motivation: why it matters (via Emily Nagoski :: sex nerd ::)

Love this post. I never knew before the difference between a drive and a desire and whether that made a difference in my sex life, but it most surely does. There is nothing wrong with us, no matter how powerful or little our drives are! Now that’s good news.

Again, the story so far: A drive is a system whose job is to make you do something that will return your body to balance. With sex, there is no "balance" point to return to; therefore sex is not a drive. Instead it's an "incentive motivation system," which means that rather being pushed by your internal imbalance to do something, you are PULLED by desirable things in the environment. You have a mechanism in your central nervous system, called SES … Read More

via Emily Nagoski :: sex nerd ::

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “motivation: why it matters (via Emily Nagoski :: sex nerd ::)

  1. Thank you for pointing me at yet another excellent blog. This woman is a real asset to Blog World – a scientist with a palpable enthusiasm for her subject and its power to help explain aspects of our behaviour, and yet she has the wit to be aware of, and articulate its limitations.

    Her “SIS” and “SES” as expressions of motivation to do or not to do things, throw up all kinds of thoughts. For example, some people represent their motivation as if it was all in one inexorable direction, somehow lessening their responsibility for an action. Whereas the motivational battle she describes illustrates that anyone who says “I couldn’t help myself” is probably lying.

  2. I like how she says that certain hormones and brain chemistries don’t mean that we are unchangeable or that we can’t help what we do. There is a fine line there and some people are weaker at controlling things than others, but if we don’t reward our behaviors so profusely perhaps we won’t keep building up these motivations toward something. Like everything else doing or not doing takes practice. Isn’t the wisdom in knowing what’s beneficial to us or not?

  3. I would agree with you, and we all know what is really best for us when that “SES” is nice and quiescent. It’s clear that some of our strongest urges would have us believe that what’s beneficial for us is satiating them – beneficial in the short term. We may be called upon to make distinctions when we’re least equipped to make them. Ms Magorsky’s “SIS” hopefully comes to our aid in reminding us that there will be consequences to satisfaction, life after satiation, and asking us what do we want that life to be like?

    Fingers, legs, or whatever helps, crossed.

Comments are closed.