Money and Judgment
A reader disagreed with the idea of paying kids to read books so I made additional comments:
Yes, it is quite obvious that continuing to pay students to develop a love of a thing will not increase or decrease the love of that thing. I have said nothing contrary to this.
I did say this. That had I been paid years earlier to read a book I would have discovered earlier the rewards of reading and would have had several years head start beyond that which happened. As it was, I still required incentive to develop a love of reading – boredom. Boredom forced me toward my discovery of the benefits or reading, but money could have done the same thing.
My point in my post is that judgment is the key to using money as an incentive and that is a point not covered in any research. Research generally uses black and white parameters with little or no judgment involved.
For instance, good judgment would indicate that money would not be much incentive to read books for a kid that already loves to read. On the other hand, good judgment in the use of money can help even a good reader to increase their knowledge.
Let’s suppose the kid has a part time job to earn money for something important in his life. The kid mentions to the parent that he wishes he had more time to read books, but his job seems to take most it.
The parent sees the value of the kids desire for knowledge and replies, “I’ll tell you what. If you will indeed spend your spare time in reading you can quit your job and I’ll pay you to read instead. How does that sound?”
The kid is thrilled and is much happier to get paid for reading than dreary work. It’s a win win in his book.
Money can be an incentive to any chosen action, but it is not an incentive to create love. It can push in a direction so you can discover something you love or provide the free time so you can do what you love.
Reader: Your overall reply you are basically saying that paying kids to read is good because it gets them interested in books that it’s beneficial. That was your argument you were making yes?
JJ: No. That’s not what I was saying. I was saying that if one uses good judgment in providing incentive through the use of money the results can be positive. If good judgment is not used the results can be mixed or negative.
Reader: Paying kids to read that adds an extra incentive factor into the mix, that interferes with the natural incentive [called intrinsic incentive] needed to fulfill certain ambitions that is to do with self esteem and satisfaction of obtaining a self set goal [that cannot be brought and monetary rewards only interferes with that process]
JJ: Concerning some black and white program with no judgment involved such as paying kids a set amount to read books I don’t see the results as 100% bad the way you seem to but mixed.
The bad is that the kid is not relying on his own incentive and if the program continues too long he may not read much unless he has outside incentive.
The good is that he reads books he otherwise would not have read and will have the knowledge in his head the rest of his life. In some cases the habit of reading will grow into a love of reading that will continue with him when the payments cease.
The reader maintains that research backs up the idea that paying kids to read does not work.
JJ: You do not provide enough information about the research for us to even make a judgment on it.
You’re being black and white here, allowing no room for judgment. Suppose we applied this reasoning to a study that says that kids who watch TV are not as smart as those who do not watch it. By your reasoning then kids should never watch TV.
On the other hand, a parent with good judgment can guide the kid to watching programs that will stimulate his learning that will be missed by the kid with no TV.
You are wrong to say point blank that money cannot be used as a good incentive to read if good judgment is used. As I said, if my parents had promised me $10 to read a book at the age of ten, I think that would have been a great help.
Reader: But you have gone back to “it’s a judgment”, as your point. And my point is that the theory established on it already says paying them to read is not productive to their well-being.
So you are trying to bypass the incentive theory here and ignore the research, by making your own logic up on it again.
JJ: I’m not bypassing it but speaking from the wholeness viewpoint on the overall principle of being motivated by money. Any incentive theory is just part of the principle involved.
Reader: But this is completely different to our initial issue and you have thrown a totally different condition in there now. You are adding variables into the subject.
JJ: That is what I do here. If you want a teacher that follows black and white protocol and is 100% predictable you are in the wrong place. Follow what I say and comment on my actual words and you will be less discombobulated.
Reader: By the time the student learns or appreciates the value in reading, he’s going to be left with the fact that he was paid, to do so and the one paying could take credit. And this is an assault to their goal setting initiative and overall capability at the task at hand.
JJ Your statement makes no sense. First, if I had a teacher that wanted to take more credit than he deserved or was just feeding his ego with my success I’d tell him where to go. I’d neither give him glory neither would I allow him to take away any of mine. He would in no way interfere with me basking in the gory of my own accomplishments with or without him.
Then linking money to the teacher doesn’t correspond much. Money has been partially responsible for a lot of things I have done in my life, from going to college to learning a number of valuable skills. I don’t go around moping “I am unworthy” because money is involved.
Another reader says: I think JJ was exactly right that many people have an emotional blind spot about money. I think the guy shows every symptom of judging anything as bad if it involves money.
JJ: He’s certainly got me wrong. My life is not built around monetary gain and there are many things that money cannot buy from me, but if someone offered me $1000 to read a book, I would probably do it, for there would be no harm and I might learn something.
I wanted to leave this convoluted conversation of paying kids to read, but on reflection I thought I would say a few more things – in the hope of presenting some clarification.
Let me recap the history.
I posted a video by Michael Sandel who supports the theory that paying kids to read books has negative results and asked the group what they thought.
After the group response I posted my overall view which was basically this. Money can be used as in incentive for almost anything and in some cases the results will be positive and in others negative. One must use good judgment on a case-by-case basis if he wants positive results.
For some reason my answer inflamed one member who not only thought this was totally wrong but accused me of changing the subject.
I think the key to his thinking here is to look at why he accuses me of changing the subject and here is my conclusion.
I think that hew was wanting me to give a black and white answer that didn’t involve the concept of judgment. He wanted me to either say paying kids to read is 100% a good thing of 100% a bad thing. He didn’t want me to give any answer that was in between the extremes.
The reason, I see as twofold.
[1] Of late he is bent on proving me to be wrong and if I gave a black-and-white-paying-kids-to-read-is-good answer then he felt he had the necessary ammunition to go after me.
[2] He sees money as evil, except for buying necessities, and if the case is made that paying kids to read is sometimes helpful then this goes against his mindset and cannot be accepted.
So the problem boils down to this. He wanted to argue on black and white letter of the law turf and not on anything involving judgment or exceptions. Even if I had said that paying kids to read was bad 90% of the time and good 10% of the time he would have been upset and attacked me over the 10%, as if I had said 100%. That’s the way black and white thinking works. Even a 1% exception is like 100% to them. I am 100% wrong in his mind, case closed.
The result of a mind using judgment arguing with a mind using the black and white mode is almost always misunderstanding. I have understood the reader, but he doesn’t understand me. For instance, he thinks I disagree with the research he presents. The truth is nothing I have said conflicts with his expert which says this:
“that reward can actually stifle intrinsic pleasure in learning- a prediction largely supported by available data.”
I agree with this 100%. Reward “can” stifle pleasure. Notice the use of the word “can.” This means it does not always do this but can have that effect at times. In other words, it would take judgment to see the difference and guide the outcome to success.
This is the same principle as rewarding the poor with money and food stamps. This can stifle them from achieving success, but not always. For some it will help them to survive until they can take care of themselves.
The bottom line of the whole situation here is that the guy is not arguing with me but a straw man, as we basically agree on the core principle. I just do not go along with the idea that paying a kid to read is flatly 100% bad or that paying money to create incentive is 100% evil. Each situation requires some judgment.
Use soft words and hard arguments. – English proverb
Nov 22, 2012
Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE
JJ’s Amazon page HERE