Chapter 10 
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
Take two groups of kids. Put each group in a room for an hour with paper and crayons for drawing, and tell the kids that they can spend time drawing if they want to, but they donÕt have to. What will happen? Since most kids like to draw, most will do at least a few drawings; the more artistic ones may draw a lot, some might not draw at all.
Now, say to the second group that youÕll give them a dollar for each drawing they produce. What will happen then? Suddenly, youÕll have drawings coming out of your earsÑway more than what you got from the first group. What a dramatic demonstration of the power of incentive!
But come back a few weeks later, and something curious happens. Put them in the rooms again with paper and crayons, but this time, donÕt offer a reward to either group. What happens now?
From the initially unrewarded group, there wonÕt be much change from what you got the first time. But the group that got rewarded on the first round, surprisingly, will likely produce many fewer drawings. Not just fewer than they produced the first time, but even fewer than the group that was not rewarded at all! 
This is surprising, because youÕd expect both groups to have a similar inherent level of interest in art. The disappearance of the reward might remove the additional incentive to produce, but itÕs worse than that. Giving people an incentive and then removing it actually destroys their motivation and appreciation of the activity itself. The experiments are reported in [Lepper 1973]. 
WeÕll bet, also, that the quality of the drawings in the rewarded group suffered, as well. Once the kids understood the game of rewardÐforÐdrawing, they probably tried to optimize their return by making cruder and cruder drawings faster and faster.
This experiment shows the psychological difference between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation for an activity means that you want to do the activity for its own sake. The activity is its own reward. You listen to music because you enjoy hearing it. You draw because you like drawing as a means of self-expression, even if nobodyÕs paying you. Extrinsic motivation is provided by incentives that are external to the activity itself: rewards, prizes, grades, and rankings. 
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation arenÕt completely separate. You can have both some intrinsic and some extrinsic reasons for doing something. Somebody can try to make you do it, even if you want to do it anyway. 
ItÕs often overestimated how much external, extrinsic rewards motivate people to perform an activity. What rewards do is motivate people to obtain the reward. ItÕs only because the reward-issuing authority links the activity to the reward that it encourages people to perform the activity. And that linkage is fragileÑif anything disrupts the connection between activity and reward, the rewardÕs power to motivate the activity disappears. 
ItÕs an admission by the authority that the activity isnÕt worth doing for its own sake, that the reward is necessary, otherwise people wonÕt do it. If people come to believe this, then taking away the reward will leave people feeling like the activity isnÕt worth doing. Extrinsic incentives can actually discourage intrinsic motivation. 
And, as the drawing-quality issue shows, the reward-seekers actually have an incentive to do the least possible to obtain the reward, launching a never-ending arms race trying to Ògame the rules of the gameÓ. WeÕve already talked about the folly of trying to win an arms race, in the PrisonerÕs Dilemma chapter. 
Educational philosopher Alfie Kohn makes the case against extrinsic motivation in schools, at length in his insightful book Punished by Rewards [Kohn 1993]. He talks about how the extrinsic mechanisms of grading, report cards, incessant testing, and school choice undermine the intrinsic motivation of love of learning and love of subject matter that truly educate students. 
Love is a better master than duty. 
Competition and extrinsic motivation
Advocates of competition claim that one of its biggest advantages is that Òcompetition motivates peopleÓ. But thatÕs a half-true cultural myth. 
What kind of motivation can competition provide? Competition can only provide extrinsic motivation, not intrinsic motivation.
Pure competition is a zero-sum game, like a contest where there are no prizes, just the Òbragging rightsÓ of being declared the winner. Less pure situations motivate contestants by a combination of these bragging rights, and the motivation of obtaining a desirable prize. In both cases, competition motivates by sparking desires that are completely unrelated to enjoyment or worth of the activity in itself. 
The artificial scarcity of ÒwinnersÓ created by contest rules guarantees only a few contestants will have the desire for winning fulfilled, leading to inevitable disappointment in the majority. That disappointment can turn into negative reinforcement of the activity that the prize was supposed to encourage, for the majority. A prize for Ògood behaviorÓ can thus have an undesirable effect. 
People primarily motivated by the social status of bragging rights are rarely the best, most creative, or most qualified. They get tempted to undermine others in their quest for status. Again, also, the loss in social status suffered by the majority branded as ÒlosersÓ acts as negative reinforcement for the activity.
Competition doesnÕt motivate all people equally. Competition works best with people who have competitive personalities (or so-called ÒType AÓ personalities) which have their good and bad sides: drive and determination, yes, but also aggression and hostility. Competitive personalities tend to be more associated with men rather than women, resulting in discouraging a significant number of women from participating in competitive events. Blanket assertions that people will be motivated by competition tend to disenfranchise those who donÕt fit the competitive personality profile. 
Alfie Kohn makes an eloquent argument against competition in education at length in one of his subsequent books, No Contest: The Case Against Competition [Kohn 1986]. Initiatives such as No Child Left Behind and Common Core seek to base all education on extrinsic motivation. A standardized curriculum tells you what to learn at every step, leaving no room for individual interests or intrinsic motivation to inßuence the agenda. Students are supposed to be externally motivated by getting high scores on standardized tests, not by love of the subject matter. This is the factory model of education, which treats students as products of a manufacturing industry. 
There are alternatives educational philosophies based on intrinsic motivation, such as Montessori schools [Montessori 1969], Summerhill [Neill 1960], project-based learning, Constructionism [Papert 1993], and High Tech High [Whitely 2015]). The debate in educational philosophy is explored further in our chapter, Education for Makerism. KohnÕs books are required reading for those who want to explore in greater depth our advocacy of cooperation over competition. 
Intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation and the ?
PrisonerÕs Dilemma
The issue of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation is intimately related to the issue of cooperation versus competition that we discussed earlier in this book. ThereÕs a tradeoff between intrinsic and extrinsic, just like thereÕs a tradeoff between cooperation and competition. 
The two tradeoffs are connected. If people are more intrinsically motivated, they will be more cooperative, and vice versa. If people are more extrinsically motivated, they will be more competitive, and vice versa. 
Situations that encourage cooperation will work better at intrinsically motivating people. When weÕre surrounded by cooperative people, we feel more socially secure. WeÕre more comfortable expressing ourselves, and feel like we can act on our true (intrinsic) motivations without being judged. In competitive situations, donÕt be surprised if competitorsÕ motivation focuses more on the extrinsic rewards than the intrinsic pleasure of the activity. 
Everything weÕve said about PrisonerÕs Dilemma situations also applies here. Just as scarcity promotes defection in the PrisonerÕs Dilemma, scarcity increases the relative power of extrinsic motivation over intrinsic motivation. 
LetÕs say I have two job offers: in one, I like the work better; in the other, it pays me more money. Which will I take? If IÕm poor, IÕll probably go for the one that pays better. Sure, IÕd like to have work that suits meÑbut first, I gotta pay the bills. If IÕm rich, IÕm much more likely to value how IÕm spending my time, and the salary difference may not make as much difference to my lifestyle. On my goal stack from MaslowÕs hierarchy, the better-paying job satisfies lower-level physiological and safety needs. The more fulfilling one satisfies my needs for self-esteem and self-actualization.
Conversely, abundance promotes cooperation in the PrisonerÕs Dilemma, and favors intrinsic motivation. WeÕve talked about how incremental defection in the iterated PrisonerÕs Dilemma leads to destructive arms races. We can see the same phenomenon in arms races between participants in a competitive contest. 
While defection in the PrisonerÕs Dilemma might be a good short-term strategy, weÕve seen that cooperation is a better long-term strategy. Similarly, extrinsic motivation can work in the short-term, but intrinsic motivation is better in the long term. 
Many situations have a combination of internal and external motivation. Whether someone decides to take action or not is determined by whether a combination of motivations from all sources exceeds their personal threshold for taking action (which might be different for different people). We can express that as the equations,
Total Motivation = Intrinsic + Extrinsic 
Total Motivation > Activation Threshold  Action
Everybody understands that somebody has to pick up the garbage. Few people intrinsically like picking up garbage, so it makes sense to introduce some kind of extrinsic incentive for people to do it. Many sanitation workers take pride in contributing to society by doing a necessary job, and the social relations they develop with their neighbors, so in this case the extrinsic incentive isnÕt necessarily destructive of intrinsic motivation. 
You can win fabulous prizes!
Certainly, in some situations such as competitive games, people do seem to get motivated as they become wrapped up in the activity of trying to win the game. Gamers get a shot of adrenaline as they anticipate the thrill of winning. ÒItÕs almost like a drugÓ, they say. But, like many drugs, the adrenaline hangover is a bummer. And thereÕs the risk of addiction. 
Many educational games try to use studentsÕ enthusiasm for games to get them to sit still for learning something. This isnÕt a bad strategyÑin small doses. They turn hated quizzes into guessing games, where correct answers are rewarded by points, animations, increased gameplay time, or places on leader boards. Much better, exploration or simulation games can expose students to situations they might never be interested in on their own. 
What that accomplishes is to give the students a taste of the subject matter, in the hopes that they will discover a latent interest. The short-term attraction of game mechanics might get them Òover the humpÓ of reluctance to try new things. But for the lessons to go beyond the game itself, or to persist when the game is inevitably over, the initial exposure generated by external motivation has to be quickly translated into intrinsic motivation. If we rely exclusively on extrinsic motivation for too long, the positive effects of external motivation will have worn off, but itÕll be too late for intrinsic motivation to save the day. 
In gamification, which artificially introduces competition in education and the workplace, people may feel obligated to participate. Those who donÕt have competitive personalities will actually be demotivated by artificially competitive situations. They sense, not incorrectly, that situations that necessarily have few winners and many losers can be a sucker bet. 
In the past few years, thereÕs been a fad for contests, Òchallenges,Ó Ògrand prizes,Ó etc. in scientific and engineering fields. We have no objection if itÕs only good, clean fun between consenting adults. And if nobodyÕs job is on the line, and nobodyÕs self-worth is wrapped up in their success in the contest. But on the whole, we think this fad has been detrimental to science. 
Contests encourage competitive attitudes and secrecy between contestants. They focus people on incremental progress in very specialized areas, for one-shot tests. Science and other creative fields need exactly the oppositeÑcollaboration between researchers, openness, a diversity of approaches, Òout of the boxÓ and long-term thinking. These fields need the freedom to choose what problem to work on, rather than have it dictated by the arbitrary rules of the contest. 
It is crucial to contests that they exploit a cognitive bias, the gambling mentality. They want people to imagine that theyÕve already won the prize, and imagine how great it would be. But they know that people have a systematic tendency to overestimate their chances of success. Happy stories of the winners are trumpeted, but the vast majority of losers merely get their time and money wasted. And there are tragic stories of lottery winners who find the sudden inßux of wealth more a curse than a blessing. 
Contests are said to encourage risk-taking, but thereÕs a difference between risk-taking and gamblingÑthe risk-taker knows the odds, whereas the gambler doesnÕt bother to figure them out. The gambler is merely mesmerized by the thought of winning. 
A few years ago the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which has had a glorious history in the 1970s and 80s of funding innovative work in artificial intelligence, became enamored of contests. Most notably, a contest for a self-driving vehicle, did achieve some success [DARPA 2005]. 
DARPA crowed about how little they spent to achieve that result, conveniently not counting the unpaid efforts of the unsuccessful and almost-successful contestants. It browbeat researchers who it was funding into participating, turning off many creative people who refused to Ògamble with the rent money.Ó We believe it set the field back by years., primarily because of the opportunity cost of distracting researchers from meaningful scientific goals not encompassed by the contest. The most harmful aspect of research-by-contest is that it may convince funders that contests are a substitute for unconditionally funding research. As researchers, we are personally bombarded with countless invitations to participate in contests. We decline them all.
The bankruptcy of incentive
Traditional Capitalism is based on the idea of economic incentive. Capitalism works by providing economic incentive for people to do activities that can increase economic output. It views people as merely passive followers of incentive, Homo Economicus. 
This fails to take into account peopleÕs intrinsic motivation, what they want to do or like to do. This is what Marx meant when he said that workers are ÒalienatedÓ from their jobs.
As weÕve seen, to some extent, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation inhibit each other. If you want to make sure that people are motivated by incentive, you have to find some way of reducing or sidelining internal motivation. This is one reason why Capitalism can become an instrument of oppressionÑthe whole system is designed to get you to do things you donÕt want to do. 
For traditional Capitalism, one way it does this is to maintain scarcity. Sometimes itÕs the reality of scarcity, sometimes just the perception of it is enough. If you donÕt have enough to eat, anything that looks like it might help you get something to eat is attractive, regardless of whether you like to do that thing, or not. Competition pits people against one another, and the external incentive of getting a leg up on your competitor makes you ignore your own needs and desires. As we discussed before, scarcity both promotes competition and is promoted by competition, thereby maintaining the primacy of extrinsic incentive. 
On the other hand, in situations of abundance, people are more inclined to follow their own desires and preferences, rendering external incentives ineffective. People are more likely to be cooperative in situations of abundance, which makes them more likely to express their own motivation and consider the motivation of others.
Our central argument is that, because of technology, weÕre moving from situations of scarcity to situations of potential abundance. That means that we now have the opportunity to move from situations mainly governed by extrinsic motivation, to those driven by intrinsic motivation. In the initial stages of Makerism, the extrinsic motivation of mitigating the failures of industrial capitalism will be an important driver. As Makerism takes hold, peopleÕs activities will be increasingly determined by their own personal motivation, and external economic incentives will have less and less force.
LivinÕ the life of Riley?
People sometimes ask the question, ÒIf, in the future, nobody has to have a job, what will people do all day? WonÕt they get bored?Ó. That question takes for granted the idea that the only way to prevent boredom is to participate in an activity which is being paid by somebody else. 
Because many people have spent their work lives acting almost entirely from extrinsic motivation, in situations that lead them little choice for personal expression, itÕs hard for them to see how self-direction can lead to a happily productive, active life. But weÕre confident that the absence of economic coercion will allow people to discover their own interests, talents, and abilities. 
ThereÕs a big difference between gardening as a hobby and a pleasure, and being wholly dependent on subsistence agriculture in order to eat. ThereÕs a big difference between physical effort in athletics, and manual labor necessary to keep yourself alive. The difference between physical effort in rock climbing, and manual labor in breaking rocks in a prison chain gang. Both kinds can be done strenuously, but in the first case under your own volition for goals that you, yourself have taken on. In the second case, that choice is forced upon you, upon pain of death. ItÕs hard to enjoy it in that case.
We can separate the question of whatÕs necessary to meet a personÕs economic needs from whatÕs necessary to enable someone to lead a happy and fulfilling life. 
For a lucky few (including us), their jobs provide intellectual stimulation, positive social relations, and a feeling of contributing to society. But it really is only a few. Studies show [McGregor 2013] that only 13% of people like their work. Studies also identify the most important characteristics that make a job fulfilling [80,000 Hours 2016]. Work youÕre good at, and that helps others. Work that makes you feel ÒengagedÓ. Many activities, paid or unpaid, meet those criteria, and itÕs likely that everybody can find some that suit their interests and talents. 
The remainder of the criteria are what might be called Ògood working conditionsÓ: adequate pay, fitting in with your family and personal life, and having supportive colleagues. If we donÕt need a salaried job, if people have more control over their time, personal life, and social relations, than those wonÕt be an issue. 
A good point of comparison is what we now call retirementÑafter 30-50 years of working life, many people in industrialized societies can live comfortably on savings, pensions, or government stipends like Social Security. Some people in retirement do feel more isolated and unhappy, especially because of the social stigma now associated with ÒobsolescenceÓ. We hope that that will change as more and more people become less reliant on jobs. 
But there are many retirees that do find personal fulfillment in retirement, through a variety of hobbies, Òsecond careersÓ, volunteer work, more time for family relations, etc. They feel relief in no longer having to Òwork for the manÓ. Studies on retiree satisfaction have recently shown a decline, perhaps due to recent decline of company retirement benefits, but the most conservative pin it at least at 40%, still way above our 13% for working people. More optimistic studies show it at over 90% [Holland 2016]. Post-scarcity, weÕll be able to ÒretireÓ at age 0. 
For further reading, AndrŽ Gorz explores these questions in his book, The Path to Paradise [Gorz 1985]. For a quick and fun read, we recommend (minus his technophobia) Bob BlackÕs classic essay, The Abolition of Work [Black 1985]. WeÕll leave you with his slogan: ÒWorkers of the worldÑrelax!Ó.