This book is similar in that he thinks negativity is a good thing, for the same reason: we can use it to better control other humans. Basically, it's about the neglected value of threats and punishments as a way to motivate people to do as we instruct, that threats and punishments work much better than rewards do.
Well, that depends entirely on how you define "works." If by "works" you mean getting someone to do the immediate thing you want them to do, then yes, punishments "work" better. Rewards work if you make it sufficiently worth their while, but punishments and threats don't require as much cajoling to get the desired behaviors.
But both rewards and punishments come at a cost, and unless the immediate thing you need done is of utmost importance and urgency, that long-term cost far outweighs the short-term gain. The cost is that both rewards and punishments convert intrinsic to extrinsic. You are teaching them that there is no intrinsic value to the thing you are trying to get them to do, so they should focus instead on the extrinsic reward or punishment. This makes it impossible for that behavior to become self-motivating.
For example, let's say you want a kid to do his math homework, so you offer him candy. With enough candy, he will do the math. Or, you threaten to hit him if he doesn't do it. With less of a threat than the amount of candy you would need, he will do the math. But he will not learn to appreciate the joys of math, or of solving problems more generally. The motivation stops when the extrinsic motivation stops. Take away those rewards and punishments, and he won't do the math. And colleges don't provide free candy or hitting. If all you really cared about was a kid who knows a little bit of math, then, sure, this works just fine. But if you wanted a well-rounded, passionate, curious, self-motivated child, best to stay away from both rewards and punishments and do the much harder work of teaching him the joys of math. And that's really what all of this is about isn't it--our own laziness in our attempts to motivate people. Rewards and punishments are cheap and easy, providing an immediate illusion of success.
And while punishments "work" better than rewards, their long-term costs are much worse than the long-term costs of rewards. Now not only is there no intrinsic love for math, but you are actively teaching him to hate math, to resent it. Thing is, no one likes being a slave, and punishment is the same motivation tactic used on slaves. It's inherently dehumanizing, and humans resist being dehumanized. Unlike rewards, punishments ARE self-perpetuating, but what is being perpetuated is an active resistance to doing math in the future.
But the worst cost of all for both rewards and punishments is not related to the relationship with the activity, but the relationship with the rewarder or punisher. For rewards, you are teaching them to treat your relationship as transactional. While you are doling out rewards, it ceases to be a loving relationship. You're just turning yourself into a human ATM machine. But again, this problem is much worse for punishments. Now they don't see you as a harmless ATM machine, but as a monster who is hell bent on manipulating and controlling them. You are teaching them to not just hate the activity, but to hate you.
This guy has an uncanny knack for paradoxically starting from a pessimistic premise and using that very premise to conclude the exact opposite, withouThis guy has an uncanny knack for paradoxically starting from a pessimistic premise and using that very premise to conclude the exact opposite, without ever rejecting the premise. He does it with a lot of swear words and the sort of "whoa dude" prose you might expect from a stoned philosophy student in a college dorm room.
In his book The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck, he did this with self-help. This new book also has a self-help angle, but it is much more political. Also paradoxically, he manages to be very left-wing while also simultaneously very right-wing. He speaks to the values of both, but he re-frames it away from a dichotomy of left vs. right and toward more a dichotomy of the pseudo-religious zealots who are trying to find meaning through political extremism vs. the rest of us who just want society to be fair, work well, and help those who need it most. For him, it comes down to a difference of meaning, and from where we derive that meaning.
Right now, our society is having a crisis of meaning, this feeling that everything is fucked, which explains the rise of political extremism. He doesn't dispute this feeling--he embraces it. It's not our imagination, everything really is fucked. But guess what? It's always been that way. He talks a lot about maturity, because growing up requires facing this stark reality, but going on with life anyway, finding meaning in mundane things like family, spirituality, work, and hobbies. Pain is normal. We often don't get what we want. Growing up means understanding that this is a good thing, that happiness does not mean getting what we want, and is often in conflict with it. Not everyone grows up, and some take longer than others. Reading this book, I was ashamed to see that until very recently I've thought like an adolescent. Better late than never, I guess....more
Loading...
