Quote Originally Posted by Kiwigrunt View Post
Here is an interesting 10 minute clip on how incentives don't always produce the results we like to think they should.
Nothing to do with the rest of your post or this thread.
There are numerous studies like the ones that Mr. Pink cites in his book. Mr. Pink's argument, along with many other books, is essentially that people do not behave "rationally" as we think of it. Of course, the problem isn't with people - the problem is that we have a flawed concept of "rationality", which of course, then leads to flawed concepts of what constitutes incentives.

We think of rationality as an objective mindset that should produce predictable if-then rules. Suppose I put you in front of a chess computer with 10 levels. To incentivize you, I offer you $1 for each game won. You have one hour. Objective rationality says that you should keep the game on level one to win as many games (and as much money) as possible. However, (and this experiment has been done), most players will almost immediately select a higher level of difficulty.

Why is this so? Because rationality is subjective, not objective. Each person's subjective reality is really a combination of rationality (subjective assessment of what is best for me), culture (deeply held values and assumptions), and emotion (excitement, beauty, and fulfillment). Playing against level one is simply boring. This model explains why people jump out of airplanes - or, to use Mr. Pink's example, do not respond to monetary incentives.

Mr. Pink's argument is not that people do not respond to incentives - it is that our flawed concept of objective (and simplistic) rationality lead us to offer the wrong incentives.

So, how does this play into the discussion about the PT test? Mr. Pink's argument doesn't help us a whole lot because we are at a different level on Maslow's hierarchy. Autonomy, mastery, and purpose (Pink's big incentives) are all associated with higher levels of need on Maslow's hierarchy.

In contrast, if you fail or do poorly on the APFT, you may lose your job. Having a job is a very low-level need. The lower the need on Maslow's hierarchy, the easier it is to predict behavior based on incentives. If I point a loaded gun to your head and tell you to give me your wallet, we have now arrived at the lowest level. The incentive is pretty clear, and I can predict your behavior with a high degree of reliability. The higher we go on the hierarchy, the more complex and diverse each person's vision of subjective rationality becomes, and the more difficult it becomes to predict and incentivize behavior.

The bottom line is that people will train to the test because there is a lot at stake if you fail or do poorly on the test. If you want to change physical training to be more battle-focused, you must change the test to incentivize the training.