20 years ago, I thought about doing my PhD in Psychology.
At the time, I was taking Managerial Skills at the University of Toronto. UofT is ranked top 20 globally, so you should probably shut up that internal monologue and listen to me instead.
Your instincts and heuristics are adorable and have no place here, pleb.
Ahem. Sorry.
Anyway, Professor Gruman was teaching that class, and I asked him what he thought about me doing a PhD in Psych. He said,
Nobody is stopping you from walking into that library over there and checking out a book.
Good point. Besides, doing the applied degree in psychology is much more exciting. Why study something when you can study it through application, up close and personal?
Too much good research goes into journals to die. - Anon.
I think I learned more by not doing the important subjects in university. Let me explain:
When an extrinsic reward is applied to a behaviour that should be intrinsically-motivated, motivation decreases long-term.
And that’s why we call it the Skinning of Compensation, after B.F. Skinner.
Skinner famously killed psychology by mapping out the mechanics of Epicurean pain/pleasure mechanisms. In fact, when people talk about training AI, they still use the language Reinforcement Learning. I wonder where they got that idea from.
How might we align compensation in a world where extrinsic motivators kill the goose that lays the golden egg? It’s an open question.
Addendum: Nash’s Equilibrium
In the end, individuals choose compensation packages best on their best alternative to a negotiated agreement; this idea was captured by Nash’s Equilibrium.
Paradoxically, individuals choose compensations packages differently throughout their life. Before kids, they optimize for money. After kids, they balance money with healthcare packages and commute times.