1234

The Secret of Effective Motivation? (Read 419 times)

Joann Y


    I'm reading this article from the New York Times The Secret of Effective Motivation and trying to wrap my head around it, how it would relate to running. The article is based on research perfomed by the authors of the article asking the question What mix of motives — internal or instrumental or both — is most conducive to success? and opens with these statements... There are two kinds of motive for engaging in any activity: internal and instrumental. If a scientist conducts research because she wants to discover important facts about the world, that’s an internal motive, since discovering facts is inherently related to the activity of research. If she conducts research because she wants to achieve scholarly renown, that’s an instrumental motive, since the relation between fame and research is not so inherent. Often, people have both internal and instrumental motives for doing what they do. Ultimately, they decide that internal motives are most essential to success which I guess makes sense but it seems that teasing out the differences between internal and instrumental motivation is difficult..and again I'm thinking of this in relation to running. What are the internal and instrumental motives in running? I can't let go of the fact that, although I have plenty of internal reasons for running, it is the idea of a race that will get me out the door every day. I'm a lazy motherf*r and I don't know, I feel like I need that instrumental drive of some numbers. Maybe as a focus for the internal passion of running. These are my first thoughts. I'm wondering what others think about this idea in relation to running. What are your internal and instrumental motives? Can they be separated?

    DaBurger


      In a very general sense, I think instrumental motives get you to do something, internal motives keep you from hating it.

      Know thyself.

       

      NHLA


        RW did an piece on this years ago.  They called it internal &  external motivation.

        The runners who used external motivation ran 30 sec per mile faster.

        elodie.kaye


          Thanks for the link, that was really interesting.  It was completely unexpected to me that the study found West Point cadets with both strong internal and instrumental motivations did worse than cadets with strong internal but weak instrumental.  Very counter-intuitive, so much so I wonder if it’s valid to generalise.

          I've heard of the concept with different terms, intrinsic or process-oriented motives (instead of internal) vs. goal-oriented motives (instead of instrumental).  In running, I literally do enjoy smelling the roses.  Today was swampy heat and rain, but the conditions strengthen odours, some kind of damp sweet bark, late peonies from a backyard garden I can’t see but now know they’re there.  I shuffled like a beached walrus but I still enjoyed the beads of sweat that collected on the fine hair at the nape of my neck — tiny drops, remarkably cool when they fall.

          I still find race goals essential though.  Roses and rainbows are great and all, but that kind of running is diffuse and doesn’t necessarily move towards much improvement.  I need structure to nudge me into the kind of running where the pleasures aren’t so obvious.  There’s a kind of exquisite aesthetic pleasure in racing so hard you feel your quads may burst into flame, but I didn’t know that before I tried it.  I wouldn’t have tried it without instrumental motivation.

          kk_kittenkat


            For me the intrinsic motivation is the enjoyment of feeling physically fit, the enjoyment of the movent, speed and fuidity of running. It's also being able to enjoy being surrounded by nature, the solitude and space to let my thoughts roll creatively.

             

            The extrinsic for me comes with races, I don't actually enjoy them that much but I'm competative and like winning actual bling.

             

            (I do enjoy the social aspect of races btw)

            Joann Y


              Thanks for the link, that was really interesting.  It was completely unexpected to me that the study found West Point cadets with both strong internal and instrumental motivations did worse than cadets with strong internal but weak instrumental.  Very counter-intuitive, so much so I wonder if it’s valid to generalise.

              I've heard of the concept with different terms, intrinsic or process-oriented motives (instead of internal) vs. goal-oriented motives (instead of instrumental).  In running, I literally do enjoy smelling the roses.  Today was swampy heat and rain, but the conditions strengthen odours, some kind of damp sweet bark, late peonies from a backyard garden I can’t see but now know they’re there.  I shuffled like a beached walrus but I still enjoyed the beads of sweat that collected on the fine hair at the nape of my neck — tiny drops, remarkably cool when they fall.

              I still find race goals essential though.  Roses and rainbows are great and all, but that kind of running is diffuse and doesn’t necessarily move towards much improvement.  I need structure to nudge me into the kind of running where the pleasures aren’t so obvious.  There’s a kind of exquisite aesthetic pleasure in racing so hard you feel your quads may burst into flame, but I didn’t know that before I tried it.  I wouldn’t have tried it without instrumental motivation.

               

              Yeah, I thought that was odd too, how having both types of motivation would make them worse off. And I get enjoying smelling the roses and the sweat soaking through your shirt and the dense humidity with the smallest of breezes giving the most exquisite pleasure and all the rest. But when I'm setting the alarm to get up and putting on the shoes, the race is in the back of my mind. Reminds me of Bernd Heinrich's book, Racing the Antelope/Why We Run. The ability for humans to visualize the antelope could motivate them for weeks, this abstract thing. We have replaced it with the race as a symbolic antelope. This is where it seems gray to me, the intrinic and instrumental. It's all bound together in some way or another.

               

              MTA: some Bernd Heinrich quotes -

               

              We are psychologically evolved to pursue long-range goals, because through millions of years that is what we on average had to do in order to eat.

               

              Our ancestors were those hunters who had the most love of nature, the ones who persisted the longest on the trail and when they felt fatigue and pain, they did not stop, because their dream carried them still forward.

               

              Feelings of pleasure are a product of evolution that makes healthy organisms do what helps them survive and produce offspring.

                RW did an piece on this years ago.  They called it internal &  external motivation.

                The runners who used external motivation ran 30 sec per mile faster.

                 

                So you're saying I could be a 3:54 miler? I don't buy that at all (30 sec per mile) but it's a typical runners world thing to say.

                 

                Have seen this discussion for many years. I think it's a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic. Extrinsic only carries you so far.


                Feeling the growl again

                  People with extrinsic motivation can do very well.  But without intrinsic you're not going to be in this sport for the long haul.

                   

                  It is not hard to put together a list of pro runners....national and world-class athletes...that stopped running altogether as soon as they weren't racing for championship medals and to earn their livelihood.  Or college runners who hang it up as soon as they're done using the sport to provide a scholarship.  In interviews, such people have often described how running was something they were good at, but they never really enjoyed it that much.

                   

                  Given the option, I'd take intrinsic over extrinsic every time.

                  "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                   

                  I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills

                   

                  Joann Y


                    People with extrinsic motivation can do very well.  But without intrinsic you're not going to be in this sport for the long haul.

                     

                    It is not hard to put together a list of pro runners....national and world-class athletes...that stopped running altogether as soon as they weren't racing for championship medals and to earn their livelihood.  Or college runners who hang it up as soon as they're done using the sport to provide a scholarship.  In interviews, such people have often described how running was something they were good at, but they never really enjoyed it that much.

                     

                    Given the option, I'd take intrinsic over extrinsic every time.

                     

                    Yeah, and I'm curious to how this might change over the course of many years of running like yourself and some of the others here. At some point it must just be so ingrained and these questions become sort of old. I've always thought myself a runner but never found true motivation until a couple years ago to really take it more seriously. And this involved a confluence of forces coming together and honestly, a big part of it was learning how to have the external goal. But for sure, I wouldn't do it at all without the intrinsic. Sort of essential to the being.

                    kk_kittenkat


                      People with extrinsic motivation can do very well.  But without intrinsic you're not going to be in this sport for the long haul.

                       

                      It is not hard to put together a list of pro runners....national and world-class athletes...that stopped running altogether as soon as they weren't racing for championship medals and to earn their livelihood.  Or college runners who hang it up as soon as they're done using the sport to provide a scholarship.  In interviews, such people have often described how running was something they were good at, but they never really enjoyed it that much.

                       

                      Given the option, I'd take intrinsic over extrinsic every time.

                       

                      i don't understand the American system of getting into college on sporting prowess only. It's to do a degree right? How can you get that degree if you aren't capable academically? Some will be and some won't be, I appreciate that.


                      Just a dude.

                         

                        Yeah, and I'm curious to how this might change over the course of many years of running like yourself and some of the others here. At some point it must just be so ingrained and these questions become sort of old. I've always thought myself a runner but never found true motivation until a couple years ago to really take it more seriously. And this involved a confluence of forces coming together and honestly, a big part of it was learning how to have the external goal. But for sure, I wouldn't do it at all without the intrinsic. Sort of essential to the being.

                         

                        I guess the question I have is how would knowing my motivation change things? I still have to decide to go out and run today. I still have to decide to run hard or take it easy. To do that 5th repeat or call it good at 4. To race or to relax.

                         

                        I think pretty much all that could be added or taken away would be external motivation. But then, even a study designed to specifically check if an increase in external motivation improves performance wouldn't necessarily help me. A study shows an average. It might help some, or even most. But doubtful its an absolute rule.

                         

                        And I think partly what the original poster says is very true: the lines are blurred. For example, I like numbers and tracking. I think about lap splits and paces and weekly mileages and stuff like that a lot. I look at my log probably too much, looking for trends. Comparing this build up with other build ups. Most would say those numbers would be external. But I mostly care because inside I know that I am a runner. That's what I do. And I want to do it faster. If I wasn't so motivated internally, the numbers wouldn't be there. I wouldn't look.

                         

                        In my experiment of one, I find that the more attention I give to running, the more motivated I become. But only to a point. Eventually it is too consuming and I want to just get away and quit. Someone else would react completely differently. I think experimenting on this point to find each runner's sweet spot is maybe just as important as trying to find out how much mileage, hills, intervals, or rest is best for that runner. (And best might not mean fastest. Some runners it might mean safest from injury, or most enjoyable, or optimized for weight loss, or whatever...)

                         

                        My 2 cents anyway... /shrug

                         

                        -Kelly

                        Getting back in shape... Just need it to be a skinnier shape... 

                           

                          i don't understand the American system of getting into college on sporting prowess only. It's to do a degree right? How can you get that degree if you aren't capable academically? Some will be and some won't be, I appreciate that.

                           

                          Athletes participating on scholarship at a university must meet basic academic standards. Pretty much, they need to be above average in standardized tests and grades, and they need to have passed core classes while in high school. And once they are in the university they must maintain a passing grade point average, while making progress toward a degree. That is not to say that the system isn't abused.

                           

                          Distance runners tend to do very well academically, but even then you sometimes hear about athletes that don't make the cut and they end up dropping out of school.

                          kk_kittenkat


                             

                            Athletes participating on scholarship at a university must meet basic academic standards. Pretty much, they need to be above average in standardized tests and grades, and they need to have passed core classes while in high school. And once they are in the university they must maintain a passing grade point average, while making progress toward a degree. That is not to say that the system isn't abused.

                             

                            Distance runners tend to do very well academically, but even then you sometimes hear about athletes that don't make the cut and they end up dropping out of school.

                             

                            Thank you for the explanation, I guess that it's done because university sport has big status attached to it? Does it attract extra funding for the college?

                            Joann Y


                               

                              I guess the question I have is how would knowing my motivation change things? I still have to decide to go out and run today. I still have to decide to run hard or take it easy. To do that 5th repeat or call it good at 4. To race or to relax.

                               

                               

                              It doesn't have to change anything to be interesting. But I do think that it could change someone else's approach to their own running to see how it plays out for other people. Maybe to have a better understanding.

                                 

                                Yeah, and I'm curious to how this might change over the course of many years of running like yourself and some of the others here. At some point it must just be so ingrained and these questions become sort of old. I've always thought myself a runner but never found true motivation until a couple years ago to really take it more seriously. And this involved a confluence of forces coming together and honestly, a big part of it was learning how to have the external goal. But for sure, I wouldn't do it at all without the intrinsic. Sort of essential to the being.

                                 

                                 

                                For the majority of hobby joggers, I think a race goal is probably more internal than instrumental. Just as studying or reading to learn the answer, you are training to get to an answer…the goal time, say. And if you meet this goal, there’s nothing particularly instrumental about it – you haven’t been awarded any monetary prize (or if you have, it’s probably not enough to become an actual motivation), a very limited number of people will even acknowledge your accomplishment (which really is only an accomplishment to you). Only you really understand what it took to discover this new faster you. But you really aren’t usually rewarded in any significant external way.

                                 

                                Unless you win an imaginary internet award. Those are sweet.

                                Come all you no-hopers, you jokers and rogues
                                We're on the road to nowhere, let's find out where it goes
                                1234