Tag Archives: Incentive

Building Society on a Foundation of Kindness: Parenting Without Borders, Part 9

In the Introduction, we broached the idea that the way other cultures parent might be more “right” than the way that the culture in North America parents, as discussed in the book Parenting Without Borders. In Part 1, we looked at some of the different cultural thoughts around sleep. There was also that stunning example of how it’s normal for babies in Scandinavia to be found taking a nap on the terrace in the dead of winter! In Part 2, we explored “stuff” and how having more of it might not be best for our children. In Part 3, we looked at how different cultures relate to food in the context of parenting. In Part 4, we looked at how saying “good job” to our little ones might not have the effect we think it does. In Part 5, we talked about the virtues of allowing our little ones the space to work through problems on their own. In Part 6, we examined the importance of unstructured “play.” In Part 7 and Part 8, we explored what education is like in East Asia and Finland. In Part 9, we’ll look at cultural notions about rearing our children to be kind.

If you’ve been following this series, no doubt there may have been some things that have made the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end. And if that hasn’t been the case up to this point, it wouldn’t surprise me if this chapter is the one that finally does it.

One of the first anecdotes, while it shouldn’t be, is still a bit shocking [Emphasis Added]: “In 1970, the primary goal stated by most college freshmen was to develop a meaningful life philosophy; in 2005, it was to become comfortably rich.” It’s no wonder that the way we treat each other in today’s society may seem a bit different than the way we treated each other 50 years ago (“-isms” like racism and sexism aside, of course). As a quick aside — how different would society look like today if the goal of 90% of university students was to develop a meaningful life philosophy, rather than to get rich?

Near the beginning of this chapter, Gross-Loh recounts how some of the parents she knows are emphasizing (possibly unintentionally), individuality over community awareness. What does that mean? Well, for example, she retells the story of a mother of a three-year-old rushing to comfort her son after her son had thrown a wooden toy and hit Gross-Loh’s son in the head. The idea behind this is that the other parent was trying to get her son to understand the feelings he felt that precipitated the chucking of the wooden toy at the other kid.

Allowing children to behave as they want to until they feel like acting differently actually makes our kids more miserable and less compassionate. Children who have too few boundaries often flail around for a solid surface to ground them.

Consequently, it’s up to us — as parents — to set these boundaries and more importantly, enforce them. Building on this idea of boundaries…

Believe it or not, research shows that children are born with a sense of kindness, but that’s not enough. If this sense of kindness isn’t fostered and reinforced by parents, it can be “overwritten.” Similarly, research has shown that kids are happier when they’re giving something to someone else than when they receive it. That shouldn’t be too surprising (spending your bonus on your coworker will make you happier than spending it on yourself!). An important aspect of this is incentives. If we reward kids for sharing through incentives, we may unintentionally dissuade them from developing a sense of internalizing the virtue of sharing (thereby dissociating sharing from its innate spontaneity and instead, teaching our children to expect an external reward whenever they share).

Two more things I wanted to highlight from this chapter —

Parents who teach their children to speak with authenticity and honesty but do not simultaneously teach them the art of being considerate send their children the message that it is always better to be honest to your true self even if it means hurting someone.

And finally, a difference in orientation in American and Japanese cultures:

While American mothers often orient their babies to things apart from themselves, such as objects, Japanese mothers more often orient their babies to themselves, encouraging a constant awareness of relationships and the impact of one’s actions on other people.

[…]

In disagreements that warrant adult intervention, kids are asked what they think the other person felt that motivated him.

Can you imagine how different American society would be, if every kid is taught the value and importance of considering the underlying motivations of the actions of their friends and other people?

Advertisements

Chapter 2 – Fines vs. Fees: What Money Can[‘t] Buy, Part 2

In the first post in this series, I chewed on the material from chapter 1 of Professor Michael Sandel‘s book, What Money Can’t Buy. The first chapter was all about jumping the line (or budding, as I remember it from my elementary school days). In Chapter 2, the theme was incentives.

I had finished reading chapter 2 a little while ago, but I’d been busy recounting the bits from that paper over the last several days, so I’d sidelined a post about chapter 2. Now that I’ve finished the paper (A Collection of Scriptures for Guidance), I thought I’d chew on the material from chapter 2.

As I said, the title of chapter 2 was incentives. There were a few things that I wanted to highlight (though, I thought the whole chapter was fascinating). In particular what stood out to me were three things: incentives (and the perverting of incentives), fines vs. fees, and paying kids to read. Let’s start with the last one, which will link to the first one.

Nowadays, some parents pay their kids to read. In fact, some schools encourage the idea of rewarding children for reading. At first, this seems like a great use of the free market, right? Incentivizing the reading of books to get kids to read more books. Except, what if part of the pleasure of reading is the pure desire to read? By paying kids to read, it robs them of that intrinsic motivation. In fact, by paying kids to read, it could de-incentivize them from reading when there is no reward involved (perverting the incentives).

In thinking about this example, it made me contemplate just how hard it can be for lawmakers (i.e. Congresspeople, Members of Parliament, etc.) to write legislation that will properly incentivize the citizens to act in a way that is best for themselves (and the town/city/county/country, etc.). Paying kids to read seems like an easy way to get kids to read, but when one plays out the incentive and considers the unintended consequences, one can see how this perverts the intent of getting kids to read.

The next piece I wanted to talk about was fines vs. fees. This part was really interesting to contemplate. From the book:

What is the difference between a fine and a fee? It’s worth pondering the distinction. Fines register moral disapproval, whereas fees are simply prices that imply no moral judgment. When we impose a fine for littering, we’re saying that littering is wrong… It reflects a bad attitude that we as society want to discourage. Suppose the fine is $100 [for littering] and a wealthy hiker decides it’s worth the convenience of not having to carry his empties out of the park. He treats the fine as a fee and tosses his beer cans into the Grand Canyon. Even though he pays up, we consider that he’s done something wrong. By treating the Grand Canyon as a dumpster, he has failed to appreciate it in an appropriate way.

Sandel goes on to talk about how this fines vs. fees attitude can also be applied to disabled parking spaces, speeding, the subway/metro, renting videos, and many others. I found this discussion especially interesting because of the moral-ness to it. When one is creating fines, one is (whether one means to or not) using morals. We don’t think it’s morally right to litter and that’s why there’s a fine for littering. Paying to park your car in a garage is a fee.

There’s one more passage that I think was really important to remember from this chapter:

But why does this mean that moral philosophy must enter the picture? For the following reason:

Where markets erode nonmarket norms, the economist (or someone) has to decide whether this represents a loss worth caring about… The answer will vary from case to case. But the question carries us beyond predicting whether a financial incentive will work. It requires that we make a moral assessment: What is the moral importance of the attitudes and norms that money may erode or crowd out?

If you liked this post, you might like one of the other posts in this series: