`  ==Endless problems here!== Hi there! I have several issues with this entry, with the exceptions of my own texts. 1. Why was my introductory text removed? As it is now, I'm very displeased with the change. Authority bias disclaimer. I teach psychology at the university. I've written a thesis on motivation. I have an ongoing research project on motivation. By these notions, I should have some kind of authority here, yes? When I teach, my students read text books and Internet sources. They repeatedly and consistently confuse motivation with emotion and personality. Therefore, I wish that my initial text that explains the differences between these concepts should be reinstated. Furthermore, the Geen (1995) definition is not a simple opinion - it's the most accepted definition in the research community. As written now, it appears that this Geen fellow just has an opinion, whereas the initial text is something else, right?  2. There is a major difference between research perspectives on motivation. If you have a textbook on management, organizational psychology, leadership or even economy, you will find that the definitions and theories in there will not mesh very well with theories in educational psychology. There are different paradigms and the criticism from one to the other is very harsh, particularly researchers who feel that empirical evidence is critical for progress in the field such as educational psychologists (who often try to motivate pupils in school contexts). Other researchers, or philosophers, (who writes about working contexts) feel that writing about what they think about people's or employees' intentions, motives and motivation is interesting and useful. The former group tend to dismiss the latter's texts and theories as bullshit. This is also evident in these forums. Just check out the entry on Maslow. Therefore, I suggest breaking up this entry into these two perspectives. If we do not break it up more cleverly, this entry will very likely confuse readers. I myself am quite sceptical, and I strongly dislike the fact that some very poor or heavily criticized theories are put alongside theories with much better (or any) scientific standing. For the unskilled layman, this gives the impression that they are of equal value within the scientific community, which is simply not true.   How about this? ``Motivation is studied in various academic and corporal fields, roughly, these fields can be categorized into... A. Educational psychology B. Animal psychology C. Organizational psychology D. Economic theories E. Philosophical ideas F. Whatever more someone else might come up with  3. I hope, for dear science, that Freud's ideas on subconscious motivation will not be included here. Just because a famous person say something does not make it true. I suggest that anyone who wishes to write about that, there will be plenty of space under the Freud as person entry. However, using Bargh's preconscious motivation or intention is okay with me.    Clebo   `