Guest Post by Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn/Jewish Outreach Congregation,
Monsey, NY
We discuss here a major reason for
family and marital problems: good intentions! In fact, the worst thing a person
can do is to destroy their children. But children suffer terribly in a bad
marriage. But each parent says, “That awful spouse of mine. It is a mitzvah to correct/punish
him/her.” And there is no end.
Once a Jew did something so
terrible it was unheard of for a Jew to do it. A Rov was asked to explain this.
He replied, “I don’t know why he did it. But one thing I know. He did it for
the sake of heaven.” The Rov explained that all of us have evil inclinations
that pressure us constantly to sin. But we know that the idea is evil and so we
are limited in how much sin we do. But if a person decides that he is doing a
good deed with his evil, what is there to stop him or limit his evil?
The Talmud says that a father sees
his child misbehaving and hits him. The son can get so angry that he hits the
father back. The father is punished for causing the son to sin. Thus, even when
we do something for the sake of heaven, to teach our children how to behave, we
have to make sure of the bottom line, that it be positive and not a disaster,
chas vishalom.
There are good intentions that
create bad deeds. And then there are good intentions that create good deeds,
but too much of them, until evil results.
The Chofetz Chaim as a youth
learned so much and slept and ate so little, that he became very sick and could not learn for a
long time. Doctors could not cure him. Finally, Reb Yisroel Salanter prayed for
him and he got better. For the rest of his life, the Chofetz Chaim taught
people that we pray daily that HaShem should “remove the Satan from before us
and behind us.” What is wrong if the Satan is behind us? asked the Chofetz
Chaim. But when the Satan sees that a person is really serious about being a
Tsadik, the Satan tells him to do good things, but to do good things that will
in the end become destructive and thus evil, as with the Chofetz Chaim who lost
much time in learning because he learned too much and slept too little.
When I was young in Yeshiva someone
began learning so strongly that everyone predicted a lovely future for him as a
great Torah scholar. Indeed, he became a teacher of Torah in a prominent
Yeshiva, but his extreme devotion to learning eventually destroyed his ability
to learn seriously, and he went to work.
The Chofetz Chaim was a short
person. He ordered everyone in his Yeshiva to go to sleep on time, but many
students felt fine staying up late. So the Chofetz Chaim would stand on a chair
and reach up to the light switch and turn it off. But this didn’t solve the
problem. Thus, when people are sure they are doing the right thing, they even
defy the Chofetz Chaim!
Therefore, the wise parent or
teacher, considering punishing somebody “for the sake of heaven,” finds someone to refer questions to.
In the past generations one of the
very wisest of the sages was Rabbi Mayer Chodosh, famed as the Mashgiach of
Chevron Yeshiva and perhaps the major talmid of the Alter of Slobodka. Once, a
child in a Yeshiva profaned the Sabbath. Another child was caught stealing. The
teachers involved in the case wanted to humiliate and punish the children in
the worst way, but knowing that they must ask a truly wise person first, they
came to Rabbi Mayer Chodosh. He told them, “Is a teacher a Rabbinical Court
entitled to punish people? A teacher has a function of producing a successful
student, not destroying the student with punishment and humiliation.” He warned
them not to deviate from his advice, and made a program for the children who
eventually turned out to be fine Torah people. Had they been punished and
publicly humiliated, the pain and shame would never have left them, and who
knows what would happen to them.
Another time somebody came to Rabbi
Chodosh with his very young son. The son began pulling on the tablecloth and it
seemed as if the dishes would fall on the floor. The father rebuked the son,
but after a while, the son did it again. The father became upset at the son,
and then Rabbi Chodosh intervened: “Your son is not being wild when he pulls on
the tablecloth,” said Rabbi Chodosh. “Your son noticed that a cup is upside
down. He pulled the tablecloth to get at the cup and fix it. Now, you fix the
cup, turn it over, and your son will not pull on the tablecloth anymore.” And
so it was.
Had the father hit the child or
yelled at him, the child would not understand. Who knows what the child would
think of his father?
Another father with a young child
came to another great Mashgiach, Rav Eliyohu Lopian. It was Shabbos and the child
began to play with stones, which are muktseh. The father told the child to stop
playing with the stones. But a while later, the child went back to playing with
the stones, and the father rebuked him,
with a sharper tone. Rav Lopian told the father: “Your son is too young to
understand about the laws of Shabbos. You are not teaching him how to keep
Shabbos. You are teaching him to disobey you.”
Our task is to make our children
happy, and not see in their childish actions excuses for yelling at them. Indeed,
the Torah teaches, “Serve HaShem with joy.” “Its ways [the Torah] are the ways
of peace.” Somebody busy criticizing and scolding can turn children and others
off, and end up making more problems than solutions.
A sage in Israel who is known for
his wisdom about family and marriage told me the following: Everything depends
on the children learning to do mitsvose with joy. If the child is trained to
appreciate the joy of doing a mitzvah, he/she will enjoy obeying the Torah. But
a child raised to fear the Torah as something painful may reject the Torah.
The same idea was taught by HaGadol
Reb Moshe Feinstein zt”l. Commenting on
the huge loss of Jewish children in the early generations of America, Reb Moshe
explained that in those days keeping Shabbos meant losing a job. Shabbos thus
became associated with pain and suffering. People don’t want a life of pain and
suffering. Sometimes, even today, keeping the Torah may be hard. But a clever
parent finds a way to make a child want to do the mitzvah.
Friday afternoon is perhaps the
hardest part of the week. Everyone is rushing and under pressure. My son Yaacov
Zelig with some family members made a Friday afternoon learning program in
America and Israel whereby parents write in or call in that their child learned
on Friday fifteen minutes, and the child goes into a Goral lottery. There are
various prizes, sometimes fifty dollars and sometimes more. Hundreds of
children are busy learning, and one father said, “I should pay you when my
children learn, because it saves our household Erev Shabbos!.”
The Holy Shelo was one of the
greatest rabbis who ever lived, and is one of the very few people honored with
the appellation “the holy one.” This holy man teaches that we must bribe our
children at every stage of their lives. Little children get what little
children want, and when the child comes of age we “bribe” him by telling him
that if he learns a lot of Torah, he will find a nice shidduch!
Now somebody may refuse to do this
because does the Torah not tell us to serve HaShem without ulterior motives? So
how can we raise children with bribery? But the Talmud clearly says, “Let us
learn Torah even not for pure motives, but for ego, etc., because from impure
motives one will come to pure motives.
And then there is the great mitzvah
to make one’s wife happy. The Zohar and Rashi explain that the mitzvah in the
Torah “and he should make his wife happy” means, “make her happy, not
himself.” But of course, if the husband makes the wife happy, the wife will
make the husband happy. Making someone happy is not a selfish mitzvah. But the
greatest happiness awaits when you cause another to be happy.
When parents seek to make each
other happy, the children learn from this how important making another person
happy is. And the whole family learns the joy of happiness.
The great enemy of happiness in the
family is when somebody decides that a punishment is needed because somebody
did something bad. When punishment becomes a great mitzvah, the Satan then uses
this “great mitzvah” to destroy families and children.
If someone has a comment or a
question, you can write to me at writeus1@verizon.net.
And if it is urgent, I can be reached at 845-578-1917.
I dont mean to de-emphasize the need for happiness but this statement is untrue:
ReplyDelete"Our task is to make our children happy, and not see in their childish actions excuses for yelling at them."
Our task is to raise and educate our children to be good people who keep the Torah. Happiness is a product of a life well lived. It is not the goal. Many of society's problems stem from parents who think it is their job to make their children happy.
Actually I agree with R' Dovid - indeed when i first read some of his comments they seemed a bit extreme for me, but as I read more I see I am actually in agreement on the bigger picture.
ReplyDeleteWhat R Dovid writes in this article is not necessarily in psychological language, but I had a similar discussion with R ' Daniel on why the parental model and relationship is of great importance to the child's development. I read in an article that R Soloveichik 's father never kissed him as a child. And someone who was close to him told me that he was also distant from his talmidim, whereas R' Aharon Kotler had a close relationship with each of his students. This isn't about Gadlus in learning, but about emotional development. Or is it simply a Brisk thing to have no emotions?
What in the world is this meandering soap box doing on this blog?
ReplyDeleteTrue, there has been a lot of talk about the "good intentions" of aguna-saving gangs like Ora and Epstein, and Rabbonim who defend the "halachic rights" of Webermans. But why go off onto such a screed about doing mitzvos lo lishma??
All I hear in this is the ego of the preacher.
We all want to have THE pshat...
Thanks for sharing. I think we need to distinguish between happiness which is intrinsic and happiness which is dependent on external stimulation. People are intrinsically happy when they are self-directed-autonomous , competent , have a sense of worth and belonging , and involved in the world in a relevant , meaningful and purposeful way. Instead of bribing kids try to find ways that will help them be intrinsically motivated. Dr B. Sorotzkin in his article on the dangers of rewards and competition quotes Rav Matisyahu Salomon, that instead of bribing kids, give learning and the mitzvoth an association with joy and happiness. The article also shares that the Chazon Ish said – what kids need more than love is respect. When family members have a voice, feel heard, problems are solved in a collaborative way taking into account the concerns of everyone and people are supporting each other we have a happy family. People are most happy when they can be of help and the help is appreciated.
ReplyDelete"what kids need more than love is respect... People are most happy when they can be of help and the help is appreciated."
Delete100 %
Now may we apply this to resolutions to marital conflicts, which has been THE topic here for some time. Marriages are, somewhere deep-down, all about finding a mate for our inner child. And that child needs love, but most importantly respect.
The wild ways Baytei Din deal with crashing marriages only DESTROYS whatever sparks of respect may be left. And the results for the Klal is disastrous. Not just broken families, but shattered individuals.
Marriage counseling that rebuilds respect is our only hope...
One of my psych professors - who spent many years researching the matter said that as a general rule - women want to be loved while men want to be respected as being competent.
DeleteDid your professor's research include the words of the Rambam?
Deleteרמב"ם הלכות אישות פרק טו הלכה יט: וכן צוו חכמים שיהיה אדם מכבד את אשתו יתר מגופו ואוהבה כגופו, ואם יש לו ממון מרבה בטובתה כפי הממון, ולא יטיל עליה אימה יתירה ויהיה דיבורו עמה בנחת ולא יהיה עצב ולא רוגז.
הלכה כ
וכן צוו חכמים על האשה שתהיה מכבדת את בעלה ביותר מדאי ויהיה לו עליה מורא תעשה כל מעשיה על פיו ויהיה בעיניה כמו שר או מלך מהלכת בתאות לבו ומרחקת כל שישנא, וזה הוא דרך בנות ישראל ובני ישראל הקדושים הטהורים בזיווגן, ובדרכים אלו יהיה ישובן נאה ומשובח.
Notice how a husband is commanded to both love and honor his wife, whereas a wife is commanded only to show her husband honor, not love. Perhaps the Rambam recognized that a healthy marriage requires each partner to give the other their individual needs.
Now if we can convince everybody to follow this Halacha like they follow Halacha in other, perhaps more convenient, areas of their lives, we could save plenty of marriages.
Thanks for sharing. I think we need to distinguish between happiness which is intrinsic and happiness which is dependent on external stimulation. People are intrinsically happy when they are self-directed-autonomous , competent , have a sense of worth and belonging , and involved in the world in a relevant , meaningful and purposeful way. Instead of bribing kids try to find ways that will help them be intrinsically motivated. Dr B. Sorotzkin in his article on the dangers of rewards and competition quotes Rav Matisyahu Salomon, that instead of bribing kids, give learning and the mitzvoth an association with joy and happiness. The article also shares that the Chazon Ish said – what kids need more than love is respect. When family members have a voice, feel heard, problems are solved in a collaborative way taking into account the concerns of everyone and people are supporting each other we have a happy family. People are most happy when they can be of help and the help is appreciated.
ReplyDeleteRav Dessler and Rav Isak Sher etc have warned about the dangers of ' lo lishmah ' – it is not automatic and fraught with dangers. It is less problematic when it is self –determined , a person values learning etc but needs some extrinsic motivation to help him along the way. It is rather different from the controlling nature of bribes. The story is told of a peddler who came into a town to sell his wares and the kids started to curse and harass him . He said to the kids that they deserved to be paid money for the time and effort they devoted to him. He gave them money and they became more enthusiastic . This happened 3 times and then he said to them – I am sorry – I don't have any more money. They said – if we are not going to get money we are going to stop. What did the peddler do ? He bought off their intrinsic motivation. While bribes work well in the short term , they undermine interest and intrinsic motivation in the task or learning itself
ReplyDeleteGood points.
DeleteMr. Katz,
ReplyDeleteA work on happiness showed that people are happiest when they are doing something challenging and something they can do, even with some extra effort. We are talking about children in a house who see the family as their mountain to climb, and want to achieve their goals even if there is some challenge to it. But another side of them would rather not. So a bribe that fits in with the pattern of true happiness for children or anyone else who needs a push is just fine. Bribery to do something silly is something else.
Part 1:
ReplyDeleteConcerning the debate of intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivations – I humbly posit that a perusal of the words of Chazal, good research & also common sense all point to the same conclusion:
BOTH intrinsic AND extrinsic motivation is necessary.
As Allan rightfully pointed out, self-directed-autonomous actions which flow from an intrinsic sense of meaning and purpose most definitely carry a much better chance of long-term success. Collaborative problem solving is indeed one of the keys to respectful interpersonal relationships…
And as R’ Dovid pointed out, meeting difficult challenges that seem like a “mountain” may require extrinsic motivation. The challenge may seem insurmountable otherwise.
Before I attempt to explain why both are necessary, I’ll add to yy’s comment that this debate isn’t just about childrearing practices, as it also pertains to Sholom Bayis.
I’ll like to add that it isn’t only about childrearing & Sholom Bayis – it’s also about SELF MOTIVATION.
After making that simple observation, I think the common sense argument for both motivators becomes apparent. What motivates US to do important but difficult things? Clearly, we work best when he have BOTH intrinsic AND extrinsic motivators.
Take working for a living as an example. Imagine absolutely LOVING our work. Yet, how many of us would continue to do so without a financial incentive?
I think several other straightforward observations are important to understand the dynamics of these two different types of motivations:
1. Intrinsic motivations are much harder to attain and are not always available. However, when we do have them they’re extremely powerful, as in:
כָּל אַהֲבָה…. )וְ(שֶׁאֵינָהּ תְּלוּיָה בְדָבָר, אֵינָהּ בְּטֵלָה לְעוֹלָם
2. Extrinsic motivators are easier to attain, but being dependent on extrinsic factors, are more subject to being dis-valued, as in:
כָּל אַהֲבָה שֶׁהִיא תְלוּיָה בְדָבָר בָּטֵל דָּבָר, בְּטֵלָה אַהֲבָה.
Based on these straightforward observations, I think it becomes clear not only WHY, but also WHEN extrinsic motivation is necessary:
1) Before one’s appreciation for a specific intrinsic factors is developed – as in young children. This is why Chovos Halvovos and Rambam in Pirash Hamishnayos endorse extrinsic motivations in childrearing.
2) When we’re “down”, and intrinsic motivations aren’t “available”, as in… they don’t RESONATE. This is why Rambam in Shmono Perakim and Rabbeinu Yona endorse extrinsic self-motivation.
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteBased on the aforementioned, I’d edit allen’s comments a bit (with permission, of course):
Allen wrote:
“Instead of bribing kids try to find ways that will help them be intrinsically motivated…. instead of bribing kids, give learning and the mitzvoth an association with joy and happiness”.
I’d write:
Instead of [ONLY] bribing kids, [MAINLY] try to find ways that will help them be intrinsically motivated…. instead of [ONLY] bribing kids, give learning and the mitzvoth an association with joy and happiness”.
But the real kicker is really in that final OH! So illusive phrase:
“give learning and the mitzvoth an association with joy and happiness”.
I’ve been doing this for decades – I’m yet to find A SINGLE FRUM PARENT who wouldn’t love to “give” our children that magical association between learning + mitzvoth and joy and happiness.
There are just two “little” problems: 1) WE don’t always have it (I know, we grownups are not supposed to say something like that)! 2) We don’t know HOW to give it.
I’m not ignoring either R’ Dovid’s or Allen’s sound advice on imparting happiness. It’s just that it’s obvious that the amount of motivation required for a specific task is dependent on its difficulty. Correcting learning deficiencies and / or breaking bad character traits (whether inborn or ingrained) is often VERY difficult. So it needs A LOT of motivation. Neither of the two modes mentioned here EVEN WHEN COMIBINED, are enough.
There are additional tools available that help turn R’ Dovid’s “MOUNTAIN” into a small “HILL”, so that the demands on motivation are lessened. That can help.
We may also need to redefine the word “happiness”, or as james pointed out, stop making happiness into a goal, perhaps substituting it with something like Martin Seligman’s “well-being” theory, since it aligns more closely with Chazal.
Intrinsic motivation is enjoying what you are doing and this depends also whether you are self directed or as a kid your autonomy is being supported , you are competent, and belongand of course the task or learning is relevant. The problem with extrinsic motivation is that it works in the short term but soon undermines intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation is good for manual tasks or tasks that don't require much thinking or like learning things by heart or memorizing many facts - this would explain the Rambam. But as rav Dessler , R isaac sher say - you can't promote gasmiush and hope the what kids value is the ruchnius . The research says the same - when you use rewards , you motivate kids to get rewards
ReplyDeletecheck out Dan Pink on what motivates us
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc animated talk
also check Dr Sorotzkin's site on the dangers of rewards and competiton
there are no short cuts
I don’t really see Allan addressing the common issue of - for example - how to motivate a 15 yr. old boy to want to learn Gemara…..
DeleteAllan wrote: Intrinsic motivation is enjoying what you are doing – so that begs the question – how do we get this teenager to enjoy learning the Gemara?
Allan wrote: and this depends also whether you are self directed or as a kid your autonomy is being supported – ditto. He isn’t self-directed. Any practical tips on how to make him so?
Allan wrote: you are competent, - I strongly agree. Chazal & good research both say that competence / mastery are highly motivating. Alas, yeshivos are FULL of teenagers that AREN’T competent in learning Gemara. Should we send them all to work?
Allan wrote: and belong – This is one thing I’ve seen Spec. Ed yeshivas ARE good at, as some mainstream yishivas. There’s the sense of community. It doesn’t make the learning itself intrinsically motivating, but in many cases it keeps the weak students out of trouble, while the Hanhala turns a blind eye to the wasted Sedorim.
Allan wrote: and of course the task or learning is relevant – Well, more often than not these students might find one or two tidbits during a full 9-12 hr. day that they can relate to. Is THAT motivating?
Allan wrote: The problem with extrinsic motivation is that it works in the short term but soon undermines intrinsic motivation – NOT if we constantly ALSO work on the intrinsic, hand in hand.
Allan wrote: Extrinsic motivation is good for manual tasks or tasks that don't require much thinking or like learning things by heart or memorizing many facts, this would explain the Rambam. – Allan, did you see the Ramabm? It’s in Perek Chelek. He clearly explains his reasoning for endorsing extrinsic motivation:
וכל זה מגונה ואמנם יצטרך למעוט שכל אדם שישים תכלית החכמה דבר אחר זולתי החכמה ויאמר לאיזה דבר נלמד אלא כדי שנשיג בו זה הכבוד, וזה הוללות על האמת ועל למוד כזה אומרים חכמים שלא לשמה ... אין תכלית האמת אלא שידע שהוא אמת...
Same in the C”H:
והאב כשרוצה ללמד את בנו בנערותו החכמות אשר יעלה בהם אל המעלות העליונות, אשר לא יבינם הנער בעת ההיא. ואילו היה מפייס אותו עליהם, ואומר לו סבול יגיעות המוסר והלימוד בעבור שתעלה בהם אל המעלות החמודות, לא היה סובל את זה ולא שומע, מפני שאין מבין אותו.
That’s why I wrote about needing extrinsic motivation “Before one’s appreciation for a specific intrinsic factors is developed – as in young children”, is clearly noted in the C”H:
Allan wrote: check out Dan Pink on what motivates us – Yes, indeed. Check out the comments about his book, on Amazon. Several point out the need for BOTH.
Allan wrote: But as rav Dessler , R isaac sher say - you can't promote gasmiush and hope the what kids value is the ruchnius – source please? Do they come out against a COMBINATION?
I wish someone could explain why there’s the need for such polarized thinking!
an interesting article about treating autism. The problem is that the "medicine" is treif
ReplyDeletehttp://psychcentral.com/news/2013/12/14/intestinal-worms-hot-baths-as-new-autism-treatments/63300.html
AllenKatz mentioned the work of Dan Pink on motivation through:
ReplyDeleteAutonomy, Mastery, Purpose.
He uses this to bolster his argument AGAINST extrinsic rewards.
Problem is, we're not always motivated by intrinsic factors, either because our intellect hasn't developed to that point, or because we're suffering from a slump.
That's why we need extrinsic + intrinsic motivation.
I'll add: Even Pink seems to only stress his three components AFTER basic needs are met, as in paying a decent base salary.
How much are we paying our children?
Some comments on amazon concerning Dan Pink's best seller make a similar point, since Pink seems to "fudge" the details about when intrinsic motivation can do its magic...
3 of 5 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Interesting read. Compelling? Not sure., June 30, 2010
By
Brian St John "Brian" (Evansville, IN, USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us (Hardcover)
This book is an interesting read, and certainly gives the reader much to think about. Here are some points I gathered from the book.
Pink asserts that rewards or incentives for good work are actually counterproductive to encouraging the best possible effort from people. BUT (and, there are lots of "BUTS" in this book if you read between the lines) this only seems to count if the person's base pay is comfortable. Does this mean, then, that intrinsic rewards don't apply to persons making minimum wage? Or, does work for work's sake only apply to white collar workers? Or hobbyists?
-------
I was learning with a student who is 5 years old. He likes learning and we studied the Hebrew alphabet together for about twenty minutes. At the end of the lesson I recalled this blog and the discussion here and I gave him a quarter.
ReplyDeleteThe student was learning for the sake of learning, which is the best way to learn. Still, there is a reward for fulfilling the commandment to learn Torah. The reward I gave the student teaches that, I think.
studies clearly show that rewarding intrinsically motivated behavior transforms it into extrinsically motivated behavior.
DeleteOne studies observed kindergarten children to determine there favorite toy that they preferred to play with. Rewards were given when the child played with that toy. After awhile the child would only play with that toy when rewarded.
The reward of fulfilling a commandment is the opportunity to do another commandment. Many commandments can involve the spending of money: e.g. the commandment to give a half-Shekel, and to give charity; the commandment to wear Tzitzis can be fulfilled by buying the Tzitzis to wear.
DeleteThis student is aware of that. He values the money I gave him as a way to continue to serve Hashem.
R' Doniel;
ReplyDeleteI believe the researcher misinterpreted the research results.
The reason the child stopped playing when he stopped being rewarded has nothing to do with intrinsic vs. extrinsic reward.
Rather, it's because STRONGER motivators replace weaker ones, whether intrinsic or extrinsic. The money reward is a stronger motivator than his personal preference for playing with a certain toy.
Once a certain type of motivation becomes the focus of one's attention - regardless of type - removing the motivation causes the action to stop, UNLESS ANOTHER MOTIVATOR TAKES ITS PLACE.
That's why the child stopped playing. He didn't naturally go back to his weak natural motivation.
The words of the Rambam & Chovos Halvovos will always remain true. Much research is faulty, especially in the social sciences. See Ioannis's study on"Why most published research findings are false".
As I've mentioned in the past, the idea behind extrinsic motivators doesn't work in a vacuum & it is meant as a stop-gap measure when other motivators aren't available.
ReplyDeleteSame with the child - we offer him extrinsic motivation until higher level motivators can work.
But here too, in defining higher-level motivations, I don't believe the discussion here reflects the same sequence as Chazal or good research would.
Level 2 "higher-level" motivation might be HABIT, which is self enforcing. I think Gordon Alport called this "perseverative functional autonomy" - the tendency of certain basic behaviors to continue in the absence of reinforcement.
Or, level 2 would be FLOW - flow - being one with the music, time stopping, and the loss of self-consciousness during an absorbing activity.
Salaries, wages etc
ReplyDeleteThe point that Dan Pink and others , notably Edward Deming , SDT – self determination theory researchers etc that pay is not a ' motivator' . Actually F Herzberg said if 'pay' is used by management as a motivator it can be a de-motivator. The problem are the incentives, bonuses , merit pay, pay-for-performance plans etc This happens when people confuse ' compensation ' with reward . The trouble is not with money per se but with the way people are made to think about money and the way it is used to control them. If people feel they are not being paid fairly and equitably they tend to feel exploited and that interferes with their intrinsic motivation.
It is argued that management should
* Pay people well.* Pay people fairly.* Then do everything possible to take money off people's minds.
If money was a motivator then should be pushing into peoples' faces, keeping them constantly aware of the ' carrots'. When people have money on their minds it acts as a de-motivator, and interferes with the quality of work and intrinsic motivation.
Kids don't and should not have a contractual or economic relationship with parents – so paying kids is irrelevant to the discussion – it is not a basic need.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThat aspect of Self Determination Theory - which is the Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET) mini theory - is hardly settled science, so there's absolutely no reason to take Chazal's words so lightly.
ReplyDeleteThis from the wiki page on CET:
"Evidence against Cognitive Evaluation Theory
Many empirical studies have given at least partial support against the ideas expressed in CET. Some examples include:
Many studies have found changes in intrinsic motivation without changes in perceived locus of causality or competence (Boal & Cummings, 1981;[6] Harackiewicz, Manderlink, and Sansone, 1984).[7]
Phillips and Lord (1980)[8] found changes in perceived competence following the receipt of rewards, but no changes in intrinsic motivation.
Salancik (1975)[9] found that college students rewarded with money reported internal attributions of control.
Most importantly, Diana Baumrind (1996) points out the benefit of extrinsic motivators in providing a RELIABLE, PREDICTABLE reinforcer of positive actions, thus PROMOTING SELF-EFFICACY, which greatly strengthens intrinsic motivation,
So extrinsic motivators are POSITIVE FACTORS in attaining mastery. Isn't that what we're aiming for all along?
Here's Baumrind:
"Despite the current uncritical acceptance of the notion that extrinsic motivation undermines intrinsic motivation, a recent meta-analysis (Cameron & Pierce, 1994) concluded that, under most natural conditions, extrinsic reinforcement is necessary for young children to perform optimally and does not undermine intrinsic motivation. Young children typically require external incentives to put forth the effort required to test their limits. Nisan (1992), among others, has found that students perform far better when traditional learning incentives, including grades, social approval, and admonitions, are used in the classroom than when these external inducements are absent. It is likely that external inducements, such as fear of getting caught and punished, motivate adults as well as children to conform with onerous rules and with strongly motivated proscribed behavior. External incentives that result in proficiency provide an authentic and reliable basis for a sense of self efficacy, which, in turn, promotes the development of internal standards and intrinsic interest in sustained effort. When certain forms of behavior produce an aversive outcome, children are motivated to initiate the self-controlling mechanisms that will enable them to avoid the negative outcome. Such self-regulating mechanisms result in reliable internalized habits of pro-social conduct that then become strengthened, not diminished, as a result of external incentives. Provided that parents are also responsive and intellectually stimulating, firm parental control and high maturity demands promote rather than under-mine self-efficacy and intrinsically motivated engagement in difficult tasks.
Children's emerging sense of regularity and justice is fostered by a well-structured regimen and clear and consistent rules of conduct that are fairly administered. In order to achieve an acceptable level of behavioral compliance, primary caregivers must supply the predictable reinforcing reactions that children require from their social environment, contingently supporting the pro-social behavior they desire, overlooking minor transgressions in a generally compliant child, and punishing transgressions in a spirited defiant child. Above all, parents must be involved and engaged so that they can both monitor effectively the child's behavior and level of distress and provide the necessary love and support children need to be-have pro-socially.
In my humble opinion, the bulk of Baumrind's work - both her ground-breaking work on parenting styles and on research ethics, is of extremely high quality, well balanced & most importantly DOES NOT CONTRADICT CHAZAL.
Also, upon checking out Dan Pink a bit, I found several positives about his theories (I didn't see the actual book):
ReplyDeleteHe's a strong believer in Carol Dweck's Theory of self - which strongly advocates for a "growth" mindset and opposes a "fixed" intelligence mindset. among other things, she stresses how "growth" mindsets are much more motivated, INTRINSICALLY. I believe THAT is worth its weight in gold! 100% convergences with Chazal.
Also, he understands that mastery is PAIN. Ditto - like Chazal.
Lastly, I already mentioned that he understands that before managers can emphasize intrinsic motivation, workers have to first receive fair wages.
For these approaches to be applied in a Chinuch setting, we'd need to stress many things:
One important equation, largely missing today in chinuch:
INCREMENTALITY + EXCELLENT LEARNING STRATEGIES = MASTERY
The "system" requires children to move from subject to subject, without ever acquiring mastery in foundational skills.
The best solution I could think of would be a combination of educating Mechanchim in the the importance of these three legs, both at grade level and by also adding HIGHLY TRAINED & ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED remedial staff. In addition, students should be taught to value EFFORT & PROCESS, more than results.
All of these aspects can be found לפענ"ד in the Rishonim - so good research and Chazal, once again, converge.
Giving rewards to kids for doing tasks and learning which they don't find interesting.
ReplyDeleteA reward may get a job done, but we still have to deal with the negative aspects of rewards such as the controlling aspect which impairs autonomy and thus they don't lead to long-term adoption of uninteresting behaviors. Rewards also impact negatively on 'performance'. It undermines attempts by people and kids to find ways to make a task more interesting and brighten the task. Rewards are an easy way out for teachers and parents – instead of making an effort to make the task more relevant and engaging or even questioning whether the task itself is worth doing at all, they give kids rewards.
Edited comment
ReplyDeleteSalaries, wages etc
The point that Dan Pink and others , notably Edward Deming , SDT – self determination theory researchers etc that pay is not a ' motivator' . Actually F Herzberg said if 'pay' is used by management as a motivator it can be a de-motivator. The problem are the incentives, bonuses , merit pay, pay-for-performance plans etc This happens when people confuse ' compensation ' with reward . I don't feel that I am getting a reward for my work . I have a contract with my company and what I get is compensation .The trouble is not with money per se but with the way people are made to think about money and the way it is used to control them and motivate them. If people feel they are not being paid fairly and equitably they tend to feel exploited and that interferes with their intrinsic motivation. If a person is earning a min wage and accepts the situation and is able to get his mind off the money , he can find the job interesting and enjoyable.
It is argued that management should
* Pay people well.* Pay people fairly.* Then do everything possible to take money off people's minds.
If money was a motivator then we should be pushing money into peoples' faces, keeping them constantly aware of the ' carrots'. When people have money on their minds it acts as a de-motivator, and interferes with the quality of work and intrinsic motivation. This means we should do everything possible to take money off people's minds.
Kids don't and should not have a contractual or economic relationship with parents – so paying kids is irrelevant to the discussion – it is not a basic need.
The research on motivation and especially intrinsic motivation and the effects of rewards has been conducted for last 35 years by researches of Self Determination theory http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/ . There are hundreds of studies. People are self- determined when their 3 basic needs are being met – autonomy ( not independence but being connected to your inner being, being the author of your actions , competence = mastery and relatedness – a sense of belonging and support
ReplyDeleteDan Pink talks about autonomy and mastery and purpose.
Here are the introductory comments to the 5th SDT international conference which gives a nice summary of the theory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4E10e8zIkw#t=491 Introduction to Self Determination theory – 14 min
the motivational spectrum is wide – see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N_RFNfMjg4 - the SDT motivation continuum 1:40
Habit - Ploni said Level 2 "higher-level" motivation might be HABIT, which is self enforcing. I think Gordon Alport called this "perseverative functional autonomy" - the tendency of certain basic behaviors to continue in the absence of reinforcement.
According to SDT habit or mitzvat unushim me;lumada is not being self-determined or intrinsically motivated
To be self determined is to endorse one's actions at the highest level of reflection
When self determined people experience a sense of freedom to do what is interesting, personally important and vitalizing
Ploni,
ReplyDeleteBaumrind parenting philosophy is very behaviorist and conditional which does not meet the SDT criterea of meeting a kids basic needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness and for sure purpose. Discipline and learning is driven soley by extrinsic motivation.
Baumrind quotes the meta analysis of Cameron and Pierce and as you mentioned earlier some research may be flawed . The Cameron , Pierce meta-analysis is flawed so all that Baumrind writes stands on shaky ground
The Eisenberger, Cameron, and Pierce meta-analysis is invalid. It
was clear to anyone familiar with the field that the Cameron and Pierce's
meta-analysis contained many errors and inappropriate procedures that
made their conclusions invalid. However, to confirm this, a new
meta-analysis was necessary. Consequently, Deci, Koestner, and Ryan
performed a meta-analysis of 128 experiments examining the effects of
extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation, organizing the analyses so as to
provide a test of cognitive evaluation theory. The new meta-analysis
showed that, in fact, tangible rewards do significantly and substantially
undermine intrinsic motivation. It also provided strong support for cognitive
evaluation theory and made clear that there is indeed reason for teachers
to exercise great care when using reward-based incentive systems. The
new meta-analysis was published in Psychological Bulletin (Deci, Koestner,
& Ryan, 1999). Included in that article is an appendix table which lists
every study in the meta-analysis explaining exactly where errors were
made by Cameron and Pierce, and how the new meta-analysis corrected
their errors. That table allows all interested readers to see for themselves in
precise detail how Cameron and Pierce's meta-analysis was invalid and why
their conclusions were unwarranted. As well, it makes clear that the
Eisenberger and Cameron article in the American Psychologist was without
basis and presented fallacious conclusions.
In conclusion. The finding that expected, tangible rewards undermine
intrinsic motivation was initially very controversial, but during the 30 years
that the evidence has mounted confirming the finding, most psychologist
have accepted it as an important phenomenon. During that period, the
reinforcement perspective of behaviorists has also been losing its centrality
in psychology. Today, relatively few psychologists and practitioners
subscribe to the behaviorist doctrine, yet a few vocal advocates continue to
debate the rewards point which is now beyond debate. Tangible extrinsic
rewards reliably undermine intrinsic motivation under most circumstances,
and, interestingly the most detrimental reward contingency involves giving
rewards as a direct function of people's performance. Those who perform
best get the most rewards and those who perform less well get less (or no)
rewards. This contingency, which is perhaps the one most often used in life,
seems to be the one that is most detrimental to the motivation,
performance, and well-being of the individuals subjected to it.
Part 1)
ReplyDeleteOn the issue of autonomy, which Allen defines (based on SDT) as “being connected to your inner being, being the author of your actions”:
The desire for autonomy, which is closely related to “freedom”, self-determination”, “self-actualization” and the like, is surely a major driving force the figures prominently not only in childrearing and developmental psychology, but also in business relationships, social sciences and civil & criminal law.
It’s not a stretch to say that Mrs. Dodelsohn left her husband because she felt her autonomy unfairly threatened.
With all due respect, there’s no doubt in my mind that the concept of autonomy, as described in POPULAR literature & even popular secular research – is fundamentally at odds with 1) Common sense, 2) Good secular research, 3) Religion.
I’ll try to explain. Let’s start with COMMON SENSE.
I believe that that although popular literature & popular secular research see any possible expansion of autonomy as a “positive” & any limitation thereof as a “negative”, common sense dictates otherwise.
I will argue that approach is a misconception, which can be categorized as a “problem”.
Furthermore, I will argue that secular society’s response to the “problem” of autonomy is INADEQUATE.
To illustrate my point, here are four examples. Each one is a bit different from each other.
Example #1) my neighbor owns a nice shiny BMW. I don’t. I feel very connected to my “inner being”, & I’m convinced that I really DESERVE that car. In fact, I’m so preoccupied with the thought of owning that fancy car, it’s reached a point of obsession. My personal sense of autonomy definitely feels threatened…
Example #2) I’m working at minimum wage flipping burgers at McDonalds. It’s pure drudgery. This is not what I enjoy doing & I want out. Once again, my sense of autonomy feels threatened…
Example #3) I’m off to college. With my Bachelors & Masters degree under my belt, I’m well on my way towards my PhD. Spending countless hours researching my dissertation and ingratiating myself to my advisors is so stifling, but I have no choice, if I expect them to look favorably at my work. I NEED those three letters “PhD” after my name & the honor they carry, but this is such an affront to my autonomy!
Example #4) I’m a hot-shot lawyer raking in millions as the brains behind those BIG Real Estate deals. It’s my job to craft, check and recheck the fine print in those contracts. The pay is great, but the drudgery of reading and rereading every word, day after day and week after week is still unbelievably boring. Ugh! THIS is autonomy?
Obviously, autonomy has its limits.
How does secular society navigate this dilemma?
Part 2)
ReplyDeleteIn example #1, democracies craft civil & criminal laws which are based on universally accepted “norms”, “precedence” & “majority rule” / “plurality” or any representation thereof. Someone stealing his neighbor’s BMW is a “law breaker”. Out of necessity, autonomy is limited. Secular law sees this as a necessary evil…
In examples #2 - #4 the law says nothing. Prima facie, it would seem that autonomy remains unrestricted. I can stop working at McDonald’s, drop out of the PhD program, quit the corporate rat race and invest my millions in a vineyard in France and grow vintage grapes…
I argue that common sense says that in example #1 the law is NOT what is limiting my autonomy. In example #2-#4 my seemingly unrestricted autonomy is a MIRAGE.
Autonomy is really limited by what secularists might call THE LAWS OF NATURE.
Here’s why:
In example #1, if the fellow coveting his friend’s BMW lived in a country lacking the rule of law, he might indeed steal the car and experience the exhilarating feeling of pure unadulterated autonomy… But his neighbor may then retaliate by burning down his house, thus “crimping” his autonomy quite a bit….
In example #2, the fellow may quit his job, only to end up in the street because he couldn’t pay the rent, or going through a succession of other menial tasks, none of which deliver on the utopian promise of autonomy.
#3’s PhD can indeed quit the program, but then sink into a deep depression, making autonomy seem like a faraway dream.
And lastly, #4’s attorney may indeed spend the next few years growing his vintage grapes, only to have his life partner leave him when a succession of bad crops brings him to the brink of bankruptcy. Ah! Autonomy!
Which leads us to a common sense conclusion, which secularists HATE to face: LIMITS ON AUTONOMY ARE PART OF THE NATURAL PROCESS OF LIVING.
Therefore, wouldn’t it make sense to stop focusing on ELIMINATING the barriers on autonomy – to properly MANAGING those limitations?
I think that “Managing Autonomy” includes:
1) Deciding on HOW to mediate conflicting wants and needs (both societal and individualistic) that effect autonomy. WHO decides? How is the decision made? 2) Managing affective states experienced during those “naturally occurring” crimps on autonomy.
The question of WHO decides, and HOW, is not simple. Laws set by “majority rule” / “plurality” has the implicit problem of possibly resulting in the “tyranny of the majority”. Witness the absurdity of what happened last week in the US, where a certain TV star was fired for daring to offend the “autonomy” of homosexuals, by disagreeing publicly with what the legislatures (which are representative bodies of the majority) in many states have decided to be the law, namely that marriage needn’t be between one male & one female. Cries of outrage resulted, based on the unfairness of limiting HIS autonomy, based on the right for free speech. Which “autonomy” wins?
And the question of how to manage affective states isn’t simple either….
Allan protests Baumrinds findings, on the basis of Deci, Koestner,
ReplyDelete& Ryan, 1999 "newer" meta-analysis and the fact that most psychologists have agreed to STd assumptions.
1. See Lepper et al "in the same edition of Psychological Bulliten as deci et al's article on the uses and abuses of meta-analysis.
As they say that meta-analysis may not be more accurate than traditional reviews in literature that is procedurally diverse, theoretically derived and empirically complex.
had Baumrind relied PRIMARILY on the Eisenberger, Cameron, and Pierce meta-analysis you would have been able to make the same point against her findings. Read her paper - she clearly doesn't. So counting papers is a non-starter.
2) Nobody can argue society's liberal leanings these last few decades. As such, the bias toward the more dominant philosophy is obviously more pronounced. That would be reason enough to analyze the STD literature with a more critical eye.
3) Baumrind is hardly primarily behaviorist. She has a very strong emphasis on teaching independent REASONING SKILLS, especially in more advanced developmental stages, and she favors inductive reasoning accompanied by the exercise of explicit control:
"Within the authoritative model, behavioral compliance and psychological autonomy are viewed not as mutually exclusive but rather as interdependent objectives: children are encouraged to respond habitually in pro-social ways and to reason autonomously about moral problems, and to respect adult authorities and learn how to think independently".
"preschooler's social-conventional reasoning is limited, toddler compliance is most effective when the adult briefly explains the rule, and provides a consequence if the child persists in disobeying, reserving longer explanations for when punishment is over (Blum, Williams, Friman, & Christophersen, 1995)."
"The importance of using reason to justify caregivers' directives increases with age. By junior high school, children are more likely to identify with parents who use reason to justify their decisions and demands (Elder, 1963) "
"The use of a reason in a disciplinary confrontation broadens the context in which compliance is expected by generalizing from a specific act to a rule governing a larger class of behavior. However, several studies have shown that inductive reasoning accompanied by the exercise of explicit control induces internalization of the norm underlying the directive more than the use of inductive reasoning alone (e.g., Baumrind & Black, 1967; Lytton & Zwirner, 1975; Walters & Grusec, 1977). The use of a reason accompanied by a display of power conveys to the child that, to satisfy the parent, adherence to a rule of appropriate conduct is required, even in her absence. With young children, a display of power captures their attention and clarifies in their minds that compliance is required, whereas the use of a reason without a display of power signals to the child that the parent is indecisive about requiring compliance. By being paired with punishment, reasoning becomes a discriminative stimulus that noncompliance will be punished. Once this connection has been established, reasoning alone may suffice to obtain compliance."
I could go on and on..
Baumrind is being misrepresented.
And she notes that the fact that multitudes of studies didn't control for factors like inductive reasoning is their fatal flaw.
Furthermore, Jones & Butman note that from a religious perspective, the emphasis on AUTONOMY and its closely related "cousins: "person-centered therapy" and self-actualization" are problematic.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the Torah view matches theirs either. But I think most of their criticism remain valid.
They write:
"Contemporary person-centered therapists recognize that Rogers's emphasis on independence and autonomy as health is a reflection of masculine, North American cultural values, and thus limited (O'Hara, 1994; Bohart, 2003). …
...Awareness is an end in itself in this system; awareness is health. As Van Belle (1985a) has observed, greater awareness of emotional response might lead to a sense of emotional relief, freedom, improved self-awareness, personal autonomy and interpersonal competence. But there is no guarantee that "healthier," more emotionally "in-touch" persons will anchor themselves in any abiding structure outside themselves, because as we noted the self is formless in person-centered therapy theory.
"For the (Christian) [religious person], the inward journey of awareness may be necessary, especially as the foundation for all true repentance, but it will be insufficient by itself for forming the true self. Greater self-actualization should serve a meaningful end, namely, that we submit ourselves to God, seek after righteousness and love others as ourselves. Freedom and autonomy ought not to be ends in themselves but rather vehicles by which we more fully achieve maturity…
I'll repeat the last line - which is Surely congruent with Torah truth:
Freedom and autonomy ought not to be ends in themselves but rather vehicles by which we more fully achieve maturity
This is NOT how autonomy is being applied.
We should search for what Baumrind says:
"Authoritative parents remain receptive to the child's views but take responsibility for firmly guiding the child's actions, emphasizing reasoning, communication, and rational discussion in interactions that are friendly as well as tutorial and disciplinary.
"....The authoritative model of discipline is characterized by use of firm control contingently applied and justified by rational explanation of consistently enforced rules
Rational control - meant to back up human tendency to do things that are not in his or her own real self-interest....
Diana Baumrind - I share my thoughts here http://tinyurl.com/paxw23c - see also the differences between conditional and unconditional parenting
ReplyDeleteBriefly Baumrind's parenting leans heavily on control via punishments, rewards, consequences and any warmth or love is conditional on kid's behavior . Discussions are usually focused on the logic of imposed consequences and problems are certainly not solved using collaborative problem solving. It has been shown that the conclusions she reaches from the research is faulty and that her research show that it is not the controlling parents but warm parents who do well with their kids . This is in addition to her use of the flawed Cameron Pierce meta analysis
Autonomy - as defined by Self Determination theory is not independence but being connected to your deeper inner being. In other words your' pninimus' Autonomy is a basic need and when it is met people are more whole-hearted and engaged in what ever they are doing with the highest level of reflection , are self determined and intrinsically motivated
Different parenting styles focus on different things compliance or intrinsic motivation , moral development etc Rewards and punishment don't help a kid to reflect on what type of person I want to be or do my actions reflect my values , they just teach a kid to ask – what will be done to me , what's in it for me
I have said it before instead of control and discipline use collaborative problem solving to help kids do Teshuvah and teach them lagging skills
My comments and rebuttal continue on the new thread:
ReplyDelete"Fwd: Allan Katz - summary - the differences between conditional and unconditional parenting"