31–40 of 89 posts
ELI5?
Steve Jobs is often used as an example because he wore the same outfit to work every day, purportedly so he would not have to waste any crucial willpower early in the day on such a trivial task as choosing what to wear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically, there was a theory that exercising self-control would "deplete" ones "self-control reserves". The idea was that exercising your self-control, to say avoid a junk food, would temporarily decrease your ability to resist that temptation again. This paper reports that not only were they unable to verify any of the prior research into this so called "ego depletion" effect, but they found more persuasive evidenc…
Gross. It sounds like a total failure to correctly model reality. Like measuring how blue the sky is, based on how much "blue" is left in the universe. The idea they attempt to quantify is improperly described in terms of qualities. e.g. Do colors even work that way? (...and keep your planck unit, M theory, quantum field eigenstate, history-of-the-big-bang, age of the universe remarks away from this hypothetical exam…
I always get the feeling from reading academic material on psychology that people are trying to apply the scientific method on top of unscientific principles. It feels rather like alchemists trying to explain fire via phlogiston: an attempt to quantify high-level phenomena when you don't understand any of the lower levels. All the data comes from psychology students at a college in the US who either were able to use…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I started using animism yesterday to motivate me to do the dishes, viewing them as the physical embodiment of souls that I, their god, allowed to get moldy/rusty through neglect. I think when we introduce choice/attention into the theory that we construct reality out of beliefs, emotions, culture (thought/behavior patterns), and intentions, it's possible to find all kinds of useful frameworks. Maybe the idea of "scie…
How do you think we could adapt that concept to subjective experiences? As I've gotten older (and learned to manage my mental state better), I've found great benefit from separating "scientifically true" and "useful to lead a good life". I suppose that makes me a hypocrite in the same way that devoutly religious scientists are. But it makes my life more fulfilled, I experience less anxiety, etc. It's an interesting r…
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structure-scientific-theo...
Mainstream approaches to science are obsessively objective, denying the fact that everything we do is a subject experience. So many people learn the idea that things can only be true or false, as opposed to things being dependent on the lens through which they're viewed. We see the same sort of separation in our politics.
I think we need a framework for self-observation. Granted, we have systems in place designed to punish us for being ourselves, so that'll have to change, too.
If you want to learn how to work in a field dedicated to observing & documenting something, then first or concurrently learn to responsibly observe & document yourself. The goal is to maximize self-awareness, which I think everyone can benefit from in some way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, this is an interesting statement because it highlights the difference between true and useful. For several years, since I read the book Willpower (an intro piece to ego depletion), I've meditated on the idea. I've decided that even if it's not scientifically true, it can be useful to me. Some may see it as self-help tripe ("Eat your frogs in the morning!"), but it's a useful mental model for me to push myself…
I started using animism yesterday to motivate me to do the dishes, viewing them as the physical embodiment of souls that I, their god, allowed to get moldy/rusty through neglect. I think when we introduce choice/attention into the theory that we construct reality out of beliefs, emotions, culture (thought/behavior patterns), and intentions, it's possible to find all kinds of useful frameworks. Maybe the idea of "scie…
That said, I think one thing you indicate here is helpful - life is a personal experience, and while some people may experience motivation from the exercise of willpower, others may feel they have their willpower 'broken down' over time.
I think the specific context of the experiment really does impact the results.
It is never as simple as: WILLPOWER [etc.
Not disputing the paper or the scientific method applied here, but how is "bayesian factor" different than p-values?
I always get the feeling from reading academic material on psychology that people are trying to apply the scientific method on top of unscientific principles. It feels rather like alchemists trying to explain fire via phlogiston: an attempt to quantify high-level phenomena when you don't understand any of the lower levels. All the data comes from psychology students at a college in the US who either were able to use…
ELI5?
Ego-depletion is mentioned, not always by name, in hundreds productivity and focus related articles and books published in the last 5 years or so. Steve Jobs is often used as an example because he wore the same outfit to work every day, purportedly so he would not have to waste any crucial willpower early in the day on such a trivial task as choosing what to wear.
That was to free up time and free himself from an extra decision. Mental exhaustion is not the same as ego depletion. The later claims that "self control" is a limited resource, but picking your outfit doesn't really require that anyway.