1006%2Fceps.1999.1020&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7C06f0c1682de14a76217308d7297a52d9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C0%7C637023477695153198&sdata=qauGIuVkdXaiQ0JTnpTShQFdUpJ9CHK0GqYTEVmSggU%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190826/743ccb87/attachment.html 