Means without ends

When I was in elementary school, I remember participating in a program that offered students $1 McDonalds coupons for every book read.  Maybe some of you remember similar programs, and perhaps you also think that it was a great idea.

Let's say little 7 year old Andrew is offered such an incentive.  Let's look at two of the shortcomings of such a program. (I'm not going to get into the dangers of awarding with food at this time.) 

• Knowing that 1 book = $1 at McDonalds, what sort of books do you think he'll choose?  Obviously the shorter and easier the books, the more he can get through, and the more coupons he'll get.  Instead of choosing longer books that may be more interesting and challenging, thereby actually having a chance of increasing his enjoyment of reading(for this post, I won't go into flow state theory and its effect optimal enjoyment), Andrew will instead take the path of least resistance.  Not only will this not increase his enjoyment of reading, his abilities will not be improved either.
• By creating an end goal wholly unrelated to the means, an inequality between the end goal and means develops.  To Andrew, a new implicit equation, where reading < McDonalds coupons, builds upon the explicit equation of 1 book = a $1 coupon.  By default, means are always worth less than the end goal.

Thus Andrew does not go to the library to find books he'll enjoy, he goes in search of the shortest and easiest books in order to build up his coupon stash.  What happens when the incentive is eventually taken away, as it always will be?  Do you think Andrew will continue to read?  Research shows that not only will his interest in reading not have increased, it may actually have decreased from whatever level it had been at the start.  

That was a bit of a long winded example, but think of the underlying mechanism in relation to the previous post.  I mentioned at the end that a key element in creating positive cycles was finding something that you can love "in and of itself."  

Let's use running as an example again, but this time it's about losing weight.  Initially, a cycle built on running to lose weight seems to work.  You want to lose weight, so you start running.  Running gets you fitter, you're losing weight, so you continue to run.  Everything looks great so far.  What happens when the weight loss tapers off, as it eventually has to?  Maybe you'll continue running, acknowledging the fact that you need to keep active to stay fit.  How long will that last though?  It is a cycle that is bound to fail.  The same goes for people who sign up to run the marathon.  They run to be able to finish the race, but what happens when the race is over?  Some stop running.  Some sign up for another one, and another and another, always chasing that end goal.  The run is never purely for the run, and as such, it will never purely be enjoyed.

When studying at Elmhurst, I had to create my philosophy of teaching.  In it I included this paragraph:

In terms relating strictly to physical education, it is my goal to focus on the affective aspects of fitness, with secondary foci on the psychomotor and cognitive, so that participation in physical activity is motivated by a love of movement and the enjoyment of being active.  By piquing their sense of curiosity for exploring the world through the use of their bodies and minds, I hope to lead my students towards an attitude which views physical fitness and activity as not only enjoyable, but also as  an equal of any other sort of personal development.

Can everyone learn to love to run?  I honestly don't have an answer to that question, but it's something that I can't stop thinking about.  In a time where everyone knows they should exercise and has enough basic knowledge of exercise techniques to be able to exercise, finding a way to tap into the affective is the key to creating life long change.