Dan Pink's speaking style is very different, are his ideas, and the two work together to show both his enthusiasm and what his ideas mean for the world. He sets up his speech as if he is presenting to a jury, and continually refers to that. He uses his hands and drastic voice intonation to prove his point. He begins by stating exactly why people might think his ideas are misguided and addresses those views at the outset of his speech by claiming that his point is not feeling or philosophy, but a true fact. Throughout the performance his motions, his meld of sarcastic and serious intonation and constant jokes are all hallmarks of his speaking style.
He begins be describing an experiment and discussion how certain people react to solving problems compared to other people. Problems that require thought needed less monetary rewards, where as simple tasks without thought required monetary rewards. I find this interesting because it shows how the mind approaches problems. It shows that you do need to have a broader way of thinking, especially if you actually plan on thinking. I also find myself thinking about how we begin to decide things for ourselves, and why we choose what we do. It makes me think that it is far more plausible in today's world to get a job that I love doing, if only because I will not have to take a mindless, thought narrowing job. It makes we wonder just how many people in this world do what they do because they love to do it, and how many simply do it because that is what they have been taught to do, which leads me to my next issue: The role this plays in education.
How often do you actually learn something simply by sitting in class and listening? Not very often. Nor do you learn from engaging only with normal, mindless responses. You only learn when you have to think really hard about a problem. You only learn when you are pushed to the limit. The problem is that the motivation that students are being given tells them that they do not have to try harder. All they need do is follow the pattern, and then they can get on with what they really care about. Tests rarely, if ever measure learning. All they measure is who happened to find the perfect balance the night before between cramming and sleep. In my career as a student, I have found absolutely no correlation between grades and learning - not even with the same teacher. Learning isn't what schools promote. Currently, what schools promote is logical, boxed-in thought that results in correct answers for only those who do not think. But for those of us who decide to choose to respond in a more abstract, two-sided way are beaten down, and told that this is wrong, and that it is something we must not do. If our teachers don't do this, then our friends will, if not our friends, our parents, or perhaps worst of all ourselves. We do not learn how to be humans in school. We learn how to impersonate parrots. And this is Daniel Pink’s point: that we do not do things the way that our current research says that it will work.
So where is the line between engaged action and apathy? That fine line is the foundation of success. Your involvement in many of the activities you love is not required. Many activities are not rewarded the way that they should be. Why, then does this flawed technique still partially work. When you think about what you do every day, are you doing it because you will get something or because you want to? Most likely there is at least one thing that everyone does simply because they want to, but how often does that task require depth of thought? That depth of thought was discouraged by money on the other side, but why would you want to have that which you do not have if it will only destroy your focus. So why do we still do it?
Dan Pink suggests that what we need is a change, a shift to intrinsic motivation. A shift to Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose. The concept that management is man-made and is not necessarily the driving force behind motivation makes me think about grades, and what makes them keep going, despite their influence of the church.
Dan suggests that if you, instead of trying to build something while focusing on what comes at the end of the experiment, therefore there must be something inherent in us that helps us to decide what is important and what we should do.
No comments:
Post a Comment