American psychologist Steve Kelner has some interesting things to say about motivation on his website. Not just about looking at what motivates the writer, but also when thinking about characterisation. He's also been posting some interesting exercises on his blog.

Worth a look.

Cas

Cas,
I view with suspicion a great deal of this 'psychological-based' research, testing and conclusions. Much of the 'testing' is faulted in some way or another and many premises stated by the Psychologists can be justifiable accused of being biased or twisted to reflect an interpretation or conclusion.

If one studies only one aspect of this carefully we have three motivational forces, yet another respected contributor identifies no less than 50! "Ah yes," say the experts, "but three of them are the most common, the most recognised and the most 'researched'". Then there is the unwritten attempt to put people into one or other of these three boxes.

So much 'research' that comes from America is nonsense and rubbish - on all matters including health, slimming, food AND psychology.

My own experience in the marketing field covered well-published research into 'subliminal advertising' and 'pupil dilation testing'. I wrote Articles in the Trade Press on the nonsense of the dilation tests conclusions. Not on the research methods themselves but on the conclusions that were arrived at. The same applies to much of the research into the field of Psychology.

Len

I do wish people would stop referring to weblogs and online diaries as 'blogs'. It's quite possibly the least attractive word ever conceived.

Well, Len, I'm not pretending this is the be all and end all of anything. I thought it was an interesting way of looking primarily at characterisation, and worth sharing for that reason.

And yes, I totally agree, Americans can talk a lot of bullshit when it comes to health, slimming food and psychology.

Cas

IB,

I don't agree with much that you say on WW but on this occasion I am with you... it is the most horrid of words... more suited to a description of cesspit remains.

Cas,

I think what gets up my nose about a great deal of the American so-called 'research' is the position of intellectual superiority that so many of those involved assume when 'presenting' their research 'findings'.

These 'results' are the most dangerous when we consider the whole field of psychology. In itself, a questionable 'science' inhabited by many who learn a lot through studying the habits of animals. Even here they attempt to interpret observations in human terms, underlining what they consider to be 'human' traits and then vice versa.

'Characterisation' is another of those words beloved by psychologists. Ten psychologists, ten individual definitions.

Nevertheless, thank you for putting this on site. I am sure that there are many who do not agree with me - this means a healthy Society.

Len

'Blog' is horrendous but I think 'blogger' is even worse.

It sounds like something that lives under a bridge and eats raw liver.

On the other hand, I like 'wonk'.

Cea,
I think 'wonk' sounds like a young apprentice chef in a Chinese restaurant - or is this a 'wonker'?
Len

I've never used 'wonk' at all. I use 'blog' because that's what most of the people who write them call them. I have a journal but that's because mine is a Live Journal rather than a blog.

Cas

(trying to motivate herself to write the next chapter)