Motivational Choices

Have I given you enough to think about yet?  Well, maybe you’ll want to put the book down and investigate further or maybe just digest what we’ve gone over so far.   One one thousand….Two one thousand….Three one thousand…..Ok…are we back now?  So…just what is motivation?  And how does motivation affect our decision-making process?

Motivation is what drives Tweedle Dee toward a goal, an internal choice that keeps him going when things get tough. There are, of course, positive and negative motivations. An example of a negative motivation might be having a boss threatens to fire you–you’ll likely work harder in order to complete a project if confronted with that kind of motivational choice. Generally speaking, positive motivation tends to work better — if it’s something you “choose” to do, you’ll be motivated to do a better job—rather than having to “choose” to avoid something you don’t want– (like being fired).

 So motivation, in its purest form, is simply a way for you to choose something.

I’ll now let you in on an interesting observation I’ve found that involves “motivational” choice. Motivational choice refers to the tendency of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum to display a “high personal rate of time preference”—or put another way, to live for today. There appears to be a consistent problem in the lack of sufficient motivation for Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum to save enough for future needs and wants–their retirement, for example. As the life expectancy of Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee continue to increase, this is really not surprising.   The solution to this choice dilemma traditionally sought and preferred by politicians and a significant portion of the population—at least here in the United States–is seen to be individual “choice” through marketplace options. I wonder? could the state possibly do any better at deciding what the future level of savings should be for an individual than one’s own decisions?  Or the ones made by Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum? Given that the track record for decision-making by individuals in these areas is not terribly impressive–proposals that reduce motivational choice should not then be considered as radical or unthinkable—that is, if we dare assume that government could indeed do better in making these types of choices for the Tweedles than the Tweedles themselves.

That said we can see that the Tweedles who do not participate in this market of motivational choices are still quite materially affected by the decisions made by Tweedles who do participate in it.  Markets are very good at providing an array of choices when it comes to things such as cars, corn flakes or hair conditioner. But historical observation shows that they have a poor track record when presenting choices such as a more preventative healthcare system, better working conditions or mass transit solutions.

It seems to me that what this array of “choices” all boils down to is that Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum may need to give up some present-day consumption choices in order that they will have more choices in the future, because they cannot be expected to gather or understand all of the information needed to make such choices for themselves.

It goes without saying that a Tweedle can only go so long in trying to motivate himself to do something he doesn’t like to do, or something he doesn’t want to do (negative motivation). Choices made by motivation can be successful if only you can find one or more ways to really “want” to do something (positive motivation).

Law of Attraction

A similar type of “choice” is put forth by a concept referred to as the Law of Attraction. The Law of Attraction can be summed up as a belief that “like attracts like”, that positive and negative thinking brings about positive or negative physical results.  An example of a Law of Attraction would be something like the following: If Tweedle Dee thinks “I need more money”, this thought then “attracts” the Tweedle to the thought of “need more money”. If the Tweedle wants to change this he would focus his thoughts on the goal (having more money) rather than the problem (needing more money). This connection may then lead the Tweedle to come to the conclusion that “I have as much money as I need” or “I have a job that pays very well”, negating the need to make a “choice” regarding this situation.

The Law of Attraction concept has been promoted in recent years by books and by the film “The Secret”. This film and the subsequent book promote the principles of a metaphysical “law” that can “attract” anything that one thinks about consistently. How’s that for making a choice you don’t even realize you are making! The Law of Attraction’s modern interpretation puts forth the idea that our physical reality is a reflection of our inner (subjective) reality—that your thoughts and feelings create your life.  Of course, this type of “choice” also has a negative component to it– if you have an accident or disease, is it your fault?  Did you “attract” that occurrence–that illness–with your negative thoughts?  If an airplane crashes, does that mean that one or more of the Tweedles brought that occurrence upon themselves? Do soldiers that have been killed or injured simply not think enough positive thoughts?

A common response to this question from those who subscribe to the Law of Attraction’s philosophy is that one’s unconscious thoughts (which are more difficult, if not impossible to control) are as attracting as one’s conscious thoughts.

Specific scientific phenomena, such as electromagnetism, have been used as an explanation for the phenomena, but there have been no scientific studies done to support this theory.

 The criticism that is frequently put forth regarding the Law of Attraction—is that the concept only works with people who live in a culture that has paths that can allow people to overcome adversity.  This environment unfortunately, does not exist in a large portion of the world.

Putting that problem aside for a moment, the skepticism that goes along with LOA theory doesn’t mean you can’t take something away from LOA and use it to make choices.  You can use this concept if you can very specifically commit to what you want, constantly keep that goal in your mind, and then take actual action in order to make it happen.  Using this as a choice method can contribute to that which you put your mind to doing.

Do we Really “Choose” our Friends?

Everyone (even Tweedles) has friends of some kind, right? Some have many friends while others have only a few. Some have “good” friends while others have “bad” friends.  How do we “choose” our friends?

An interesting study was carried out by researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University which seems to point to one factor that plays an important role in how Tweedles choose their friends: their genes.

They found that as individual Tweedles develop, their genes become increasingly important in how peer groups are chosen.

 “As we grow and move out of our own home environment, our genetically influenced temperament becomes more and more important in influencing the kinds of friends we like to hang out with,” said Kenneth S. Kendler, M.D., a professor of psychiatry and human genetics in VCU’s School of Medicine and lead author on the study.

“Our results demonstrate clearly that a complete understanding of the pathway from genes to antisocial behaviours, including drug abuse, has to take into account self-selection (choice) into deviant versus benign environments.  So we think we are choosing our friends when we really aren’t……Hmmmm….well– let’s move on to another similar subject….

Decision-Making by use of Your Jeans (Genes)

“We live in a sea of genes,” says author James Fowler, professor of medical genetics and political science at the University of California-San Diego. “What happens to us may not depend only on our genes but on the genes of our friends.”

I never really thought there could be a connection, but it seems as though there is some data indicating that genetic factors can be a contributing factor in the Tweedles friendship choices. There also is additional evidence of an evolutionary link. If we examine the data in terms of the Tweedles choice of companions, of partners, Tweedles seem to make choices (picking their friends) by unconsciously selecting other Tweedles who possess versions of genes that are relatively different from their own. The researchers in the study reasoned that this correlation may even help prevent incest and increase the odds that offspring will have an immune system (different sets of genes) for example, that are best equipped to fight different types of diseases. An alternate view has been put forth by Misha Angrist, an assistant professor at Duke University’s Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy, who postulates that in regards to social behavior, a person’s actual behavior and personality will exert more influence on the Tweedles choices than genetics. He warns that, by putting too much emphasis on genetics over personal choice or environmental factors—you are making choices by “…the content of your cells and not by the content of your character….”

Wow!!!  All this stuff going on behind the scenes…I may have to scrutinize my friends a bit closer after learning this.