Discussion Forum > On Willpower
Sorry about the half-baked post. I can't edit or delete it for some reason. And my thoughts are still cooking so i didn't mean to submit.
March 19, 2016 at 21:56 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Looking forward to the final product! :-)
March 21, 2016 at 1:33 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Some of these ideas have been cooked further: ( http://web.mit.edu/holton/www/pubs/Weakness.pdf )
"Weakness of will arises, I shall suggest, when agents are too ready to reconsider their intentions."
Mark's simple scanning process addresses this I think. The process allows you to survey options for consideration of intention and so removing ambivalence over other options allowing commitment and intention to one action.
"Weakness of will arises, I shall suggest, when agents are too ready to reconsider their intentions."
Mark's simple scanning process addresses this I think. The process allows you to survey options for consideration of intention and so removing ambivalence over other options allowing commitment and intention to one action.
March 30, 2021 at 16:22 |
michael
michael
I have NO idea where I was going with the highschool physics lesson.
Currently I believe willpower is nothing other than brainpower, (meaning available energy, not intelligence). If you are fatigued, it is harder to do math, and it is harder to convince yourself not to eat cake, but it's the same fatigue, same lack of power. If you change your mental attitude such that the cake is generally less attractive, it doesn't take as much willpower to resist. If you change your math prowess to be able to more easily add sums, the math is easier.
So a day of exhausting labour or a day of confounding math or a day of making emotionally difficult decisions, all of these drain your willpower similarly because it's just a question of fatigue.
"Weakness of will arises, I shall suggest, when agents are too ready to reconsider their intentions."
This is evocative. Following through takes more effort when you are considering options. It's not that you have less willpower when reconsidering your intentions, but by committing you reduce the willpower required. By considering other options as you are endeavoring to proceed, you are dividing your efforts and multiplying the power required. Therefore, make your consideration concise, and then commit wholeheartedly either to proceeding or to stopping. That keeps the mental burden lowest.
Currently I believe willpower is nothing other than brainpower, (meaning available energy, not intelligence). If you are fatigued, it is harder to do math, and it is harder to convince yourself not to eat cake, but it's the same fatigue, same lack of power. If you change your mental attitude such that the cake is generally less attractive, it doesn't take as much willpower to resist. If you change your math prowess to be able to more easily add sums, the math is easier.
So a day of exhausting labour or a day of confounding math or a day of making emotionally difficult decisions, all of these drain your willpower similarly because it's just a question of fatigue.
"Weakness of will arises, I shall suggest, when agents are too ready to reconsider their intentions."
This is evocative. Following through takes more effort when you are considering options. It's not that you have less willpower when reconsidering your intentions, but by committing you reduce the willpower required. By considering other options as you are endeavoring to proceed, you are dividing your efforts and multiplying the power required. Therefore, make your consideration concise, and then commit wholeheartedly either to proceeding or to stopping. That keeps the mental burden lowest.
March 30, 2021 at 19:54 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
It's been a while since I have read a purely philosophical paper. LOL And of course, it's more ontological than it is practical.
My biggest issue with the paper is of course, that it doesn't do what it didn't set out to do, which is to show me how I can practically address the issue of weakness of will and how to fix it if I have a weakness of will!
Of course, what it did do is give me a name for something else that I have, which is capriciousness, in that I will constantly oscillate back and forth among options without being able to stick to one, even though, and perhaps especially because, I know that there is no right answer, but only competing answers that are all good choices to me, making it very hard for me to commit to any single one of them. A very grass is greener situation in which I am never happy with one option because it means I'm not taking the other option.
My biggest issue with the paper is of course, that it doesn't do what it didn't set out to do, which is to show me how I can practically address the issue of weakness of will and how to fix it if I have a weakness of will!
Of course, what it did do is give me a name for something else that I have, which is capriciousness, in that I will constantly oscillate back and forth among options without being able to stick to one, even though, and perhaps especially because, I know that there is no right answer, but only competing answers that are all good choices to me, making it very hard for me to commit to any single one of them. A very grass is greener situation in which I am never happy with one option because it means I'm not taking the other option.
March 31, 2021 at 4:44 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Michael says:
"Mark's simple scanning process addresses this I think. The process allows you to survey options for consideration of intention and so removing ambivalence over other options allowing commitment and intention to one action."
For my part, I am not sure I am finding this to be true. I'm finding that the vision that I gain from seeing many options on the list and the somewhat myopic question that simple scanning requires (picking one thing to do right now) lends itself towards too much reconsideration. I find myself somewhat more likely to be bombarded by options that are likely to feel desirable in the moment, but which after the moment has passed, I am not pleased with having done them instead of another option. This does relate to a weakness of will, I think, in that the simple scanning process I think enables me to excuse myself in going against an intention that I might have simply because it is on the list and "well, gotta do it some time" even though the reality is that the thing I am choosing to do might be totally up to date. These are things that tend to be innately satisfying, such as checking email or social media, because they have the psychological promise of novelty and excitement. On the other hand, some other items don't have that same innate draw, and they might represent my intentions relating to the future, but are much more easily derailed. I find it somewhat easy to waste a lot of time in those other things.
Admittedly, a month into working with GIRKIR or thereabouts, I am getting better about this, but I'm not sure I'm better to the point where I feel that my time management is fully under control across my whole day. I still think that a simple scanning based system tends to encourage too much reconsideration and might even enable a weakness of will versus encouraging one to stick with an intention by default. I think the default case with simple scanning is the ability to change your mind, whereas I think maybe it's a good idea for your system to encourage *not* reconsidering over time, and require a conscious effort of will to break from a direction, rather than require a conscious effort of will to stick with a path.
In this I suspect that systems that link together dependencies, such as 5/2, Next Hour, or the various FV/P variants might provide a bit more focus and intentionality, and that might be better for completing difficult objectives more readily. But that's just a theory at this point. I think I'll have to try a few more systems over a long period of time to determine what the actual differences are for myself.
"Mark's simple scanning process addresses this I think. The process allows you to survey options for consideration of intention and so removing ambivalence over other options allowing commitment and intention to one action."
For my part, I am not sure I am finding this to be true. I'm finding that the vision that I gain from seeing many options on the list and the somewhat myopic question that simple scanning requires (picking one thing to do right now) lends itself towards too much reconsideration. I find myself somewhat more likely to be bombarded by options that are likely to feel desirable in the moment, but which after the moment has passed, I am not pleased with having done them instead of another option. This does relate to a weakness of will, I think, in that the simple scanning process I think enables me to excuse myself in going against an intention that I might have simply because it is on the list and "well, gotta do it some time" even though the reality is that the thing I am choosing to do might be totally up to date. These are things that tend to be innately satisfying, such as checking email or social media, because they have the psychological promise of novelty and excitement. On the other hand, some other items don't have that same innate draw, and they might represent my intentions relating to the future, but are much more easily derailed. I find it somewhat easy to waste a lot of time in those other things.
Admittedly, a month into working with GIRKIR or thereabouts, I am getting better about this, but I'm not sure I'm better to the point where I feel that my time management is fully under control across my whole day. I still think that a simple scanning based system tends to encourage too much reconsideration and might even enable a weakness of will versus encouraging one to stick with an intention by default. I think the default case with simple scanning is the ability to change your mind, whereas I think maybe it's a good idea for your system to encourage *not* reconsidering over time, and require a conscious effort of will to break from a direction, rather than require a conscious effort of will to stick with a path.
In this I suspect that systems that link together dependencies, such as 5/2, Next Hour, or the various FV/P variants might provide a bit more focus and intentionality, and that might be better for completing difficult objectives more readily. But that's just a theory at this point. I think I'll have to try a few more systems over a long period of time to determine what the actual differences are for myself.
March 31, 2021 at 4:52 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu:
I think the key to this discussion is the word "oscillate" which you used in your first comment.
There have been some very big issues in my own life which I have oscillated about, plus a myriad of lesser ones.
What's the difference between the ones I have resolved and the ones I haven't?
Oscillation is normally between two (or more) incompatible choices which one can't decide between. Since it's impossible to choose two incompatible things at the same time, there are only two ways of coping with this:
1. Oscillate between them.
2. Commit to one for ever - "for better or for worse".
The second is the only way to stop oscillation. Basically what one is saying to oneself is "I don't know which of the two is the right one, but I do know that oscillating between them is worse than either."
Usually when one commits to one, one learns to work it in a much deeper way which makes it the right choice for you.
I think the key to this discussion is the word "oscillate" which you used in your first comment.
There have been some very big issues in my own life which I have oscillated about, plus a myriad of lesser ones.
What's the difference between the ones I have resolved and the ones I haven't?
Oscillation is normally between two (or more) incompatible choices which one can't decide between. Since it's impossible to choose two incompatible things at the same time, there are only two ways of coping with this:
1. Oscillate between them.
2. Commit to one for ever - "for better or for worse".
The second is the only way to stop oscillation. Basically what one is saying to oneself is "I don't know which of the two is the right one, but I do know that oscillating between them is worse than either."
Usually when one commits to one, one learns to work it in a much deeper way which makes it the right choice for you.
March 31, 2021 at 10:23 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
< Therefore, make your consideration concise, and then commit wholeheartedly either to proceeding or to stopping.>
One day after inferring this tactic from Holten’s line. This worked so well for me, I’m feeling like this is the ANSWER to RESISTANCE. It’s not a quick answer, and it’s still tied into all the emotional stuff so it’s not a foolproof answer, but spend a couple minutes of deliberation and find it is now much easier to do the thing -or to not do it, according to your decision.
One day after inferring this tactic from Holten’s line. This worked so well for me, I’m feeling like this is the ANSWER to RESISTANCE. It’s not a quick answer, and it’s still tied into all the emotional stuff so it’s not a foolproof answer, but spend a couple minutes of deliberation and find it is now much easier to do the thing -or to not do it, according to your decision.
March 31, 2021 at 21:17 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu:
< Therefore, make your consideration concise, and then commit wholeheartedly either to proceeding or to stopping.>
Can you give some examples of how you would make practical use of this?
< Therefore, make your consideration concise, and then commit wholeheartedly either to proceeding or to stopping.>
Can you give some examples of how you would make practical use of this?
April 1, 2021 at 10:58 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I think the problem with "Therefore, make your consideration concise, and then commit wholeheartedly either to proceeding or to stopping," is simply that it's a little like Nike's Truism, "Just do it." Sure...in the end, it all comes down to just doing the thing that "should" be done for whatever definition of should you want. But there's a big question of how to develop the capacity to do that effectively that isn't answered and wherein lives most of the main productivity advice, IMO.
April 1, 2021 at 20:31 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron, this is certainly not “just do it”, it’s think about it then do it.
Example: I was working on a project that I felt needed to be done but my heart wasn’t in it. In part because there were other things on my mind that also demanded my attention. So I wasn’t working effectively because my willpower was split between doing the task and planning to move on except not really planning just vaguely wanting. This is precisely what the professor described. I realized this and applied my idea: I paused and considered: Am I going to do this now (you might ask, do i resist not.doing it now?) should i switch to the other thing? Would I regret not switching? And after thinking through the situation, I resolved I would continue but do it with heart and no longer worry about the other task for the present because I have committed to continuing this one.
Part of this is just making the decision, but it comes up even when you are not free. It’s a mental exercise to decide the necessary chore is worth focusing on rather than complaining over. I get this is very like the 5am homework in the cold story, but its another angle to enter into the correct attitude: when you feel resistance. When you do, consider why and from that why develop the pro/con and then just choose. Likewise strawberry torte vs chocolate mousse. Compare, then Commit to the choice and don’t look back.
Example: I was working on a project that I felt needed to be done but my heart wasn’t in it. In part because there were other things on my mind that also demanded my attention. So I wasn’t working effectively because my willpower was split between doing the task and planning to move on except not really planning just vaguely wanting. This is precisely what the professor described. I realized this and applied my idea: I paused and considered: Am I going to do this now (you might ask, do i resist not.doing it now?) should i switch to the other thing? Would I regret not switching? And after thinking through the situation, I resolved I would continue but do it with heart and no longer worry about the other task for the present because I have committed to continuing this one.
Part of this is just making the decision, but it comes up even when you are not free. It’s a mental exercise to decide the necessary chore is worth focusing on rather than complaining over. I get this is very like the 5am homework in the cold story, but its another angle to enter into the correct attitude: when you feel resistance. When you do, consider why and from that why develop the pro/con and then just choose. Likewise strawberry torte vs chocolate mousse. Compare, then Commit to the choice and don’t look back.
April 1, 2021 at 22:32 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
@Alan: a nice slogan for simple scanning: "Compare, then commit", the synergising of the reflective mind with the impulsive mind. (Will-power and Won't-power as I've seen it called).
April 3, 2021 at 16:59 |
michael
michael
Sometimes I oscillate between A and B because they both have positives but they also both have negatives:
-- I am attracted to A, but A has negatives
-- To escape A's negatives, I am attracted to B.
-- But B also has negatives, so I revert again to A.
And I am caught in a vicious cycle.
Sometimes I can just choose one side, accept the negatives, and move on. But often the negatives are strong enough that the problems re-appear later, sometimes in an even nastier form. This is where the conflict resolution process can really help -- find choice C that gives me all the positives and none of the negatives. Usually all the clues to create choice C are hiding in plain sight -- they are hidden in the behaviors, policies, and assumptions that drive me to consider choices A and B in the first place.
If I am just choosing what to have for breakfast, or trying to decide which of two difficult emails to tackle first when I have plenty of time for both -- it probably doesn't matter. But for the persistent oscillation problems, I find this process really helpful.
I'm beginning an experiment with a new system that's built around this principle. Basically it's AF4 with a new way to process the highlighted items. When you process a new set of highlighted items, take 10-15 minutes to find the item that is bothering you the most, and run it through this process to identify and resolve the underlying conflict that is blocking you from completing that task.
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/5/preliminary-instructions-for-autofocus-v-4.html
-- I am attracted to A, but A has negatives
-- To escape A's negatives, I am attracted to B.
-- But B also has negatives, so I revert again to A.
And I am caught in a vicious cycle.
Sometimes I can just choose one side, accept the negatives, and move on. But often the negatives are strong enough that the problems re-appear later, sometimes in an even nastier form. This is where the conflict resolution process can really help -- find choice C that gives me all the positives and none of the negatives. Usually all the clues to create choice C are hiding in plain sight -- they are hidden in the behaviors, policies, and assumptions that drive me to consider choices A and B in the first place.
If I am just choosing what to have for breakfast, or trying to decide which of two difficult emails to tackle first when I have plenty of time for both -- it probably doesn't matter. But for the persistent oscillation problems, I find this process really helpful.
I'm beginning an experiment with a new system that's built around this principle. Basically it's AF4 with a new way to process the highlighted items. When you process a new set of highlighted items, take 10-15 minutes to find the item that is bothering you the most, and run it through this process to identify and resolve the underlying conflict that is blocking you from completing that task.
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/5/preliminary-instructions-for-autofocus-v-4.html
April 3, 2021 at 20:57 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I have been anticipating your conflict-resolution response to this. :)
Yes, that's a good angle. Instead of just deciding whether or not to commit, consider maybe a modified approach that doesn't have the part the troubles you.
To clarify your last point because it's not obvious just from reading your words: The highlighted elements are those in the Old List which have been left over after you completed all the other items on the Old List, but these remaining ones you didn't want to act on any of them. Then you pick one (the one you don't want not-done, I expect) and find the change of perspective that resolves your conflict of (don't want to ++ don't want to not).
Yes, that's a good angle. Instead of just deciding whether or not to commit, consider maybe a modified approach that doesn't have the part the troubles you.
To clarify your last point because it's not obvious just from reading your words: The highlighted elements are those in the Old List which have been left over after you completed all the other items on the Old List, but these remaining ones you didn't want to act on any of them. Then you pick one (the one you don't want not-done, I expect) and find the change of perspective that resolves your conflict of (don't want to ++ don't want to not).
April 3, 2021 at 21:56 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
<< To clarify your last point because it's not obvious just from reading your words >>
It works something like this:
1-- Find the task that bothers you the most -- Maybe you are just feeling deadline pressure. Maybe you keep procrastinating on it. Maybe you wish you didn't have to do it. Maybe you can't decide whether you really need to do it. Maybe it's just something you don't want to do. For me, it's usually because there is some time pressure or deadline but there is a lot of ambiguity about it.
2-- Identify the important need that is jeopardized by this situation.
3-- Identify the action you need to take to fulfill that important need (this is probably the task itself, but might not be)
4-- Identify the important need that prevents you from taking the action described in step 3?
5-- What action do you take to fulfill that important need (this is probably in direct conflict with step 3)
6-- What is the common need or goal satisfied by both (2) and (4)?
Sometimes just getting clear about the answers to these questions is enough to see the situation more clearly and break the conflict.
Sometimes you need to go a step further... List the positives and negatives about both (2) and (4).
The positives about (4) are the things that keep you where you are -- your current situation -- your inertia. It usually represents some kind of security -- it may be undesirable but at least it's familiar, and there are positive reasons why the situation originally came into being and exists and persists. The negatives about (4) are the things that make you want to *escape* the current situation and seek the new situation described by (2). (These negatives also align with the reasons we "resist not doing" something.)
The positives about (2) are the things that attract you to the new desired state -- this is the desired outcome, the aspiration that is fulfilled when you complete this troublesome task. The negatives about (2) are the things that cause you to avoid these outcomes -- undesirable side effects, ambiguities, risks, fears and negative fantasies.
Once you've identified the positives and negatives, you can get a clearer sense of the vicious cycle you are trapped in -- cycling from 4+ to 4- to 2+ to 2- and back to 4+. You can look for assumptions that can be challenged, behaviors or policies that can be changed, etc., to break the vicious cycle.
It takes longer to write it all out here than it does to actually walk through the steps, once you have practiced it a few times.
Also, this process generally makes it very clear that it is not merely capriciousness or indecisiveness or lack of willpower that causes us to oscillate. Sometimes that's true, especially if the stakes are low, or the goal is inconsequential. But since this task is a task that really bothers you, the stakes are probably not low, and the goal is probably not inconsequential. These situations arise because we are caught in a vicious cycle revolving around a conflict. Breaking the conflict breaks the vicious cycle and allows us to synthesize the apparently conflicting needs into a new reality.
It works something like this:
1-- Find the task that bothers you the most -- Maybe you are just feeling deadline pressure. Maybe you keep procrastinating on it. Maybe you wish you didn't have to do it. Maybe you can't decide whether you really need to do it. Maybe it's just something you don't want to do. For me, it's usually because there is some time pressure or deadline but there is a lot of ambiguity about it.
2-- Identify the important need that is jeopardized by this situation.
3-- Identify the action you need to take to fulfill that important need (this is probably the task itself, but might not be)
4-- Identify the important need that prevents you from taking the action described in step 3?
5-- What action do you take to fulfill that important need (this is probably in direct conflict with step 3)
6-- What is the common need or goal satisfied by both (2) and (4)?
Sometimes just getting clear about the answers to these questions is enough to see the situation more clearly and break the conflict.
Sometimes you need to go a step further... List the positives and negatives about both (2) and (4).
The positives about (4) are the things that keep you where you are -- your current situation -- your inertia. It usually represents some kind of security -- it may be undesirable but at least it's familiar, and there are positive reasons why the situation originally came into being and exists and persists. The negatives about (4) are the things that make you want to *escape* the current situation and seek the new situation described by (2). (These negatives also align with the reasons we "resist not doing" something.)
The positives about (2) are the things that attract you to the new desired state -- this is the desired outcome, the aspiration that is fulfilled when you complete this troublesome task. The negatives about (2) are the things that cause you to avoid these outcomes -- undesirable side effects, ambiguities, risks, fears and negative fantasies.
Once you've identified the positives and negatives, you can get a clearer sense of the vicious cycle you are trapped in -- cycling from 4+ to 4- to 2+ to 2- and back to 4+. You can look for assumptions that can be challenged, behaviors or policies that can be changed, etc., to break the vicious cycle.
It takes longer to write it all out here than it does to actually walk through the steps, once you have practiced it a few times.
Also, this process generally makes it very clear that it is not merely capriciousness or indecisiveness or lack of willpower that causes us to oscillate. Sometimes that's true, especially if the stakes are low, or the goal is inconsequential. But since this task is a task that really bothers you, the stakes are probably not low, and the goal is probably not inconsequential. These situations arise because we are caught in a vicious cycle revolving around a conflict. Breaking the conflict breaks the vicious cycle and allows us to synthesize the apparently conflicting needs into a new reality.
April 4, 2021 at 2:15 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I had a brainstorm on this, thinking from a perspective of physics and working through analogy.
In physics, Work is defined as Energy usefully applied towards a specified end. One measure of Work is Force applied over a Distance. W = FxD. What's interesting here is that the definition depends on the usefulness of the force. Suppose we have a box with two ropes attached to it, and two people pull on the ropes, say with F=10 and F=20, and they pull the box 10 feet., they achieve 300 units of work.