Reply With Quote
I almost missed the artist question, until I caught the "abstract" qualifier. And yeah, I picked the Rhine instead of the Danube. I had a few 50/50 questions, some I got right, some I didn't.
I didn't try to figure out the difference, but I did answer the second as well. Our understanding of extrinsic motivation must not be the same as theirs.
I almost missed the artist question, until I caught the "abstract" qualifier. And yeah, I picked the Rhine instead of the Danube. I had a few 50/50 questions, some I got right, some I didn't.
Well, extrinsic motivation is motivation from an outside source. In this case, the motivation to win may be INTRINSIC, but it's validated by an EXTRINSIC source.
The other three answers are all examples of a person motivated intrinsically to do something. The actor may not necessarily care about the role, but cares about the attention/Grammy he will receive from external sources.
Activism isn't always personal. It becomes how one believes in the issue, and is addressing an external source. I guess right or wrong, the act makes activists feel better.
That was a difficult one for me.
I had the same thought process and missed the question. Oh well.
Right, but I think in this case, they're trying to say that the activist does things out of a personal desire/motivation to see things changed. (Self-actualization or something like that.)
The whole point to me was that the activist's actions are validated whether or not government is changed, because the activist is still espousing what he/she believes. That doesn't seem to be the case for the actor (as the question seemed to be worded that the actor is doing the role for the possibility of a Grammy, not because he think it personally validates him.)
Look at the way the question was worded:
"An actor gives a great performance in the hopes of winning an Academy award"
He's not doing it because he thinks the subject is powerful, because he personally believes in the role he played, etc etc. He's acting well for an outside confirmation of his abilities.
The activist isn't saying, "I'll rail against the government in hopes that the audience will agree with me."
But he is doing it for himself. the activist is more likely doing it for others.
Let me dumb it down.
It's the difference between a kid doing well at school because they want to achieve their best, and a kid doing well at school because their parents told them they could get a new toy if they got straight A's.
They both are "doing it for themselves", but the second kid wouldn't be personally motivated without outside influences.
I get that. My problem is over reading the idea. I am to take the question an an actual fact that some deity level of understanding knows the reasons to be as said.
This is why most tests say "Choose the BEST answer" and not "Choose the CORRECT answer".
I never was good at most tests. I am great with factual based tests, but not those that require you to choose from someone else's perspective, or one that makes you think in such manners.This is why most tests say "Choose the BEST answer" and not "Choose the CORRECT answer".
When I was a senior in high school, I never took an electronics elective. Studied it at home, but never in school. I challenged the Electronics II class and took a term of Electronics III. My passing score was 97%. That is scientific factual stuff though. I get screwed up with more abstract concepts. When I took my testing for my current employment, I got a 95.7%. There were some rather interesting problems as well. Give me something that is even partially abstract, and I am lucky to get 80% or so. In the Army, my MOS qualification scores were always in the 90's.
That one was not too hard to figure. you had to know what the word extrinsic meant and compare all the answers you could tell one had outside motivation( winning an award ).
16
That's how I understood it too, and answered correctly.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions