Maslov's Hierarchy, the Motivation Continuum, and avoiding Mad-Max outcomes

[osgart]

You're correct - it's a BIG ask

But I think we're facing ecological and economical overshoot and some drastic course corrections will be necessary. The good news is that understanding the MC could help us break free from much of how bad actors have been manipulating society, and moving towards healthier, happier motivators.

Think of true experts doing what they love doing. That's a very, very happy picture. Sadly, it's a rare occurrence these days. We need to move towards more people finding their passions and spending their time in healthy ways

(Sorry for the soap box moment, but I think there is a win-win here)

What about a nursing home? How many people love working in these places? I see so many people go through the motions because there's little reward.

There's something to be said for finding love and joy in whatever it is you end up working if it fills a need.

If we value workers and reward them according to what they deserve they'll create joy in doing it.

Extrinsic/intrinsic motivation is where humans need to strike a balance. Because there are so many needs in civil society. But what about necessity?

I think the paradigm overlooks motivations of necessity. Necessity means having to do things that often enough people don't want to do.

So if there is economic overshoot and people produce too much, that means they are overworked and underpaid and have to do more to survive. Things are done on demand and not necessity.

We do need a value system that capitalism does not provide. So it needs a counterbalance system where work values, are measured from the workers and people are not just doing busybody useless work because of bloated demand.

 

[icehorse]

And is that something positive?
Threatening and bribing?
It's something very negative,

Correct, those are seen as bad or negative says to motivate people. That's currently how much of the world operates, it's at the foundation of most economic theory, that's what I'm suggesting we move away from.

 

[icehorse]

What about a nursing home? How many people love working in these places? I see so many people go through the motions because there's little reward.

There's something to be said for finding love and joy in whatever it is you end up working if it fills a need.

Yeah, good examples! Even the master mechanic who loves what she does at work, still has to take out the trash at home. So we can't all live entirely in intrinsic motivation, chores still need to get done.

So I probably have a skewed understanding of what a kibbutz is, but as I understand it, everyone has to spend time doing work for the community in addition to their main job. So even the rocket scientist has to spend some time working in the community garden. Whatever that approach is called (if not kibbutz), that seems like a very healthy approach.

And as far as finding joy goes, yes I totally agree. AND I think it's probably easier for people to find joy in their chores when their other work has a nice amount of intrinsic motivation.

So if there is economic overshoot and people produce too much, that means they are overworked and underpaid and have to do more to survive. Things are done on demand and not necessity.

We do need a value system that capitalism does not provide. So it needs a counterbalance system where work values, are measured from the workers and people are not just doing busybody useless work because of bloated demand.

Agreed. So any economic system that views individuals as selfish and greedy is bound to get us in trouble. It seems to me that AS CURRENTLY IMPLEMENTED, capitalism is a bad approach. But it could be that with some significant tweaks capitalism could be consistent with an MC-right (largely intrinsically motivated) society.

As I'm making this post I'm predicting that some people will think I'm headed towards some form of communism. I don't think I am. For one thing, an MC-right society allows for huge amounts of individual autonomy - more than our current system. So I think an MC-right society doesn't fit into any mental models we currently have.

I'm recalling a really good 11 minute video that summarizes the book "Drive" by Dan Pink, that I referred to a few posts back. Now Drive is focused on finding autonomy in the workplace, so keep that in mind. What this thread is proposing is to take the basic ideas that are well summarized in Drive, and extend them to most aspects of our society:

This is also a quick path for you @Brickjectivity :

 

[Brickjectivity]

Yeah, good examples! Even the master mechanic who loves what she does at work, still has to take out the trash at home. So we can't all live entirely in intrinsic motivation, chores still need to get done.

So I probably have a skewed understanding of what a kibbutz is, but as I understand it, everyone has to spend time doing work for the community in addition to their main job. So even the rocket scientist has to spend some time working in the community garden. Whatever that approach is called (if not kibbutz), that seems like a very healthy approach.

And as far as finding joy goes, yes I totally agree. AND I think it's probably easier for people to find joy in their chores when their other work has a nice amount of intrinsic motivation.



Agreed. So any economic system that views individuals as selfish and greedy is bound to get us in trouble. It seems to me that AS CURRENTLY IMPLEMENTED, capitalism is a bad approach. But it could be that with some significant tweaks capitalism could be consistent with an MC-right (largely intrinsically motivated) society.

As I'm making this post I'm predicting that some people will think I'm headed towards some form of communism. I don't think I am. For one thing, an MC-right society allows for huge amounts of individual autonomy - more than our current system. So I think an MC-right society doesn't fit into any mental models we currently have.

I'm recalling a really good 11 minute video that summarizes the book "Drive" by Dan Pink, that I referred to a few posts back. Now Drive is focused on finding autonomy in the workplace, so keep that in mind. What this thread is proposing is to take the basic ideas that are well summarized in Drive, and extend them to most aspects of our society:

This is also a quick path for you @Brickjectivity :

Nice presentation. I watched it, and it makes great points. We hate to do work that is shoddy and/or meaningless. Additionally we are motivated by autonomy, mastery and purpose. These are true things.

In my experience bonuses are typically dodgy attempts to hide or to overlook my low pay. They are often deceptive, too; using unfair competitive scales and other deceptions. Why does person A get the bonus? Often nobody knows or its a secret bonus, or the method of calculation is bizarre. We hate our very bonuses, sometimes. I once got a bonus that I hated to spend, because it felt like I was rewarding the company for being stingy, shoddy, cheep. I only spent it, because I know the company was watching the gift card. If I didn't spend it that might send a message. I hate when the company I work for strives to make things as chincy, as thin and as worthless as it can get away with. What the hell is wrong with shares? They have no heart. This is a negative bonus, and no bonus seems to make up for it; and shares are the cause of it.

The same shares that allow commoners like myself to invest, they have no heart and make the work seem empty and reward workers for not caring and punish us for caring. It is an ironic necessary evil: the share. When was it was invented it raised the level of many people, creating a new oasis for people to grow. At the same time it made a way for us to ignore the details within the company, the decisions. As a result we, as shareholders, don't want to hear truth from our managers. We reward lies and silence, instead. "Just make me more profits!" we tell the manages. Naturally this ruins the managers, turns them into liars, makes them creatures instead of people. Who do you suppose rises to the top in such situations? Thus we reward bad behaviors instead of good, and we leave it to our CEO's to mitigate this and to be the thin shield between avarice and compassion. Its not very wise.

But. You're talking about society at large, which has a similar problem. What we have done to our representatives and congressman is the same thing we have done to our CEO's. We have put them into a position where nobody cares, but they are expected to care and to watch over the details of government.

By the way since you mention kibbutzes there different kinds of kibbutzes. Its just a rumor, but I think they count as experimental societies. I bet a sociologist would give an eye to gain access to study them.

 

[icehorse]

Thus we reward bad behaviors instead of good, and we leave it to our CEO's to mitigate this and to be the thin shield between avarice and compassion. Its not very wise.

But. You're talking about society at large, which has a similar problem. What we have done to our representatives and congressman is the same thing we have done to our CEO's. We have put them into a position where nobody cares, but they are expected to care and to watch over the details of government.

Just copying the last bit of the first part of your post (with which I agree!)..

My path to get to this thread started with a grave concern about ecological overshoot. I'm thoroughly convinced that if we don't make massive changes to society, we're headed to a massive collapse, and probably a mad-max post apocalypse - argh. One key aspect of why we're creating overshoot is because our economic systems are built on a few axioms that are toxic:

1 - Economies must grow endlessly to be healthy. GDP growth is our savior, all bow before it.

This I think is a well known, obvious manifestation of economics. I also happen to think it's not true, but of course it's a great lie to sustain if you're rich.

2 - Human individuals are short-sighted, selfish, and greedy.

This is probably a less well known axiom of economic theory, but it IS axiomatic. Self determination theory, which includes the motivation continuum, disagrees with economic theory about what motivates human behavior. Of course we can be selfish and greedy, but we do not have to be, hooray!

By the way since you mention kibbutzes there different kinds of kibbutzes. Its just a rumor, but I think they count as experimental societies. I bet a sociologist would give an eye to gain access to study them.

That all makes sense. I've also known about various forms of community co-op setups which seem to have a lot in common with my admittedly weak understanding of kibbutzes.

But while I think there might be a lot to learn from the kibbutz / co-op orientation, I don't think they are the only way to solve the problem of how to go from MC-left to MC-right.

So one example of a strategy that might help, is that I think we need to phase out most (or all) business subsidies. In general, subsidies hide the true ecological costs of our lifestyles. Without subsidies, beef might cost $40 / pound and gasoline $20 / gallon. If they did, people would change their behaviors, and our ecology would be the better for it. Of course this is only one aspect, and it won't save us, but I think a collection of such mc-right strategies might.

 

[Brickjectivity]

My path to get to this thread started with a grave concern about ecological overshoot. I'm thoroughly convinced that if we don't make massive changes to society, we're headed to a massive collapse, and probably a mad-max post apocalypse - argh. One key aspect of why we're creating overshoot is because our economic systems are built on a few axioms that are toxic:

1 - Economies must grow endlessly to be healthy. GDP growth is our savior, all bow before it.

This I think is a well known, obvious manifestation of economics. I also happen to think it's not true, but of course it's a great lie to sustain if you're rich.

Growth is always predicted, because business is driven by growth and competition. What kind of MC-right reward can replace that which causes people to overcome risk and go into business? Or are we somehow going to do away with risk?

Bubbles. Risk is a negative incentive for some and an opportunity for others. If there is no risk than everybody gets involved...like with beanie babies or house flipping. The goal in economics is to keep the bubble (the market) slowly growing for as long as possible, so it doesn't pop. To do this you limit new entrants into a market, but you can't let the market be controlled by too few entities or price will be monopolized and will cease to reflect demand. Then the bubble pops early, taxes are lost, everybody else loses, too.

Also in the auto market we are near saturation, so we are making vehicles that will fail within a certain amount of time to keep new buyers appearing. Businesses are punished if they make durable vehicles. How will you MC-right this? Look what happened to DeLorean in 1982. As an innovative manufacturer introducing a stainless steel vehicle he was viciously attacked with bogus legal challenges, and somebody got the FBI to frame him. He was acquitted but only after he lost almost everything.

Is it truly a lie that growth is necessary? A monopoly can accomplish amazing feats.

 

[Alien826]

That's not what motivation theory says. Motivation theory says that the most robust form of motivation is intrinsic - I guess that's somewhat like what you mean when you say innate?

But a LOT of motivation is controlled by regulators outside of or "extrinsic" to the individual. E.g. when one person motivates another thru threats or bribes.

I'll jump in here. I think we covered the subject we were discussing above.

Not a criticism, but the theory seems to be saying something totally obvious. You are more likely to do something if you want to do it than if someone else is telling you to do it.

Absolutely correct. I'll add my definition of work that I use in discussions like this. Work is something that I would not do if I wasn't forced (by rules or necessity) to do it. Note that doesn't include any measures of difficulty, challenge or value. And context comes into it. Mark Twain put it well (in Tom Sawyer if memory serves), when he said that a person will pay money to drive a horse and carriage for recreation but would never accept employment doing the same thing.

 

[icehorse]

Growth is always predicted, because business is driven by growth and competition. What kind of MC-right reward can replace that which causes people to overcome risk and go into business? Or are we somehow going to do away with risk?

Agreed and amplified: growth is viewed as essential.

So here's just one different perspective: Let's say we're in a zero-growth economy, and for the sake of discussion, let's use auto makers as an example.

We know that the number of new car sales is going to remain stable, because we're in zero growth. So in order to succeed in business, you want your company to grab a bigger share of the sales that do happen. So competition is still in play, we have a zero-sum game going on here. If your company gets a bigger share of the market, you'll be profitable. And companies that lose market share will suffer.

Now if we're in an MC-right society, you might need to compete on how truly recycle-able your cars are. Or how little their production really has a negative impact on the environment. Or how much your cars resist planned obsolescence... and so on.

Is it truly a lie that growth is necessary?

I've recently read "Prosperity Without Growth" by Tim Jackson, who seems to have a very solid CV. He's much more of an expert that I am, and he's convinced that the need for endless growth is a myth.

I've started reading "Doughnut Economics" by Kate Raworth who is an economist and a professor of econ at Oxford. She also believes that the need for endless growth is a myth.

There are other sources exploring this idea.

 

[icehorse]

Not a criticism, but the theory seems to be saying something totally obvious. You are more likely to do something if you want to do it than if someone else is telling you to do it.

Not a bad summary at all!

But I think that what needs to be far better known is:

- The ubiquitous nature of unhealthy extrinsic motivations
- A better understanding of how autonomy is more gratifying than money
- Economic theory is ALL built on assuming the worst in human nature.

 

[Estro Felino]

We know that the number of new car sales is going to remain stable, because we're in zero growth. So in order to succeed in business, you want your company to grab a bigger share of the sales that do happen. So competition is still in play, we have a zero-sum game going on here. If your company gets a bigger share of the market, you'll be profitable. And companies that lose market share will suffer.

Let's give an example.
In an hypothetical island on an hypothetical planet 700,000 people live.
But the resources and raw materials are limited: fuels, oil, etc...

There is a genius that builds a car factory and becomes very rich. He produces cars and he sells them to those 200,000 families ( 700,000 people in total) of the country.
But he wants more. He loves money and even if he is already rich, he wants more and more.
So he hopes that more and more people make children, so he can sell them new cars. And in fact on that island now 2 million people live. He sells them those cars and becomes more and more rich.
But he is not satiated. Greed torments him every night...if he doesn't gain the double, he will go mad.
In the meantime the population of the country becomes 4 million people.
But the fuels of the country are now insufficient. So even if he sold new cars to those 4 million people, these would not have the possibility to use those cars. Because the oil that that country produces barely suffices for 2 million cars.


This tale is to make you understand that eternal growth is impossible. And unbridled capitalism fueled by infinite greed is self-destructive.
That is why Capitalism is empowered by overpopulation, because more people means more customers and more slaves to exploit.

 

[Alien826]

I'm recalling a really good 11 minute video that summarizes the book "Drive" by Dan Pink, that I referred to a few posts back. Now Drive is focused on finding autonomy in the workplace, so keep that in mind. What this thread is proposing is to take the basic ideas that are well summarized in Drive, and extend them to most aspects of our society:

My own "career" in IT serves as a good example. I'll try to keep it short.

I was a very good programmer. That's just a statement of fact. I had a knack for it that few shared. I rarely got paid enough, compared to my co-workers, to reflect that. No surprise, as my productivity was probably up to ten times the average of the others I worked with. Also blame the pay structure that was based on management seniority. The only way to get a decent raise was to become a supervisor and no longer do the work I loved. Yet I still worked hard at my programming. First because I enjoyed it (but see below) and second because, well that's what I do, and I was paid enough to keep the wolves from the door.

It did change though. When I first got into it, we (programmers) were "gods" to management. Nobody but us understood it so whatever we said was accepted. It will take a week? OK. A month? Also OK. Oddly we didn't take advantage of this (mostly). We got on with what needed to be done so long as the "suits" left us alone to do it. Later they came to realize that it wasn't so mysterious, particularly when high level languages like COBOL were invented, and in came time sheets, progress meetings and all the rest of the stuff that managers substitute for actual control. Gradually my beloved programming became just another job and the fun parts shrank more and more as the BS grew. I managed to retreat into more technical areas that they still didn't understand, but eventually, well, I wasn't too sorry to retire. Writing this makes me sad for the passing of a "golden age".

TL;DR: I worked well when I was doing something I enjoyed with little outside direction. That changed as I became more and more "directed" in my work.

 

[icehorse]

This tale is to make you understand that eternal growth is impossible. And unbridled capitalism fueled by infinite greed is self-destructive.
That is why Capitalism is empowered by overpopulation, because more people means more customers and more slaves to exploit.

Yes, I continue to think we're more or less entirely agreed on these points

 

[icehorse]

TL;DR: I worked well when I was doing something I enjoyed with little outside direction. That changed as I became more and more "directed" in my work.

Fwiw, I had a similar trajectory as a computer programmer, then software developer, then software architect.

If I'm understanding you correctly, I think this is another example of how important autonomy is!

 

[Heyo]

1 - Economies must grow endlessly to be healthy. GDP growth is our savior, all bow before it.

This I think is a well known, obvious manifestation of economics. I also happen to think it's not true, but of course it's a great lie to sustain if you're rich.

Then you'd at first have to get rid of all banks. A bank lends you money for interest. You lend 100 units and have to pay 110 units after a year. I.e. those 10 units extra have to be produced somehow. If there is no growth, there will be no interest.

So one example of a strategy that might help, is that I think we need to phase out most (or all) business subsidies. In general, subsidies hide the true ecological costs of our lifestyles. Without subsidies, beef might cost $40 / pound and gasoline $20 / gallon. If they did, people would change their behaviors, and our ecology would be the better for it. Of course this is only one aspect, and it won't save us, but I think a collection of such mc-right strategies might.

Subsidies are not the problem. The original intention of subsidies was to help essential businesses (like farming) and help to kick-start innovative businesses. But that idea has been corrupted. Now big companies finance races of some politicians and expect subsidies as a return of investment. Get money out of politics and it will be much easier to redirect the subsidies from Big Oil to green energies.

 

[icehorse]

Then you'd at first have to get rid of all banks. A bank lends you money for interest. You lend 100 units and have to pay 110 units after a year. I.e. those 10 units extra have to be produced somehow. If there is no growth, there will be no interest.

Yup, banking is complex, and it probably needs to be seriously redesigned. A big job to be sure, but less concerning than a mad-max future.

Subsidies are not the problem. The original intention of subsidies was to help essential businesses (like farming) and help to kick-start innovative businesses. But that idea has been corrupted. Now big companies finance races of some politicians and expect subsidies as a return of investment. Get money out of politics and it will be much easier to redirect the subsidies from Big Oil to green energies.

I used subsidies as an example. I totally agree that getting money out of politics is extremely important!

But I also think it's important for people to understand the true environmental costs of their lifestyles, correct?

 

[Heyo]

But I also think it's important for people to understand the true environmental costs of their lifestyles, correct?

Absolutely. I'm not naïve enough to believe that that would change the majorities consume behaviour. At the store, we just think about our wants and needs and our monetary resources. But I hope it changes our voting behaviour. It will become very hard to explain the quid pro quo of campaign contributions and subsidies for already successful companies to an informed public.

 

[icehorse]

Absolutely. I'm not naïve enough to believe that that would change the majorities consume behaviour. At the store, we just think about our wants and needs and our monetary resources. But I hope it changes our voting behaviour. It will become very hard to explain the quid pro quo of campaign contributions and subsidies for already successful companies to an informed public.

But if we were to phase out subsidies, it's almost certain that consumers' behaviors would change. E.g., if beef was $40 / pound, people would be buying a lot less beef.

 

[Heyo]

But if we were to phase out subsidies, it's almost certain that consumers' behaviors would change. E.g., if beef was $40 / pound, people would be buying a lot less beef.

Yes. That's the way to influence behaviour. Keeping the subsidies and telling the people they should consume less meat and explain why would be very much less effective.

 

[icehorse]

So one - possibly powerful - action we can take is to start with Solzhenitsyn's advise to never participate in a lie. So we could, whenever we hear people assuming that we need a bigger GDP, speak up and say that it's not true. If lots of people start saying it, it will have a positive impact.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Center — Solzhenitsyn Live Not by Lies