Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
"Awards" Rant
Replies
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »This sort of attitude is easy to laugh at but is actually really detrimental to society. That we should applaud ourselves or others for the most basic responsibilities of adulthood. Seems like at some point society shifted in a way where "difficult" became synonymous with "bad" and "work" was something you should try to stop doing as soon as you could. The idea that you work just as long as until you have enough to retire and not run out of money by the time you die is a depressingly self-centered view of life. What happened to work for works sake and/or work for the sake of society as a whole.
Nothing.
Can you point to a period in history where that was a widespread reason why people worked? I’ll wait.
That is a depressing thought.
I wasnt claiming that now all people work for money while previously all people worked for society or for passion. I'm saying it seems like the distribution is skewed a bit towards it being about money and how that isnt a good thing.
I'd point to the fact that certain professions tend to be about interests (sciences) and.passions (teachers and artists) while others tend to be about the paycheck (financial sector, day trader, hedge fund manager). I'd say look at the distribution of those sectors over time.
I think we should encourage and favor attitudes that work the generate new wealth by improving society health and education rather than just pushing the existing money around and making sure in the end you end up with a bigger pile. If people work because they want to improve things it will favor the creation of wealth...if they go in for the pay back it will tend to favor just pushing wealth around because that is the quicker way to personal wealth.
And to adopt your rather snarky tone can you point to a research scientist or teacher who is in it for the money? I'll wait.
I can point to a number of such people who have burned out but can’t afford to change professions.
I’m interested in the bin men, sewer workers, fruit pickers etc who work for work’s sake and/or for the good of society, though?
Was there somewhere where I claimed it was a black or white or either/or dirt of situation? If I at all implied that then allow me to say that isn't my meaning. I never claimed everyone works for work sake or that no one does. Honestly I'm not sure why you seem to be taking offense to what I am saying like I am being elitist or something so let me clear something up...
Absolutely being in a position where you can work for the benefit of society or for the love of what you do is a position of extreme privelage relative to the majority of the world....I work in global health, I do realize this.
That said it is a problem if those who are in that position of privelage are taught that they should expect a pat on the back or a reward for every little positive thing even getting up in the morning because that just breeds entitlement. If all of them just work for themselves then who is going to work a hard job for less pay for the sake of interest or passion? Who is going to be a teacher? Who is going to do research for diseases of poverty where there is no profit in it financially?
If I was claiming everyone should work for the sake of society you are right that would be a ridiculous thing to ask. Thing is I'm not saying that and you repeatedly insisting that I am saying that isnt really engaging with me at all. I feel like you are taking the other extreme to balance what you feel is an extreme position I am taking and I can't help but feel you are being overly cynical and the view you are giving is just depressing and defeatist.
Yes I realize there are people stuck in jobs they aren't happy with including teachers and scientists...but that is unfortunate, that isnt good...that isnt an ideal to aspire to. Is the world you describe the one you want to live in? Because the one we want to live in is the one we should aspire to and push society in the direction of. This "gamification" of adult responsibility isnt helping.
Those who want to be teachers, whether they like a pat on the back or not, and those who don't want to be teachers but that's their best option, whether they like a pat on the back on not. Just like it's always been.
How do you believe gamification would prevent someone from doing something they like or make someone do something they don't like if they have a better option?5 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Yes I realize there are people stuck in jobs they aren't happy with including teachers and scientists...but that is unfortunate, that isnt good...that isnt an ideal to aspire to. Is the world you describe the one you want to live in? Because the one we want to live in is the one we should aspire to and push society in the direction of. This "gamification" of adult responsibility isnt helping.
You were the one who asked what happened to working for work’s sake or working for the good of society. You have now answered your own question in the same way I did; nothing has happened to it.
That has never been the reason most people worked. It has always been the reason that some people worked. It’s the reason why some people work today; and probably in fact more than in the past, not fewer.
It’s your idea that little pats on the back that give people a little fillip every day are a bad thing that is destroying society that is really depressing.
...by the way, what is good about working for work’s sake?8 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »This sort of attitude is easy to laugh at but is actually really detrimental to society. That we should applaud ourselves or others for the most basic responsibilities of adulthood. Seems like at some point society shifted in a way where "difficult" became synonymous with "bad" and "work" was something you should try to stop doing as soon as you could. The idea that you work just as long as until you have enough to retire and not run out of money by the time you die is a depressingly self-centered view of life. What happened to work for works sake and/or work for the sake of society as a whole.
Nothing.
Can you point to a period in history where that was a widespread reason why people worked? I’ll wait.
That is a depressing thought.
I wasnt claiming that now all people work for money while previously all people worked for society or for passion. I'm saying it seems like the distribution is skewed a bit towards it being about money and how that isnt a good thing.
I'd point to the fact that certain professions tend to be about interests (sciences) and.passions (teachers and artists) while others tend to be about the paycheck (financial sector, day trader, hedge fund manager). I'd say look at the distribution of those sectors over time.
I think we should encourage and favor attitudes that work the generate new wealth by improving society health and education rather than just pushing the existing money around and making sure in the end you end up with a bigger pile. If people work because they want to improve things it will favor the creation of wealth...if they go in for the pay back it will tend to favor just pushing wealth around because that is the quicker way to personal wealth.
And to adopt your rather snarky tone can you point to a research scientist or teacher who is in it for the money? I'll wait.
I can point to a number of such people who have burned out but can’t afford to change professions.
I’m interested in the bin men, sewer workers, fruit pickers etc who work for work’s sake and/or for the good of society, though?
You could also say this is the individual's fault in creating too large of a lifestyle and being "forced" to keep a job they don't like.6 -
You don’t have to create a very ‘large’ lifestyle to not be able to get by on starting-level wages. Debts resulting from periods of unemployment or illness will do it, for example.7
-
LOL at people actually lamenting the so-called "gamification" of life. Who cares if some people add a little fun to their mundane routines? Different personalities are motivated by different things. It really isn't the end of civilization. Just because it doesn't appeal to you, doesn't make it some kind of moral or ethical weakness on the part of others. If people can have a little fun, set goals and achieve them, compete with friends and family (or just themselves) then why shouldn't they? You can enjoy what you do, contribute to your community and strive to do your best all while "gaming it up." Give me a break. Mind your own motivations. First world problems...
9 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Yes I realize there are people stuck in jobs they aren't happy with including teachers and scientists...but that is unfortunate, that isnt good...that isnt an ideal to aspire to. Is the world you describe the one you want to live in? Because the one we want to live in is the one we should aspire to and push society in the direction of. This "gamification" of adult responsibility isnt helping.
You were the one who asked what happened to working for work’s sake or working for the good of society. You have now answered your own question in the same way I did; nothing has happened to it.
That has never been the reason most people worked. It has always been the reason that some people worked. It’s the reason why some people work today; and probably in fact more than in the past, not fewer.
It’s your idea that little pats on the back that give people a little fillip every day are a bad thing that is destroying society that is really depressing.
...by the way, what is good about working for work’s sake?
The way they teach history basically goes like this: people spent all their time hunting and gathering, then we figured agriculture out, and society began. Freeing up people's time allowed specialization. Instead of everybody being a rat catcher, people could make art, build cities, discover and teach knowledge, etc.
When automation and robotics make so many jobs unnecessary, perhaps it will be another great leap forward.
I don't mean to pat myself on the back here, but I need an example. I'm a talented photographer. My landscape photos make people appreciate the beauty, and perhaps the value of nature. But that doesn't pay much, and I also know how to write coffee, which does. Paying Seattle rent, this is an easy choice.1 -
You don’t have to create a very ‘large’ lifestyle to not be able to get by on starting-level wages. Debts resulting from periods of unemployment or illness will do it, for example.
That doesn't fit the narrative though. It's all about expecting everyone to confirm to some rose tinted vision of mythical 1950s conservatism.
This thread should be titled some variant of Stepford.7 -
You don’t have to create a very ‘large’ lifestyle to not be able to get by on starting-level wages. Debts resulting from periods of unemployment or illness will do it, for example.
I'f someone is in a starting level wage job there typically isn't anything barring them from leaving for a similar paying job in a different field.
I was replying to a post that said people burn out and can't afford to change jobs. If you can't afford to change jobs you built too large of a lifestyle. Medical issues, unemployed can happen but much more frequently it's too much house, too expensive vehicles or other toys.4 -
Packerjohn wrote: »You don’t have to create a very ‘large’ lifestyle to not be able to get by on starting-level wages. Debts resulting from periods of unemployment or illness will do it, for example.
I'f someone is in a starting level wage job there typically isn't anything barring them from leaving for a similar paying job in a different field.
I was replying to a post that said people burn out and can't afford to change jobs. If you can't afford to change jobs you built too large of a lifestyle. Medical issues, unemployed can happen but much more frequently it's too much house, too expensive vehicles or other toys.
I said nothing about someone being currently in a starting level wage job. But if they burn out and want to change fields, then they’re facing starting level wages in their new field.
I really didn’t think it was that complicated. (And that’s without even considering retraining costs, increased unemployment risks due to lack of experience, etc etc)
And again, you don’t need to be living ‘large’ to not be able to get by on starting level wages. Just having children will do it!
(Yes, there are people who support a family on starting level wages. But not easily, or without significant sacrifices for the entire family.)4 -
Packerjohn wrote: »They are organizing a step challenge at work, Some of my group was going to do it so I took a look. It involves measuring steps with a tracker or phone app. Since I don't have a tracker, I looked at the recommended phone app.
When I looked at the app, this "challenge/award opportunity" came up. WTF, some app developer feels the need to "award" adult behavior (2nd or 3rd shift workers not included in this rant)?
I find it weird that so many people are mad about this. Awards like this make people feel nice about themselves and encourage positive, healthy habits. Sure, it might be a small achievement, but I really don't see the problem with this kind of encouragement. Are you really so superior that you can't see the benefits in this?
Plus, things like this can be really useful for mentally ill people. I have 'brush teeth' on my to-do list twice a day, because when in a deep depression it's hard for me to even get out of bed. It might be easy for you to take basic things for granted, but it's not equally easy for everyone.11 -
Packerjohn wrote: »You don’t have to create a very ‘large’ lifestyle to not be able to get by on starting-level wages. Debts resulting from periods of unemployment or illness will do it, for example.
I'f someone is in a starting level wage job there typically isn't anything barring them from leaving for a similar paying job in a different field.
I was replying to a post that said people burn out and can't afford to change jobs. If you can't afford to change jobs you built too large of a lifestyle. Medical issues, unemployed can happen but much more frequently it's too much house, too expensive vehicles or other toys.
I said nothing about someone being currently in a starting level wage job. But if they burn out and want to change fields, then they’re facing starting level wages in their new field.
I really didn’t think it was that complicated. (And that’s without even considering retraining costs, increased unemployment risks due to lack of experience, etc etc)
And again, you don’t need to be living ‘large’ to not be able to get by on starting level wages. Just having children will do it!
(Yes, there are people who support a family on starting level wages. But not easily, or without significant sacrifices for the entire family.)
Say an experienced engineer making $100k a year decides he/she is burnt out and would rather design floral arrangements instead (pays $25k). The engineer has a large house payment, couple cars, etc. This person can't afford to change jobs unless they start living much smaller.
1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »You don’t have to create a very ‘large’ lifestyle to not be able to get by on starting-level wages. Debts resulting from periods of unemployment or illness will do it, for example.
I'f someone is in a starting level wage job there typically isn't anything barring them from leaving for a similar paying job in a different field.
I was replying to a post that said people burn out and can't afford to change jobs. If you can't afford to change jobs you built too large of a lifestyle. Medical issues, unemployed can happen but much more frequently it's too much house, too expensive vehicles or other toys.
I said nothing about someone being currently in a starting level wage job. But if they burn out and want to change fields, then they’re facing starting level wages in their new field.
I really didn’t think it was that complicated. (And that’s without even considering retraining costs, increased unemployment risks due to lack of experience, etc etc)
And again, you don’t need to be living ‘large’ to not be able to get by on starting level wages. Just having children will do it!
(Yes, there are people who support a family on starting level wages. But not easily, or without significant sacrifices for the entire family.)
Say an experienced engineer making $100k a year decides he/she is burnt out and would rather design floral arrangements instead (pays $25k). The engineer has a large house payment, couple cars, etc. This person can't afford to change jobs unless they start living much smaller.
Where’s the problem?
The nice house and nice car are within current means.
If they decide they’d rather do something else that pays less, downsizing to something else brings them back to within their means.
Should they live in a small, modest house when they do have money in case they decide to change their situation to one where they don’t?1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »You don’t have to create a very ‘large’ lifestyle to not be able to get by on starting-level wages. Debts resulting from periods of unemployment or illness will do it, for example.
I'f someone is in a starting level wage job there typically isn't anything barring them from leaving for a similar paying job in a different field.
I was replying to a post that said people burn out and can't afford to change jobs. If you can't afford to change jobs you built too large of a lifestyle. Medical issues, unemployed can happen but much more frequently it's too much house, too expensive vehicles or other toys.
I said nothing about someone being currently in a starting level wage job. But if they burn out and want to change fields, then they’re facing starting level wages in their new field.
I really didn’t think it was that complicated. (And that’s without even considering retraining costs, increased unemployment risks due to lack of experience, etc etc)
And again, you don’t need to be living ‘large’ to not be able to get by on starting level wages. Just having children will do it!
(Yes, there are people who support a family on starting level wages. But not easily, or without significant sacrifices for the entire family.)
Say an experienced engineer making $100k a year decides he/she is burnt out and would rather design floral arrangements instead (pays $25k). The engineer has a large house payment, couple cars, etc. This person can't afford to change jobs unless they start living much smaller.
Where’s the problem?
The nice house and nice car are within current means.
If they decide they’d rather do something else that pays less, downsizing to something else brings them back to within their means.
Should they live in a small, modest house when they do have money in case they decide to change their situation to one where they don’t?
Not at all. A poster earlier said, "I can point to a number of such people who have burned out but can’t afford to change professions." I was describing how to do it, they would have to change to a "smaller" lifestyle. You said exactly the same thing I did.1 -
mortuseon_ wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »They are organizing a step challenge at work, Some of my group was going to do it so I took a look. It involves measuring steps with a tracker or phone app. Since I don't have a tracker, I looked at the recommended phone app.
When I looked at the app, this "challenge/award opportunity" came up. WTF, some app developer feels the need to "award" adult behavior (2nd or 3rd shift workers not included in this rant)?
I find it weird that so many people are mad about this. Awards like this make people feel nice about themselves and encourage positive, healthy habits. Sure, it might be a small achievement, but I really don't see the problem with this kind of encouragement. Are you really so superior that you can't see the benefits in this?
Plus, things like this can be really useful for mentally ill people. I have 'brush teeth' on my to-do list twice a day, because when in a deep depression it's hard for me to even get out of bed. It might be easy for you to take basic things for granted, but it's not equally easy for everyone.
Sincerely sorry for your depression issues.
I still stand by my opinion that "rewards" for adult behavior in normally functional individuals is ridiculous.4 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »You don’t have to create a very ‘large’ lifestyle to not be able to get by on starting-level wages. Debts resulting from periods of unemployment or illness will do it, for example.
I'f someone is in a starting level wage job there typically isn't anything barring them from leaving for a similar paying job in a different field.
I was replying to a post that said people burn out and can't afford to change jobs. If you can't afford to change jobs you built too large of a lifestyle. Medical issues, unemployed can happen but much more frequently it's too much house, too expensive vehicles or other toys.
I said nothing about someone being currently in a starting level wage job. But if they burn out and want to change fields, then they’re facing starting level wages in their new field.
I really didn’t think it was that complicated. (And that’s without even considering retraining costs, increased unemployment risks due to lack of experience, etc etc)
And again, you don’t need to be living ‘large’ to not be able to get by on starting level wages. Just having children will do it!
(Yes, there are people who support a family on starting level wages. But not easily, or without significant sacrifices for the entire family.)
Say an experienced engineer making $100k a year decides he/she is burnt out and would rather design floral arrangements instead (pays $25k). The engineer has a large house payment, couple cars, etc. This person can't afford to change jobs unless they start living much smaller.
Where’s the problem?
The nice house and nice car are within current means.
If they decide they’d rather do something else that pays less, downsizing to something else brings them back to within their means.
Should they live in a small, modest house when they do have money in case they decide to change their situation to one where they don’t?
Not at all. A poster earlier said, "I can point to a number of such people who have burned out but can’t afford to change professions." I was describing how to do it, they would have to change to a "smaller" lifestyle. You said exactly the same thing I did.
Gotcha. Thought you were implying that it was foolish for them to have purchased the larger house, etc. or that it was somehow beyond their means.1 -
So what type of rewards do you find not ridiculous? Should a marathoner not earn a medal for completing a race? Should the winner not receive a medal for winning a race? I am a normal functioning adult (who actually woke up after 9 this morning since I don’t have to work) who is motivated by seeing my daily streak in MFP, the medals I have won by winning my age groups in all distances of running hanging on my belt bar in my closet, and other such things.
I guess I really don’t care about what motivates others. If getting a sticker helps someone, great. I personally think the problem arises when there is no reward and that person has been conditioned to ONLY succeed for a reward and not because of self-gratification, survival, necessity, personal responsibility, etc.3 -
Charlene____ wrote: »So what type of rewards do you find not ridiculous? Should a marathoner not earn a medal for completing a race? Should the winner not receive a medal for winning a race? I am a normal functioning adult (who actually woke up after 9 this morning since I don’t have to work) who is motivated by seeing my daily streak in MFP, the medals I have won by winning my age groups in all distances of running hanging on my belt bar in my closet, and other such things.
I guess I really don’t care about what motivates others. If getting a sticker helps someone, great. I personally think the problem arises when there is no reward and that person has been conditioned to ONLY succeed for a reward and not because of self-gratification, survival, necessity, personal responsibility, etc.
The bolded is what IMO is the problem with all these reward things. People are starting to get conditioned that they have to have some reward for the basics.
2 -
Charlene____ wrote: »So what type of rewards do you find not ridiculous? Should a marathoner not earn a medal for completing a race? Should the winner not receive a medal for winning a race? I am a normal functioning adult (who actually woke up after 9 this morning since I don’t have to work) who is motivated by seeing my daily streak in MFP, the medals I have won by winning my age groups in all distances of running hanging on my belt bar in my closet, and other such things.
I guess I really don’t care about what motivates others. If getting a sticker helps someone, great. I personally think the problem arises when there is no reward and that person has been conditioned to ONLY succeed for a reward and not because of self-gratification, survival, necessity, personal responsibility, etc.
Running a marathon is an accomplishment, getting out of bed is not. If we start treating getting out of bed as an accomplishment it dilutes what "accomplishment" means. It is kind of like handing trophies out to everyone because you want everyone to feel good...all it ends up doing is making trophies pointless. It is more insidious than that though, if people are conditioned to expect a reward for every little thing then they will get annoyed if they don't get a reward for doing even the most basic of things and will start to avoid basic things they don't get rewarded for.
We shouldn't expect rewards, that defeats the point of a reward.5 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Charlene____ wrote: »So what type of rewards do you find not ridiculous? Should a marathoner not earn a medal for completing a race? Should the winner not receive a medal for winning a race? I am a normal functioning adult (who actually woke up after 9 this morning since I don’t have to work) who is motivated by seeing my daily streak in MFP, the medals I have won by winning my age groups in all distances of running hanging on my belt bar in my closet, and other such things.
I guess I really don’t care about what motivates others. If getting a sticker helps someone, great. I personally think the problem arises when there is no reward and that person has been conditioned to ONLY succeed for a reward and not because of self-gratification, survival, necessity, personal responsibility, etc.
Running a marathon is an accomplishment, getting out of bed is not. If we start treating getting out of bed as an accomplishment it dilutes what "accomplishment" means. It is kind of like handing trophies out to everyone because you want everyone to feel good...all it ends up doing is making trophies pointless. It is more insidious than that though, if people are conditioned to expect a reward for every little thing then they will get annoyed if they don't get a reward for doing even the most basic of things and will start to avoid basic things they don't get rewarded for.
We shouldn't expect rewards, that defeats the point of a reward.
Speak for yourself. During the times I’ve struggled with depression, getting out of bed has absolutely been an accomplishment.
And being rewarded for every little thing is actually a fairly fundamental life process. Why do you think food and sex are pleasurable, for example...?
As for avoiding basic things we don’t get rewarded for - yes, we kind of do that anyway. I am a champion avoider of housework, for example. Maybe it would be in some way morally superior for me to do the housework for the housework’s sake rather than because I can have a cup of my really good tea afterwards; but I’m willing to sacrifice moral superiority in exchange for actually having a clean house.8 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Charlene____ wrote: »So what type of rewards do you find not ridiculous? Should a marathoner not earn a medal for completing a race? Should the winner not receive a medal for winning a race? I am a normal functioning adult (who actually woke up after 9 this morning since I don’t have to work) who is motivated by seeing my daily streak in MFP, the medals I have won by winning my age groups in all distances of running hanging on my belt bar in my closet, and other such things.
I guess I really don’t care about what motivates others. If getting a sticker helps someone, great. I personally think the problem arises when there is no reward and that person has been conditioned to ONLY succeed for a reward and not because of self-gratification, survival, necessity, personal responsibility, etc.
The bolded is what IMO is the problem with all these reward things. People are starting to get conditioned that they have to have some reward for the basics.
Are you sure this is what is happening? Do you honestly believe that those who signed up for that "early bird" challenge are people who would only get it together in the morning to receive a virtual pat on the back? I can think of several reasons why someone would join such a challenge:
- Their friend joined
- As a social activity to interact with others
- Because it's called a challenge and they feel it would be fun
- Because they're a night owl and want to gradually start waking up earlier
- Because they like collecting challenges/badges
- Because the app has a button that says join
- Because they want to use it as an alarm
- Because they want to introduce new habits but are intimidated by the harder ones so they want to try their hands on an entry-level commitment
- Because they want to try the app
- Because they're trying to take it easy this week without losing some sort of a streak in the app
- Any other number of reasons
Most people don't take these rewards as seriously as some of you seem to think. They're not spelling doom for humanity. Some people may utilize them as a way to narrow focus on some things they already are considering seriously (think MFP challenges board), but it doesn't mean that they wouldn't do what they need to do unless they get a virtual high five.
A virtual high five feels nice, and people like things that feel nice, but it's just that, something that feels nice and not much more. Habits are built on wanting to feel good and not wanting to feel bad. Something as subtle as pleasantly fresh breath is a reward for brushing your teeth, which helps develop that habit.
8 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Charlene____ wrote: »So what type of rewards do you find not ridiculous? Should a marathoner not earn a medal for completing a race? Should the winner not receive a medal for winning a race? I am a normal functioning adult (who actually woke up after 9 this morning since I don’t have to work) who is motivated by seeing my daily streak in MFP, the medals I have won by winning my age groups in all distances of running hanging on my belt bar in my closet, and other such things.
I guess I really don’t care about what motivates others. If getting a sticker helps someone, great. I personally think the problem arises when there is no reward and that person has been conditioned to ONLY succeed for a reward and not because of self-gratification, survival, necessity, personal responsibility, etc.
Running a marathon is an accomplishment, getting out of bed is not. If we start treating getting out of bed as an accomplishment it dilutes what "accomplishment" means. It is kind of like handing trophies out to everyone because you want everyone to feel good...all it ends up doing is making trophies pointless. It is more insidious than that though, if people are conditioned to expect a reward for every little thing then they will get annoyed if they don't get a reward for doing even the most basic of things and will start to avoid basic things they don't get rewarded for.
We shouldn't expect rewards, that defeats the point of a reward.
Speak for yourself. During the times I’ve struggled with depression, getting out of bed has absolutely been an accomplishment.
And being rewarded for every little thing is actually a fairly fundamental life process. Why do you think food and sex are pleasurable, for example...?
As for avoiding basic things we don’t get rewarded for - yes, we kind of do that anyway. I am a champion avoider of housework, for example. Maybe it would be in some way morally superior for me to do the housework for the housework’s sake rather than because I can have a cup of my really good tea afterwards; but I’m willing to sacrifice moral superiority in exchange for actually having a clean house.
I've struggled with depression as well....doesn't mean we deserve a reward for doing basic things. I am capable of more than getting out of bed, I'm not going to consider that to be the bar for a reward regardless of psychological state.8 -
There seem to be two camps developing in this thread based on a different perception of the world....it is rather interesting.
If people are willing to respond to a hypothetical I'd be curious how these two camps divide on this example:
This year the little league season had a trophy for the one team that won the finals. Some people were concerned that this made a lot of people feel rather bad so it was decided that next year any team that participated in the season would be awarded a trophy at the end. Do you think this decision will end up encouraging more people to play or do you think that this decision will end up removing a key aspect that pushes people to compete and to excel...or do you think it will make no difference at all?
Second is the existence of "participation trophies" a recent cultural phenomena or is it something that has always been done?2 -
Everybody has different goals in life and every single person struggles with different things. I for one have a weakness when it comes to soda. I like Diet Coke with pizza and Chinese food, wouldn't really eat those items if I had to drink water. And frankly, I just like having a soda from time to time with some chips or pretzels. So when I give up soda for January, it's a REAL STRUGGLE for me. So if I bought a box of shiny gold stars to mark each soda-free day on the calendar, why should that matter TO YOU? Someone else wouldn't even bat an eye at giving up soda for a year, much less a month. Similarly, someone running a 10 minute mile might be a huge accomplishment for them; for me, I'm ticked if I run a mile that slow. I guess I just figure that if we are trying to better ourselves, whether it's by collecting stickers, badges, virtual or real rewards or not, losing weight, gaining fitness and/or strength, sleeping better, being a better worker/Mom/Dad/student/person, who cares?3
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »There seem to be two camps developing in this thread based on a different perception of the world....it is rather interesting.
If people are willing to respond to a hypothetical I'd be curious how these two camps divide on this example:
This year the little league season had a trophy for the one team that won the finals. Some people were concerned that this made a lot of people feel rather bad so it was decided that next year any team that participated in the season would be awarded a trophy at the end. Do you think this decision will end up encouraging more people to play or do you think that this decision will end up removing a key aspect that pushes people to compete and to excel...or do you think it will make no difference at all?
Second is the existence of "participation trophies" a recent cultural phenomena or is it something that has always been done?
Speaking as one of the resident pretty-old people at 62, participation trophies are a newer thing, at least in my neck of the woods. Since my childhood, competition has been de-emphasized, and rewards for superior performance de-emphasized somewhat also, for children.
I don't have a strong feeling either way about your little league question.
I think there's some social sci research suggesting that, among children, encouraging/rewarding perseverance and hard work (vs. pure excellence of result irrespective of effort/application) has some long-term payoff, but (1) I have no cites, and (2) it seems tangent to the alternatives in your scenario.
All of that said, participation trophies kinda make me eye roll, but I'm aware that that's just because I'm an ossified old curmudgeon. Hrumph!
4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »There seem to be two camps developing in this thread based on a different perception of the world....it is rather interesting.
If people are willing to respond to a hypothetical I'd be curious how these two camps divide on this example:
This year the little league season had a trophy for the one team that won the finals. Some people were concerned that this made a lot of people feel rather bad so it was decided that next year any team that participated in the season would be awarded a trophy at the end. Do you think this decision will end up encouraging more people to play or do you think that this decision will end up removing a key aspect that pushes people to compete and to excel...or do you think it will make no difference at all?
Second is the existence of "participation trophies" a recent cultural phenomena or is it something that has always been done?
I don't believe a "winner" should be awarded the same as a participant. However, the kid that played, showed up to practice when it was hot or cold, rainy, and still tried to learn the sport should receive something- a team photo perhaps, or his jersey, etc (I don't have kids so I don't know what's important to them). But no, I don't believe in awarding participation "trophies" per se. I played tennis in high school- I was first singles from 8th grade to my senior year. I was the team's best player, but I also played the hardest players in the league, some of whom had tennis courts in the backyards, private coaches, and no other extracurricular activities. As a result, my personal record was not as good as our team's record over the five years I played on it- I also was involved in other sports and activities and worked throughout the school year. But the few years that the team still won our league championships, I still considered myself a "winner" despite probably having a 6-6 record when the team had a 10-2 record.2 -
I hate participation trophies for one simple reason, and it has nothing to do with any grand ideas. I remember this one event as a kid where they gave participation medals. I got one. Kids aren't stupid and they know that it's not the same as a winner's medal. It felt condescending and I hated it. It didn't encourage me to continue pursuing that activity, but at the same time, it didn't discourage me. I was just mad at that particular event.
This, on the other hand, is different. You aren't entering a competition against others, you choose to do something which may or may not result in a badge or a reward (depending on the design of the app). It's more like getting a mug or a pen at an event than getting a trophy.4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »This sort of attitude is easy to laugh at but is actually really detrimental to society. That we should applaud ourselves or others for the most basic responsibilities of adulthood. Seems like at some point society shifted in a way where "difficult" became synonymous with "bad" and "work" was something you should try to stop doing as soon as you could. The idea that you work just as long as until you have enough to retire and not run out of money by the time you die is a depressingly self-centered view of life. What happened to work for works sake and/or work for the sake of society as a whole.
Nothing.
Can you point to a period in history where that was a widespread reason why people worked? I’ll wait.
I would say any era in which volunteer work is a significant feature would demonstrate work for the sake of the work itself (because one tends to be passionate about the selected work) and work for the greater good of society. I volunteer with a variety of organizations ranging from history and architecture to gardening and Scouting and put in quite a bit of hard work for the social good: after my day job, on the weekends and even taking vacation days; my dad has volunteered as a forensic chemist with The Innocence Project and does hazmat training for firefighters; tracing back through history you could look at both mendicant friars and the kinds of folks who honestly subscribed to Noblesse Oblige as doing good work for the sake of good work to better society.
Volunteering is a reflection of the pure joy of working.1 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »I hate participation trophies for one simple reason, and it has nothing to do with any grand ideas. I remember this one event as a kid where they gave participation medals. I got one. Kids aren't stupid and they know that it's not the same as a winner's medal. It felt condescending and I hated it. It didn't encourage me to continue pursuing that activity, but at the same time, it didn't discourage me. I was just mad at that particular event.
This, on the other hand, is different. You aren't entering a competition against others, you choose to do something which may or may not result in a badge or a reward (depending on the design of the app). It's more like getting a mug or a pen at an event than getting a trophy.
I think many people perceive life as a competition and rewards for basic participation (like getting up in the morning as an adult) being rather condescending at best and at worst instilling some pretty poor values (one should expect praise for carrying out basic functions of an adult). Personally my gut reaction to an app rewarding me for waking up in the morning is about the same as my reaction to receiving a participation trophy. Does that mean I view life as a competition? I guess, although not sure I would normally phrase it that way.
To have winners, in sport or in life, you have to have losers. We can't just all win because if we just hand out winners badges to everyone then winning has no meaning. Where we place the bar for "winning" in society does have an influence on competition and on how much we strive to excel. Call me silly but I do get a bit concerned when I see the bar being set lower and lower and lower over time.2 -
I’m 31 and participation trophies are at least 25 years old.
I got them in little league. We also knew they weren’t “real” trophies because we hadn’t won any championships. Did they make us happy that we got something and make us feel good? Yeah. But I never thought I deserved it. It was like the treat bag you get for attending a party.
We also saw the big trophies that the championship team took home. We saw the difference.
Where I fall out with the idea of participation trophies is when all contenders are rewarded equally. Fine, give the loser a trophy...but give the winner a bigger one.
It’s when things go to the extreme of “oh, we don’t keep score because we don’t want the losers to feel bad” that I have a real problem. Even as a kid I thought this was stupid.
If there are no losers there are no winners.5 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »I hate participation trophies for one simple reason, and it has nothing to do with any grand ideas. I remember this one event as a kid where they gave participation medals. I got one. Kids aren't stupid and they know that it's not the same as a winner's medal. It felt condescending and I hated it. It didn't encourage me to continue pursuing that activity, but at the same time, it didn't discourage me. I was just mad at that particular event.
This, on the other hand, is different. You aren't entering a competition against others, you choose to do something which may or may not result in a badge or a reward (depending on the design of the app). It's more like getting a mug or a pen at an event than getting a trophy.
I think many people perceive life as a competition and rewards for basic participation (like getting up in the morning as an adult) being rather condescending at best and at worst instilling some pretty poor values (one should expect praise for carrying out basic functions of an adult). Personally my gut reaction to an app rewarding me for waking up in the morning is about the same as my reaction to receiving a participation trophy. Does that mean I view life as a competition? I guess, although not sure I would normally phrase it that way.
To have winners, in sport or in life, you have to have losers. We can't just all win because if we just hand out winners badges to everyone then winning has no meaning. Where we place the bar for "winning" in society does have an influence on competition and on how much we strive to excel. Call me silly but I do get a bit concerned when I see the bar being set lower and lower and lower over time.
That's where you are mistaken. You're making many assumptions there. I can assure you that's not how the vast majority of those who participate in these challenges think.
I'll give you myself as an example. I took a Fitbit challenge where you have to walk 15k steps in a week to "hike a Vernal Fall trail". I took it because I thought the concept was interesting and I was curious what the milestones would reveal. I can walk that much in a day so it was less than basic for me. I found myself wanting to walk a little bit more throughout the day because I kept wanting that dopamine rush right before unlocking a new milestone (which resulted in finishing the challenge in one day). At no point did I think "I deserve a reward because I accomplished the basic task of walking 2k steps a day and I expect to be praised every time I take a few steps". My thoughts were more along the lines of "This is fun and it makes me feel good. I deserve to feel good".7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions