In reply to:
Why would you have to "compensate" someone for a pleasant experience?
*Edit: I assume you can infer from my other responses what I would say to this, but in case you can't, I'll answer cutely that, "Some whores enjoy their work."
I am unable to predict your responses; we seem to adhere to two different schools of logic. The prostitute example is neither funny nor very realistic, but, if applicable, it would once again demonstrate the power of dissonance reduction. Just like the statement:
I have no interest in "digital ****-dueling."
In reply to:
One can experience intrinsic enjoyment of the anticipation and excitement of a reward without enjoying the action that will yield the reward.
Definition: An intrinsically motivating action is one that you'll keep doing even if you take away the external reward component. Once you need an external (extrinsic; hint: there is a "ex" in both words, it might actually carry some meaning!) reward to stay motivated, it's no more an intrinsic thing. Funny enough, you defined the OP's example as extrinsically motivated yourself earlier, when you write:
Sometimes people "enjoy" doing things they don't really enjoy doing because they perceive the rewards to be worthwhile (note that, like in this case, future pride and enjoyment is an extrinsic motivator)
These are well-defined scientific terms; you can't mix up their respective meanings just because it pleases you to do so. Well, technically you can. The point is just: things like this will lower your credibility in the eyes of readers who actually have a deep (and not just broad) understanding of what we are talking about. And I more and more get the impression that Kachi is not one of those.
In reply to:
As for the definition of cognitive dissonance, in Ed Psych it refers explicitly to the narrower application I described.
No. The definition of CD as "the notion of perceptions being shown to be inconsistent with reality" is simply wrong, and I (needlessly) double-checked that this also applies to Educational Psychology. It's like a horse riding on the rider. It looks funny, but it will get you nowhere. There is not a single source on the whole internet that supports your opinion. And that's meaning something, as the internet is pretty fat on BS.
In reply to:
You would be far from the first person who did not accept that I was right about something, and my resolve to allow people on the internet be wrong grows e'er stronger by the day.
I believe the first part of that sentence, hands down; and I guess the second pretty much sums up the lesson I just learned. For those who are really interested (and competent) in the matter at hand, the facts and sources quoted should be pretty self-evident anyway.
Remember, Kachi, I didn't start this discussion. But your initial claim:
That article actually seems to more aptly discuss the notion of overjustification to me. Customarily in my field cognitive dissonance refers more exclusively to the notion of perceptions being shown to be inconsistent with reality. They're related concepts, but I tend to agree with the controversy section that reward salience had more to do with the results in the studies cited than cognitive dissonance.
was, from head to toe, just such a pile of uninformed smart-assing, that I couldn't resist. And up to now, you've done nothing to alleviate that impression.
"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."
Alexander Pope (whoever that guy was...)
P.S.: In razor-sharp, undeniable contrast to you, I wholeheartedly admit that I like to digital ****-duel sometimes. I may be an a*hole - but a full-blooded, upright (and perhaps a little hot-headed) guy nonetheless.
Hmm. Funny imagination floating through my head...
A full-blooded, upright a*hole, going to prepare some food... ;)