3 ms·

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

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.

kokokokoko 8y ago
No, it's just typical Twitter/Facebook era reactionary writing. The author is likely in some type of bubble, probably behavioral science, possibily behavior nutrition, and feels an artificial need to right the wrongs of an algorithmically generated appearance of a wrong on the world. In this case, that people are not as aware of behavioral science as the author and others in the bubble the author consumes their media in.
- goldemerald 8y ago
  I typically don't like to read into the motivations of articles (or people's actions for that matter) and I take their words as an independent object. Given the article has a logical flow with plenty of high quality citations, I'd say his thesis of "willpower is ill-defined" is a valid statement. EDIT: The author is an Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at Columbia University, whether or not that affects your view of the article is your prerogative.
gryfft 8y ago
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 8y ago
  > 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.
- matwood 8y ago
  > 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. There is a learned skill to know when to use large amounts of force either physically, emotionally, and/or mentally. The key is knowing when, and for how long which is not always easy or clear.
Nacraile 8y ago
I feel like you're missing other commenters' points. The thesis of the article is not "willpower is poorly defined". The thesis is right in the title: "Willpower is a dangerous, old idea that needs to be scrapped". The chosen title and much of the verbiage would be ..very odd if the main thesis were what you claim. The article might successfully argue the much weaker latter thesis, but other commenters are rebutting the main thesis.
- goldemerald 8y ago
  My apologies, I wasn't stating his thesis in full. "Poorly defined" in the scientific sense. And to address your concern: a title should not be a thesis, thesis' of articles can be implied, and other commenters to not appear to be discussing the content of this precise article.
benj111 8y ago
I read the article as against the word not being scientific enough because it doesn't differentiate between the competing theories. He may have a point for specialists in the field, in specific circumstances, a layman may just want to communicate the concept without knowing the details. To use software terminology, he's arguing against abstraction in favour of implementation specifics.

kokokokoko 8y ago

No, it's just typical Twitter/Facebook era reactionary writing. The author is likely in some type of bubble, probably behavioral science, possibily behavior nutrition, and feels an artificial need to right the wrongs of an algorithmically generated appearance of a wrong on the world. In this case, that people are not as aware of behavioral science as the author and others in the bubble the author consumes their media in.

goldemerald 8y ago
I typically don't like to read into the motivations of articles (or people's actions for that matter) and I take their words as an independent object. Given the article has a logical flow with plenty of high quality citations, I'd say his thesis of "willpower is ill-defined" is a valid statement. EDIT: The author is an Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at Columbia University, whether or not that affects your view of the article is your prerogative.

gryfft 8y ago

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 8y ago
> 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.
matwood 8y ago
> 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. There is a learned skill to know when to use large amounts of force either physically, emotionally, and/or mentally. The key is knowing when, and for how long which is not always easy or clear.

Nacraile 8y ago

I feel like you're missing other commenters' points. The thesis of the article is not "willpower is poorly defined". The thesis is right in the title: "Willpower is a dangerous, old idea that needs to be scrapped". The chosen title and much of the verbiage would be ..very odd if the main thesis were what you claim. The article might successfully argue the much weaker latter thesis, but other commenters are rebutting the main thesis.

goldemerald 8y ago
My apologies, I wasn't stating his thesis in full. "Poorly defined" in the scientific sense. And to address your concern: a title should not be a thesis, thesis' of articles can be implied, and other commenters to not appear to be discussing the content of this precise article.

benj111 8y ago

I read the article as against the word not being scientific enough because it doesn't differentiate between the competing theories. He may have a point for specialists in the field, in specific circumstances, a layman may just want to communicate the concept without knowing the details. To use software terminology, he's arguing against abstraction in favour of implementation specifics.