A Rhapsody on Wellness
Or, August is National Wellness month, giving me an excuse to write about my favorite theory of wellness.
August is National Wellness Month. To mark the occasion, I wanted to interview someone about a theory of wellness I have referenced many times here at Rhapsody: Self-Determination Theory. I’ve decided to interview….myself. Why? Because the theory is a passion of mine and frankly, I wish people would ask me about it, but that is not a normal thing to do. So I will ask myself questions I wish other people would ask me, simply because I want to give the answers.
Wellness is not simply about being happy. Being happy is a temporary emotional state, or a mood. Someone who is “well” will still experience a range of human emotions. They will be happy, sad, angry, and frustrated. Wellness is also not hedonism. It is not a pursuit of one’s physical desires. Finally, wellness is also not purely subjective: There are objective needs in order to achieve wellness, and these needs exist whether you are aware of them or not. Physiologically, a person may think he or she does not need certain nutrients to be healthy, but that doesn’t change the fact they do need those nutrients. SDT posits—and I find the argument compelling—there are also psychological needs that exist regardless of our awareness of them.
So, Joe, how does Self-Determination Theory define wellness?
I’ll cite the authors directly for this one: “In the SDT view, wellness is better described in terms of thriving or being fully functioning rather than merely by the presence of positive and absence of negative feelings. Thriving is characterized by vitality, awareness, access to, and exercise of one’s human capacities and true self-regulation.”
In other words, wellness is the ability to follow your passions and become the best version of yourself.
OK, let’s back up: What is Self-Determination Theory?
It is a theory of human motivation, development, and wellness.
Why do you care about it so much?
It is the most thorough and satisfying theory of human behavior I have ever encountered. It satisfies all the elements of a good theory. It has helped me to understand myself and others.
To be super over the top about it: It feels like having a skeleton key to understand what motivates human behavior, the implications of which are infinite.
What is the “elevator pitch” of Self-Determination Theory?
We all have three basic psychological needs: Competence, autonomy, and relatedness. The more we experience these things, the better off we are. The less we experience them, the worse off we are1.
There are lots of theories of motivation, and there are lots of theories of human development. What makes this one so special to you?
Great question!
When presented with other theories of development and motivation, there are serious gaps2. For example, Sigmund Freud’s theories were supported by little to no lab research and don’t really explain children at all. This shouldn’t be a shock because Freud was never really around children. That’s not to say his work is not important or useful—it is—but not because it was correct. Another important developmental psychologist who focused on how individuals are formed by societal influences, Erik Erickson, put forth theories that suffer from a Western bias and also are mostly observational therefore lacking an explanation of underlying developmental mechanisms.
SDT, which grew out of work on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, was first formulated as comprehensive theory by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan in the 1980s and has spawned thousands of studies and voluminous research on six of the seven continents. It has demonstrated the capacity to explain past events and predict future events and it’s expanded to accommodate new research while retaining its core precepts.
While the entire theory is complex and contains multitudes of nuance, the overarching idea that human beings require three psychological factors for motivation and wellness is quite simple and, dare I say, elegant. Einstein once said of his famous E=MC2 that it would be a shame for humanity if it wasn’t true because it’s such a beautiful formula. Much in the way his General Theory of Relativity is a simple formula on the surface but complex beneath, SDT is straightforward yet robust.
OK, I’m persuaded enough to continue the conversation. But the theory seems to have one big hole in it: Nobody can really be fully autonomous, can they? I mean everyone is being told what to do all the time.
Dang, these questions are so good! First of all let me plug this essay I wrote about freedom.
It’s true there are all kinds of social constraints on our lives, so we can’t do exactly what we want all the time. Humans are inherently social creatures, which is why SDT is concerned with individuals and how social contexts either support or thwart their basic psychological needs.
Autonomy is in many ways the most important of the needs and the most complex, so bear with me. We often think of “autonomy” as doing exactly what we want to do, so like, maybe you just want to play video games all day or go golfing or watch every season of Love Island on repeat until you’re speaking with an Essex accent. But what autonomy is truly about is acting in accordance with your authentic self. In SDT—not to get too in the weeds—your self is constantly processing and integrating new information, and some of that information is about things you need to do—like go to the doctor, go to work, or take your kid to football practice. When you endorse these actions on a cognitive level, you are acting autonomously.
Ever notice the best salespeople don’t try to jam a product or service down your throat? They make you believe that you need something and, in fact, you are deciding to buy it yourself. They make your decisions feel autonomous.
This has huge implications for coaching, teaching, managing, and parenting.
Like what?
Well, think about how people respond to directions. When you are trying to motivate someone, you want to know what to say and how to say it. What SDT’s research shows is that people are more likely to internalize, authenticate, and act when feedback and instructions are informational rather than controlling.
Let’s say you have two teachers. One teacher explains why it’s important to learn your history lesson, how it might serve you, and why they think you’ll enjoy it. Contrast this with a teacher who simply says, “You have to learn it because I’m the teacher and I said so.” Which teacher do you think is supporting their students’ autonomy? Which teacher is thwarting it?
Can you back up a bit and talk about that idea of the self and how it integrates information?
Yeah, this is important. One of the meta assumptions of SDT is that humans are organismic, which means that humans have evolved with a tendency toward growing more complex. We have an intrinsic drive to learn and master new skills. We also have an intrinsic drive to socialize and form communities and groups. We are constantly observing and learning new information about the world and integrating that information into our sense of self.
Here are examples of this in the real world. A child is constantly observing their surroundings and learning how things work. Before they can speak, they observe the general communication pattern that a person talks, another person responds, and so forth. They understand that pattern and replicate it. It’s become integrated into their model of how the world works.
Depending on where you are born in the world, you are exposed to and integrate different social norms and values. You become aware of the consequences for following or bucking these social norms, and so in this way, they are integrated into your sense of self.
OK, but practically, how could we implement SDT anywhere, let alone on a national or even global scale?
Well, first of all, I can’t do it myself. Neither can you. But we can begin applying these principles in the organizations of which we are a part. In this way, we can improve the lives of people closest to us and over whom we have some influence or responsibility. This could be a workplace or a youth baseball team or a knitting club. It applies equally in all social contexts. If we start small and local, it can grow and blossom over time.
Have you considered that you just want to believe this?
Yeah, all the time. I spend a lot of time looking for SDT takedowns. Thus far, I’ve found nothing serious or persuasive. I keep in mind that day may come. But so far, SDT has demonstrated an ability to handle new data and new discoveries. The theory is decades old and only grows more comprehensive.
I guess I still don’t get why you are so into this. It's so academic—why would the average person need to know this?
How we motivate others and ourselves permeates society on every level. Parenting is about motivating children to take actions. Teaching is about motivating students to learn and become the best versions of themselves. Coaching is teaching in a different venue. And all the while, we have to find motivation for ourselves. On a societal scale, decisions made by policymakers are ways to influence behavior of citizens.
Assumptions about what motivates people are built into the fabric of society. Agree with it or not, a basic premise of the American experience is that money and wealth motivate people. In pursuit of wealth, individuals will create businesses that produce goods and services for people. Another implicit assumption held by many is that without religion, people would lack motivation to act ethically and morally. Our legal system assumes that fear of punishment motivates people to follow the law.
Sources of motivation, and assumptions about motivation, are everywhere. And motivation is inextricably linked to our happiness. It seems to me that because of how pervasive understanding human motivation is to human behavior and ultimately human wellness and happiness, we should try to get it right. And I think SDT has it right and much of society has it wrong.
Are you suggesting money doesn’t motivate people?
Money absolutely motivates people. There is no doubt about that. But it’s not the only thing that motivates people nor is it the most effective way to motivate people. Therefore, it seems unwise to make it the foundation of our socioeconomic system.
How else could we motivate people to produce the things everyone needs? There are a lot of jobs that need doing that aren’t much fun. Not everyone can do exactly what they want.
There are also a lot of jobs that simply do not need doing and only exist to enrich others. There are entire industries that add nothing of real value to the world, but because they make money for people we deem them OK and good. Why is that?
I think this question includes an unhelpful word—fun. A rewarding experience and fun are not necessarily the same thing. In fact, some of the most rewarding experiences are not fun at all, yet provide us with a sense of satisfaction and meaning. For example, running is not always fun. But I run because it feels good to finish a run, I know that it’s good for my health, and it feels good to hit the goals I set for myself. I’m not running because anyone is forcing me to do it. I’m not being paid. I enjoy it—but wouldn’t necessarily say it is fun.
OK, but you still want to run. Does anyone want to be a garbage collector?
First of all, yes they do. Have you ever seen a little kid’s eyes light up when they see a garbage truck? It’s like they are witnessing the moon landing. It’s only after we’ve socialized to believe that somehow some kinds of professions—what we often call “blue collar” work—is somehow less valuable or less deserving of acclaim than “white collar” work, even though we will always need garbage collectors and people functioned for hundreds of thousands of years without Wall Street bankers or private equity firms.
SDT research shows most people want to contribute to society in a meaningful way. They want to know they matter and are valued. However, in a capitalist society like ours, “monetary value” and “societal value” are not perfectly correlated. In fact, they are barely correlated at all. This leads to distorted societal views on various professions, which leads to distorted societal views about people.
This is starting to sound anti-capitalist.
Having read the entirety of Self-Determination Theory, it doesn’t suggest capitalism is a good system for human wellbeing. In fact, they regularly allude to the fact “Western” culture leads people to value the wrong things—wealth, status, and beauty—that aren’t correlated to wellbeing. In fact, they are correlated with depression and other pathologies.
Why?
One could argue—and I am doing this very thing—SDT research suggests that what Western culture is primarily good at is producing unwell individuals who struggle with depression and anxiety because they lack an understanding of what will make them feel joy and happiness.
That’s a pretty bold statement. The entirety of Western culture?
Yeah, pretty much. We emphasize wealth, beauty, and fame and wonder why so many people are burnt our or depressed—even when they are wealthy, beautiful and/or famous.
How could society shift away from extrinsic values toward intrinsic values?
Hoooo boy. If I had a good answer for that, I probably wouldn’t be interviewing myself. It would be hubris to think any one person could solve this, or even like 100 or 1000 people. It would require a huge societal shift in values that would probably take generations. But some specific ideas:
Our education system, as far as I can tell, is heavily geared toward ensuring that students come out of school prepared for a job. But as I’ve discussed, a lot of our jobs are soul-crushing and useless aside from making other people money.
It would be great if our educational system put an emphasis on identifying what children enjoy doing and then guiding them toward ways to pursue their passions in a productive way. For many, school feels like an endless series of exams, which provide access to more exams, and eventually for a job that may or may not have anything to do with your passions, but provides an income.
This, of course, is a reflection of societal values. Everyone is obsessed with STEM these days because there are jobs in STEM—jobs that make people money. Yes, we need scientists. We need developers. We need engineers. We need mathematicians. But if people are choosing these careers because of the potential for financial gain rather than the intrinsic joy they provide, they are doomed. That’s not hyperbole. They will lead unhappy lives spending a majority of their time doing something solely for money.
So, this was a lot. What if I said, I can only remember like three things? What should I remember?
Humans are organismic.
Humans have three basic psychological needs that are necessary for human flourishing. Supporting them increases wellbeing. Thwarting them increases illbeing.
SDT is an empirically based theory of human motivation, development and wellness.
Where could I learn more?
You can visit the Center for Self-Determination Theory’s official website.
You can read the the theory itself in its entirety (as I did).
You can keep reading Rhapsody (recommended).
To expand a bit for those interested:
Competency is the feeling of efficacy or mastery, the feeling you get when you complete a task or learn a new skill. Are you good at your job? Did you just nail a new recipe? Making progress learning a language? Beat a video game? All different ways of experiencing competency.
Autonomy is the sense that your actions are authentically endorsed by yourself. You are in control of what you are doing.
Relatedness is a sense of connection with other people. Humans are social creatures. We want to be valued members of a community whether that is our natural or adopted family, our workplace or really any type of organization or community.
I've also written about these things in several other essays, including, but not limited to, the following:
Here are seven qualities of a good scientific theory. I provide them here because I think they’re a good heuristic you can use as you encounter various theories in your life.
1. Does the theory reflect the real world where humans actually live?
2. Is the theory supported by convincing evidence?
3. Does the theory explain the past and predict the future?
4. Can the theory handle new data and new discoveries?
5. Does the theory stimulate new research and new discoveries?
6. Is the theory clearly understandable? Does it simplify rather than complicate the real world?
7. Is the theory self-satisfying? In other words, does the theory of an aesthetic quality that produces an emotional reaction?