
Against Willpower (2017) - user_235711
http://nautil.us/issue/45/power/against-willpower
======
__MatrixMan__
I thought I came up with this independently--glad to hear it's not just me.

I quit smoking by pretending there were three of me: past, present, and
future. Initially, it was up to present me to conspire with past me to trick
future me into doing what we wanted. This took the form of letting my social
group see me tearing a cigarette into little pieces every time I usually would
smoke one. Destroyed about two cartons this way. I knew they'd make fun of
future me for being so wasteful if I ever started smoking again.

Once we got a bit of traction when it comes to reigning in that jerk (future
me) we began to realize that diplomacy was more effective than trickery. The
compromise now is exactly one cigarette per year. Five years in and I think
all parties are happy with the agreement. There's a sort of trans-temporal
respect we're building.

This may sound like the ravings of a madman, but people occasionally comment
on how balanced and in control I seem to be. I think it's a better way.

~~~
Reedx
Sounds like you created a system instead of a goal. Check this out:
[https://www.inc.com/john-boitnott/dilbert-s-scott-adams-
on-w...](https://www.inc.com/john-boitnott/dilbert-s-scott-adams-on-why-it-s-
better-to-have-a-system-than-a-goal.html)

------
goldemerald
I feel like the other commenters here are missing the point of the article.
The current scientific understanding of motivation and willpower is severely
lacking. The author is pointing out this fact. And while he does not have a
thorough discussion about a solution, it doesn't take away from his thesis:
willpower is poorly defined.

~~~
gryfft
I agree with you, and felt the article was well-written. While reading the
first half of the article, I was mentally preparing the comment I would leave,
thinking that the author was casting a false dichotomy: that, in keeping with
the exhortation of Yoda, all one must do to achieve anything is cast aside
artificial mental limits.

"Of course willpower _exists,_ " I thought. "The fact that it's limited is a
symptom of the fact that we are physical entities, and like a muscle, we can
exercise it gradually over time to expand that resource."

A few paragraphs later, the author directly addressed the "muscle" analogy,
and tore down the points I had intended to make.

I would say the author does point to several concrete examples of superior
approaches, including the powerful tools of reframing, moderating
physiological response, self-distraction, and building tolerance to and
managing negative emotional response.

I felt that the author's examples of how the concept of willpower has been
used to shift blame in society were powerful, as well. I think that evolution
has given us a strong bias toward the idea that if trying something doesn't
work, trying much harder will. Extinction bursts are one example of this. The
counterproductive flicker of rage I sometimes feel when working with
uncooperative, small, delicate parts, which insists I should use large amounts
of physical force, is another. Large amounts of physical force are seldom the
right solution in modern times, but in the ancestral environment, it likely
was.

I am glad I finished the article. It fits with most of my beliefs, but has
also changed my mind, which is the hallmark of a great think piece, in my
humble opinion.

~~~
scotty79
> The counterproductive flicker of rage I sometimes feel when working with
> uncooperative, small, delicate parts, which insists I should use large
> amounts of physical force ...

I specifically remember learning to control those impulses as a child while
playing with toys that consisted of sealed, plastic labirynth with few small
metal balls inside that you are supposed to guide to few specific indented
spots in the labirynth.

I count this learning experience as one of my greatest lifes achievements.

------
dade_
My experience managing my own procrastination for years makes me think this
could be true. I go to the gym to avoid cleaning my aquarium, I'll rewrite a
software module for a personal project to avoid some undesirable work. The
avoiding activity doesn't seem to take any willpower, but does when they
become the avoided activity. Last winter I didn't go on vacation, but took 2
weeks off to catch up on personal projects and training, etc and what I
realized is that those side projects require more than full time hours. As the
story about the wine drinking lawyer in the blog post, maybe the problem is we
don't really appreciate how much stress we are under. It causes anxiety that
makes it extremely difficult to act.

~~~
WhompingWindows
I'm also against the idea of willpower in general. All of the people I know
with the most "willpower" are just those with great habits; they're not
actually exercising willpower 95% of the time we think they are. They're just
doing their regular routine and they didn't have to act contrary to our
perception of their wants/needs.

Some podcast I was listening to had an Olympic athlete on it, they asked her
how she avoided slipping up on dietary things like birthday cake, free pizza,
etc. She said she doesn't use willpower, she just has a couple bites only.
It's this rule she lives by, no stress, no anxiety, just a couple bites and
that's it.

I guess I'll follow her lead and take a couple of bites out of this SQL
task...

~~~
matwood
> All of the people I know with the most "willpower" are just those with great
> habits; they're not actually exercising willpower 95% of the time we think
> they are.

Exactly. Willpower and motivation are fleeting. Real change comes from
building habits with self-discipline. This is also why when I want to make a
change I do it every day and/or on a very fixed schedule.

People ask how I get up every morning at 6am and workout. I have been doing it
for so long I don't really have an answer. It is just what I do. Do I always
_want_ to get up and workout? Not really, but what I want doesn't matter. I
get up and do it anyways.

~~~
ohaideredevs
"Do I always want to get up and workout? Not really, but what I want doesn't
matter. I get up and do it anyways."

That's because it's a habit. We are both conditioned chimps. Working out takes
NO willpower for us.

~~~
matwood
Yes. It's just self-discipline at this point. I find habits and self-
discipline to be closely related.

Where willpower/motivation does come into play is the formation of self-
discipline and habits. People often need that spark to get started. Look at
someone like Goggins with insane self-discipline now, but if you listen to his
story it took some very low moments for him to find that initial motivation.

------
darawk
This article does nothing to demolish willpower as a concept. It's strikingly
poorly argued. Yes, there are tactical transformations of concepts or
situations you can make to encourage yourself to do the right thing. If you
want to diet, not keeping potato chips in the house is easier than having them
there and white-knuckle resisting them every moment of your life (or it is for
me at least). However, _both_ of those things take a certain level of
willpower. The second one may take exponentially more, and therefore be a bad
choice to make, but it takes some level of will to even avoid buying the
chips.

The author tries to present it as though the mere fact that you can have
cognitive strategies for improving these decisions destroys the concept of
willpower. But it doesn't. Both of these things can be true. We need to get
better at teaching people how to re-conceptualize things to improve their
willpower, but they also need to have some in the first place! If you have no
willpower, all the strategies in the world aren't going to prevent you from
eating that cupcake.

I will also add that I am a former addict, and had the same experience as his
patient. A big part of quitting for me was indeed a reconceptualization of the
issue. But that doesn't mean it didn't _also_ take will. If you tell people in
treatment that all they need to do is reframe their addiction, you're lying to
them, and they're not going to get better. Yes, reframing is important, and so
is a life-architecture that avoids dangerous situations, but there are going
to be moments in their lives where their drug of choice is available to them,
and in those moments, there is no substitute for will.

~~~
rconti
I got bored and couldn't finish the article, but I was leaning towards your
opinion.

In any event, it only seems to argue against willpower _versus addiction_. As
someone who has spent his life on-and-off exercising, I finally made a more
long-lasting change and have lost 50lbs in 18mo and I'm in the best shape of
my life. There's no secret, but the more time you spend thinking about it and
focusing on it, and putting it in practice, the easier it gets. To me, it's
mostly willpower.

To the article's credit, however, I've had much better luck exercising
regularly and cutting out bad foods than I have at cutting out alcohol :)

~~~
pmarreck
I'm 12 down and trying for 50.

I'm 46, 6'3", 245.

Frankly it is difficult as a m __ __ _f_ __er. It feels like pure willpower as
I 'm not naturally athletic. Orangetheory is helping (holy crap, what a
workout!), but also LoseIt (the app). Been at it since November and only have
10 lbs to show. But I will keep at it.

Interesting thing- what finally hooked me exercise-wise was the _mental
boost,_ not the physical benefits (which are also great). And the Orangetheory
workout is just great- and cost-effective.

I'm going to end up being in the best shape of my life at 47. I wish I had not
waited this long.

~~~
nradov
Exercise is great for many reasons, but if you want to lose 50lbs you're going
to have to focus on the input side. Eating about 500kcal/day less than
maintenance level will get you to your goal in about a year. Most people find
that rate sustainable.

~~~
pmarreck
Yep, that's exactly what the LoseIt app is doing for me.

But I have to log every single thing I eat (and my personal rule is "before it
enters my mouth"), and that becomes quite onerous after a few months.

~~~
rconti
I'm not sure if this helps or hurts your motivation, but meal tracking was the
one thing I said I'd never do ("I'd rather die than be one of those miserable
calorie-counters"), but when I started (I use MyFitnessPal, but all should be
the same), it was the best thing I had ever done. Not just for results, but
for the positive feedback loop. To see, in realtime, "hey, I'm on track to
lose 2lbs this week" and then see it show up on the scale, just made it the
one thing I ever did that worked.

Without tracking, your inputs and outputs are so disconnected. You might 'eat
right and work out' out for a month, and see zero results, and give up. In
fact I've done dry january maybe 3 years, and each time I said "well, I guess
alcohol's not a problem, because I didn't lose a pound!" It's so easy to tell
yourself these obvious lies when you're motivated to hear them, and don't see
evidence to the contrary.

The other thing is, it made me realize that most of my habits were actually
really good, but the few bad ones were far worse than I thought, from a
consumption standpoint.

I've been tracking meals for the whole 18mo, and I barely even notice it
anymore. I stopped entirely when I went on a 3 week vacation to south america,
but the nice thing is, it's so easy to pick up where you left off.

------
Glyptodon
Self-control is a really important skill and it seems to be somehow
trained/learned/acquired. To the extent that it's analogous to willpower I
don't find the author terribly persuasive.

Though I do agree it is pretty well known that ego depletion isn't replicating
and that there's no magical way to strain your mind like some sort of non-
fraudulent Uri Geller and achieve "willpower."

I don't think the article made its point cleanly.

~~~
criddell
Ego depletion isn't the same thing as decision fatigue, is it?

------
beat
For those interested in this subject, I recommend reading _Atomic Habits_. A
lot of what gets credited to "willpower" (whether a success or a failure) is
really a function of habits. Becoming conscious of habits, and changing
triggers, stacking habits, etc, are _far_ more powerful than "willpower".

And, as the author pointed out, "willpower" is used as an excuse for
injustice. That should make us uncomfortable, not more comfortable.

------
dcow
So what do we call it? Resolve?

It’s a very interesting article with a tantalizing suggestion that if we just
redefine the problem, then we can pass the blame and find other solutions. But
I don’t think I buy the logic. Take the litterbug example. The author argues
that a more finessed understanding of what motivates people means we don’t
have to hold people responsible for littering and can look at big soda for
manufacturing litter in the first place. It’s tempting, who doesn’t hate soda
these days? But if we don’t hold people responsible for their actions then who
is? How do you structure ethics and laws in a socierlty built on preserving
individual liberty if you delete ego?

I’m sure in psychology it’s useful to understand how priorities shift and
evolve over time. I hear the point that scientific understanding is lacking.
Great! But I’m not sure I’m onboard for the extent to which the author argues
this should impact our society with respect to human ego. Maybe I’m just not
ready to submit to the swarm...

------
jkingsbery
> Ideas about willpower and self-control have deep roots in western culture,
> stretching back at least to early Christianity, when theologians like
> Augustine of Hippo used the idea of free will to explain how sin could be
> compatible with an omnipotent deity.

Depending on one's definitions, "willpower" and "temperance" are synonymous.
While Augustine certainly wrote about self-control both in Free Will and
Confessions, he was largely borrowing ideas from Cicero, who largely borrowed
from Aristotle and Plato (see e.g.,
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_virtues](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_virtues)
for a history of this). I don't understand why the author would only go as far
as Augustine instead of the 800 years earlier than Plato. The distinction
matters because this isn't just a thing that Christians made up to figure out
how to make life compatible with a deity we happen to believe in, it's an idea
that many thinkers independent of religious perspective have agreed with as an
important aspect of having virtue, happiness, eudaimonia, or whatever other
term one wants to use.

> The limited-resource concept likely has its roots in Judeo-Christian ideas
> about resisting sinful impulses

Citation needed. It seems the much more common notion in Western or Judeo-
Christian tradition is that all the virtues are practiced habits, and we
therefore get better at them as we do them more often. This can be seen in
either the writings or living example of at least the following: Plato,
Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, the St. Benedict, St. Anthony and the Desert
Fathers, and Francis of Assisi, but probably in lots more.

If the author's claim (that the Judeo-Christian taught the limited-resource
concept) were true, then fasting or abstinence like many of us are doing now
in Lent would make no sense - fasting is an exercise in willpower. If using
willpower made you more likely to not use it later, making it more likely to
sin, fasting would make you more likely to sin, not less likely, which would
be the opposite of what it's trying to accomplish.

If I recall correctly, I think many of them also said something about when
free will is impaired, so although the author does the standard "look, these
people were simple and thought X," trope, I think it's a great deal more
complicated than that.

Obviously, the usual qualifications apply - one may not agree with any of the
above, but it seems that one should represent it accurately.

------
sonnyblarney
I think that patterns of behaviour, and avoiding circumstances and triggers,
and even things like cognitive behaviour therapy can have a profound effect,
so maybe it's that 'willpower' is important, but it's only in a given context
...

Once I'm in the habit of going to the gym, it's a lot easier. I've allocated
the time. I know the ins and outs, my gear is ready, I know what I'm going to
do, it's the 'natural course of action' for the day.

It takes much less 'willpower' to rationalize doing (or not doing something)
when the forces you're up against are different.

Also, I think some people have much greater perspective of consequences. Some
people live in the moment, and want the rush or feeling of whatever they're
about to do. Others can rationalize better how it will affect their lives down
the line.

I'm just a little wary of somehow rejecting the notion that 'will', especially
as it relates to choice ... doesn't even exist.

------
dang
Discussed at the time:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13559072](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13559072)

------
arthur5005
Genuinely insightful. Great article.

------
mrrobotchicken
I wish the article mentioned more about how John and Thomas are similar. Cause
topic for me felt like "men without self=control" and gender is not mentioned
once, baffling. Could not continue to read.

------
dwags
if it works for you then keep on keepin' on

------
dragontamer
I've taken precisely one psychology class in my entire life, back in High
School. But the most important lesson of Psychology was that Psychology itself
is a very young field filled with dangerous pseudoscience. (The only younger
field is maybe Computer Science, but even Comp. Sci has mathematical
traditions that go back centuries). There's a ton of false-science which
"sounds correct" but fails to yield any real results when under test.

For example, Sigmon Freud, while one of the first true scientific minds of
Psychology, still created the theory of Psychosexuality. The full theories of
psychosexuality is utterly insane by today's standards (Ex: Freud's theory
that male children undergo an "Phallic phase" wherein they develop Oedipus
Complex and sexual attraction for their mother:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_complex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_complex)),
but its important to study them if only to understand how easily pseudo-
science develops. Also, lots of people still believe in Sigmon Freud's
ramblings, even today (Ex: Freud's "Anal Retentive" and "Anal Expulsive"
theories are still colloquial concepts, even as modern psychologists have
dismissed the idea). So knowing the pseudo-science helps you dismiss the
irrelevant stuff.

So under this context: is "Willpower" just as busted as a concept as Freud's
Psychosexuality? By demonstrating "Willpower's" roots in Victorian-era
literature, this article really speaks to those who have actually studied
Psychology: this was a dangerous era that was filled with pseudo-science. And
therefore, we must question the concept of Willpower.

\----------

With that being said: pseudo-scientific concepts may give rise to true
science. The pseudo-science of Alchemy gave rise to Chemistry (Robert Boyle:
an Alchemist, is credited with both Chemistry and the modern Scientific
Method). But its important to recognize pseudoscience, so we can advance as a
people. Alchemists were very wrong about "elements wish to return to
perfection: closer to God"... but those Alchemists were the ones who first
defined the elements to begin with!

And Freud's ideas of Id, Ego, and Superego ultimately gave rise to modern
Psychology and experiments. Perhaps "Willpower" should be treated in the same
respect. There's clearly an element of self-control that exists, but it is
perhaps poorly understood by... at least... laypeople.

Once again, I'm not very studied in Psychology. But I do know enough about
Skinner-boxes and the strong scientific experiments that define addiction.
Getting people addicted to something is a very well understood science
(precisely exploited by Slot Machines and Loot Crates in modern video games).
We all want a solution to addiction, but whatever the answer... its not well
understood by laypeople yet.

\-----------

The article may be a bit provocative by dismissing Willpower from the get-go.
But I'm in agreement with its discussion. Perhaps willpower as a concept is at
least partially incompatible with reality. But how is it wrong? What concepts
of Willpower are false? And is there any nugget of truth we can extract from
the concept of Willpower?

~~~
rootusrootus
My problem with the concept of willpower is twofold.

First, it has a distinctly moral component to it. The implication is that you
have failed as a person if you lack willpower. We discuss willpower as if our
minds are purely rational things, which they most assuredly are not.

Second, it does not recognize the asymmetry of arguing with yourself.
Especially with things like diet or addiction, your mind will simply remake
the playing field to suit itself, and win. There is a reason 99% of everyone
who diets to lose weight has failed at the five year point. The only way to
succeed is to introduce a mental disorder: OCD.

~~~
dragontamer
Its far simpler than that! For the proper scientist, there is only one
question with regards to Willpower:

Can you design an experiment which demonstrates the concept of willpower?

There are "concepts" of Willpower that people believe: does "Willpower" run
out when you keep using it? Or does "Willpower" get stronger the more you
exercise it? Or is Willpower just completely wrong and completely a red
herring?

That's how the field of Psychology ACTUALLY advances: with people performing
experiments on hundreds of people, to determine fundamental facts of how the
human brain / human behavior works. The first two questions ("exhaustion of
willpower" and "willpower exercise") can potentially be experimented. I'm
wondering if any studied Psychologist knows of any experiments which can
answer those questions.

\---------

Without experiments, the field of Psychology death-spirals into pseudoscience.
It is EXPERIMENTS that ground us back into reality (Pavalov's Dog. Skinner's
box. Etc. etc.) That's my lesson from Psychology class.

Operant Conditioning exists and is 100% reproducible. Slot Machines and Loot
Boxes are designed to follow Skinner's experiments on conditioning. Perhaps we
can define "Scientific Willpower" as the (theorized) ability to resist
conditioning, and develop experiments in that direction.

I mean, people CAN quit slot machines, and give up on video-game loot boxes
eventually. Why? What causes people to leave the Skinner-box? Is it an
internal-force (ie: "Willpower")? Or is it an external stimulus? Skinner's
experiments only studied the addiction-part of the cycle, it seems like the
"quitting" part is still an open question.

------
angelorck
Whats the concept of Will Power? You as an individual giving orders to
yourself to act like in a certain way. And remember your so called will power
is vulnerable to your surroundings and nature. And its gonna break you at some
point. Instead of "Will Power" take "responsibility" for your actions and
accept you have to change for your better future.

------
danschumann
If you're trying to get up and don't feel like it.. flex one muscle really
hard like your abs.. then a few seconds later your brain will let u get up

------
OldSchoolJohnny
There is no such thing as "willpower" and there is also no such thing as
"motivation" ([https://medium.com/swlh/theres-no-such-thing-as-
motivation-e...](https://medium.com/swlh/theres-no-such-thing-as-
motivation-e02edd7de30)). These are both complementary pre-scientific beliefs.
Modern, well done science is pretty conclusive on these matters and it needs
to be more widely known so we can progress forward as a species.

