Recently in Drive Category

John's video (proposing the questions)

Hank's video (responding)

Here are two Youtube videos of two brothers. One proposed the question, "what is your ultimate concern" the other replied. Just a heads up if you watch the video...they sort of talk about a lot of other things leading up to the excitement of "ultimate concerns", but all in all they are pretty decent videos.

What I took from the videos:
Just think for a minute: What would you die or kill for?  Is there really something in your life that is that important?  At what point in your life does something become that important?  John has a child and at this point in his life his new baby is his ultimate concern...making sure that his needs are met. (Well that sounds familiar doesn't it; babies have needs too, they just can't satisfy them by themselves!!)

A response from the brother, Hank, proposes some interesting questions in response to the initial questions.

What are you concerned with at all, don't limit it to just the ultimate concern.

What I think is neat is how he explains how there are boundaries (visually I imagined a circle) of things you would die for, things you would fight for, things you care at all about, and finally things you just don't care about. 

This then brings up that maybe something like maybe your own child is something you "would die for", but then the stranger-mom at Wal Mart has a child that is in the area of "things you don't care about".  They are both babies but there is something different about your baby that makes it so much more important to you than the stranger's. 

And for each person this will be different, so what is your ultimate concern? Or, what do you care about, or don't care about? 

When these are defined in our own life we may start to realize our motivations and maybe even goals.  We know from class that we all have physiological needs. Those are obviously of some concern to everyone, and they will be satisfied in much the same way. Then there are psychological needs and social needs and whatever our concerns in this world are will affect those needs. 

Take the concern you thought of from above and apply that to a psychological or social need and how that would have an impact on our behavior in order to satisfy that need.  

http://www.2knowmyself.com/Persistence_definition/how_to_become_persistent

 

This article is very helpful for all of you people with the lack of motivation and persistence (we've all been there, myself included).   But is there something out there that you have always wanted to happen but you just can't quite make it there?  Maybe it has to do with exercising to feel healthy-- we all know we should but how many of us actually keep with a routine workout schedule?   This article defines persistence as "...not allowing anything to stop you from an activity once you start it unless it's something really severe."

Some helpful tips from the article included

1) Even if you feel like quitting, keep with it!

2)Keep your goal in sight

3)Don't ignore small situations-- be persistent with even the small tasks. 

4)Be flexible

5)Be confident in your ability to reach your goal

Reeve states in Chapter 8 (p 224) that when people are in the persuit of a goal, they may come across certian obstacles involving disctractions, demands of their time, or some other form of interruption.  THis article helps you focus on what is important in your persuit toward your goal.  Also, Reeve shows on page 221 that goals are to be more reachable if you know the process you will have to take to reach them.  This relates to number 3 from the article- Be persistent with the smaller tasks, because eventually those small tasks add up to the large goal in mind. 

The only question i had regarding this article, was how can you make someone want to be persistent with their goals?  Of course these are helpful steps, but they won't help much if the person is  someone with little motivation to set goals. 

I was recently reading an article abaout an olympian ice skater that still performed her routine after losing her mother to a heart attack only a few days prior. The mother had died of an unexpected heart attack two days before her daughter was scheduled to perform her much practiced short performance routine in front of 14, 000 people. The skater went on and preformed very well, getting the highest score of the short performances. Even though she was visablly upset, as anyone would be, she still decided that it was for the best to continue with her skating. I wondered if sometimes, a person's motivation can outweigh their emotions. I've tried to think of times when something terrible has happened to me and how I reacted. Usually I drop everything and focus all my energy and emotions on the bad event. I couldn't image doing something like ice skating when my mom had just passed away. But I think it was the fact that this girl had trained so hard for so long all for this day, that she didn't want it all to be for nothing. I think she thought her mother would have felt the same way. So I was wondering if her drive for achivement and recognition for her hard work and persistence at skating could help her overcome her sad emotions enough for her to go out there and skate. This is not to say that she wanted to compete more than she was sad for her mother's death, but just to ask the question, If you are highly motivated to do soemthing, can it temporarly overcome your emotions, enough to get the job done? Other situations could be that you really want to go out with your friends on a Thursday night, but you have a big test the next day you have to do well on so you skip the fun and study instead. It's not exactly the same, but you are still choosing your motivation over your emotions.

What do you guys think? Can you think of any circumstances that you have really wanted something even though your emotions were saying something different? If one is stronger, what usually makes you do something, your motivation or your emotions?

Here is the link...http://www.cnn.com/2010/SPORT/02/24/olympics.rochette/index.html?hpt=C1

When I started to think about what I wanted to blog about today, I first thought of what motivated people to do things, anything, which eventually lead me to wonder what motivational principles underlie peoples need to attend college. 

Kurt Lewin and a team of researchers came up with the three major leadership styles.   The first style is Authoritarian, which I find is a lot like the parenting style of Authoritarian.  It's often seen as a dictatorship, controlling, and bossy.  As noted in the article researchers found that decisions were less creative under Authoritarian style, which also coincides with the parenting style, they simple say, "because I said so," rather than giving valid reasons for the punishment.  Under this parenting style they are unresponsive to their children much like making decisions by yourself, giving others' opinions no chance under leadership.  Participative or Democratic was the second leadership style, which is basically working together as a team allowing everyone's input.  However, the leader has the last say.  This leadership style is like the Authoritative parenting style, which allows "children to ask questions, be self-regulated as well as cooperative."  Delegative (Laissez-Faire) is the third leadership style, it has little to no guidance to the group, it often leads to a lack of motivation.  This is also much like the Permissive and Uninvolved parenting, there are few demands and little communication.  In extreme cases some parents even reject the needs of their children. 
I compared leadership and parenting because I think being a leader is somewhat like being a parent.  You have to watch over and direct what goes on in an organization.  You need to punish or reward work of employees. 

What do you think is the best leadership style?  Does the situation matter what style you use?  Should leaders focus on group work and involving others in decisions? 

I figured there is no time better than the present to touch of the drive and story of an Olympic athlete. I think we all know by now, being an Olympian takes much more than an occasional practice. Being an Olympian takes commitment, determination, drive, and natural ability. These athletes practice for hours on end. Then, when they are done, they go to sleep and wake up to do it all over again. Training is nothing less that extreme. Anything other than being the best is not acceptable, because no one goes to the Olympic games with out the desire to bring home gold. Every athlete dreams of being an Olympian, and every Olympian dreams of being recognized as the best... to be positively reinforces with a gold circle draped from their neck. 

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/10/hallucinations/

Do you find yourself continually consumed by the daily pressures and constant distractions? Do you just want to get away from it all and see where your mind takes you? To fully be able to confine yourself to just your thoughts, and have no other external stimuli infiltrating your mind is basically impossible. However, there are ways to circumvent that impossibility. Psychologist Oliver Mason, from University College London, accepts such a challenge by devising a study to deprive a sample of participants all their external stimuli. Based on preliminary mental health screenings, Mason gathered 19 individuals and placed them in a sensory-deprivation room for a 15-minute period. All outside light and sound was completely terminated while in the room. The main findings reported from the study include the deep psychological thread associated with the powerful functions of the brain and how those functions can often lead to some degree of psychosis. Researchers suggest because when our sensory input is totally deprived from us, "we have a natural tendency to superimpose our own thoughts." These thoughts, especially in a dark, soundproof room, often become negative by nature, as reported by some of the participants in the study. Many participants experienced visual hallucinations, depressed moods, and even paranoia. Among the hallucinations some of the participants reported visualizing, five claimed to see faces, and six reported seeing objects in the room that were clearly were non-existent. This area in psychology is definitely understudied, but the ultimate goal of this study will help enable further investigation about the effects of sensory deprivation among clinically diagnosed individuals with schizophrenia and recreational substance users.

            In chapter four of the textbook the author addresses the fundamental properties of psychological and physiological regulation. The above study indirectly relates to the motivational drive theory. Drive theory is the process of the body responding to physiological deprivations and deficits. Maybe in some utopian bubble this sensory deprivation study is somehow indicative of animals' (including humans, or course) need to mentally visualize the world, even if all sensory inputs are removed. It is interesting to note that most of the participants in the experienced some form of dark, or lurking presence; everything was related to a negative sensation while in the room. This could be evolutionarily reliable, because when one thinks about all the negative outcomes of a situation or event, he or she is priming his/her outcome possibilities in hopes of avoiding each outcome. As the book describes drive theory more related to behavioral components, this mental aspect of drive should not be underestimated.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100119133519.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+(ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News)

I was rather intrigued by the research presented in this article. The main finding is alluded to in the title of the article - recent research suggests that those less motivated to achieve will excel on tasks seen as fun and those more motivated to achieve will not perform as well on tasks that are intended to be for fun. Obviously, this suggests that different students may need different types of motivation to excel. The students that are competitive and serious tend to be significantly less motivated when they think the task is just being performed for fun. Many other students do not take academics so seriously and work better when the task is fun.

Although these two groups are not all-inclusive (plenty of people lie somewhere in the middle of the extremes), I believe these differences do exist in the real world. As some individuals strive for excellence, they can become rather obsessed with perfection and get in the habit of avoiding anything fun-related to maximize their reputation of achievement. Given the incredible amount of time that many of these perfectionists put into their work, it is very hard for others to remain competitive without also putting a tremendous amount of effort into their academics. Because of this, I think many people stick to a more balanced (and perhaps more natural) life, in which they strive for excellence rather than perfection and are okay with not being labeled "the best."

Although I think many people are able to eventually find a balance between work and fun, there will always be those who are unable to achieve such a balance. I have not read much of the literature pertaining to this subject, but I wonder what the common causes of "overacheiving" are. It seems likely to me that some of these overly competitive individuals may be trying to compensate for low feelings of self-worth and others may be motivated by a need to feel superior. Whatever the reasons may be, I think most people realize is better for one's physical and mental health to not be overly competitive, but as people get older I think it becomes increasingly difficult for such people to change because the tendency to be that way has become a fundamental component of their personality. I think this research supports the idea that we can get too carried away and we can be overly motivated. Moderation is key in a great many areas of life.

 

Another questions that arises here is, "Does this research support the idea that people motivated by different approaches should be taught in separate groups (each given the learning style that works best for them)?" If we put more and more highly competitive people together into a single class though, would we also be creating the potential for even higher, even more unhealthy work ethics to arise? I suppose the questions I am posing here rest on the assumption that it can be unhealthy to be overly competitive, but I think this assumption is justified considering that those highly motivated become less able to do tasks that are supposed to be fun.

Here is a short little article with several, and what seem like simple, steps to gain back your weight loss motivation (and there are hundreds more like it).

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/do-you-lack-weight-loss-motivation.html

Right now the internet and TV are full of weight loss advice and covered with adds to join this gym, or buy this piece of equipment and you will look like our model in no time. And just that can be motivation for some people, while others it takes something horrific to make the change in their life. What motivated me was my goal to fit into a wedding dress, and I did, I had reached my goal. But afterwards, I no longer worked hard and have since gained it all back, why? What keeps people motivated to stay on track after they have reached their weight loss goal? What are some things that have and have not worked for you?