4 ms·

Not doubting your expertise, but I am skeptical of the idea that this method of intentionally leaning into discomfort only works for some minuscule abnormal sub

by _yb2s 1y ago

Not doubting your expertise, but I am skeptical of the idea that this method of intentionally leaning into discomfort only works for some minuscule abnormal subset of people that are just wired differently. Instead, I suspect it's tapping into something deeper about how our reward system is structured, something extremely related to how these GLP-1 agonists work, which explains why they are both effective against a shockingly wide array of seemingly different situations. The basic idea seems to be at the core of both a lot of modern self help gurus advice that seems to actually work for a huge fraction of the people that really commit to them (David Goggins, Wim Hof, etc.) as well as modern psychotherapy systems like CBT and ACT that are proven clinically effective. How many people are really trying this approach, and it not working for them? More often, I see people saying it sounds like it royally sucks (which is true and basically the entire point), and never trying it- which is valid, but doesn't really demonstrate that it wouldn't work for them. It absolutely is a "nociceptive hell" at first for everyone that tries it, but when you connect that with intention, purpose, and meaning it eventually transforms into something almost enjoyable. Becoming strong enough to meet discomfort or pain feels amazing, especially for someone that usually experiences the opposite of that. I also have ADHD, which is explained in part as a developmental disability of executive control, but I find this approach to be extremely effective for regaining executive control, even to levels that people without ADHD lack. Basically, I suspect ADHD isn't a loss of executive control at all, but the executive control is being blocked by something like the feeling of pain or drug withdrawal, and that once you are okay with just having that bad feeling all of the time, you get your executive control back. I'm curious if GLP-1 drugs also help with ADHD? My prediction is that they would.

ineedasername 1y ago
“I am skeptical of the idea that this method of intentionally leaning into discomfort only works for some minuscule abnormal subset of people that are just wired differently” That may be the aspect of this line of thinking that’s not clear then: it doesn’t work for anyone. At least, in so far as the free will is illusory, it is a hallucination that such people have that they made such decisions, and stuck to them. It’s the demon hand syndrome, the person hallucinating a rationale for its motion.
- _yb2s 1y ago
  The free will question seems to be a red herring- philosophers and physicists can argue all they want about if something like free will is physically possible or not, but for all intents and purposes, even without free will, the path of someone overcoming, e.g. alcoholism after using these methods requires using them in a way that is challenging, and if you decide on the nihilistic stance that there is no free will so there is no point in ever trying to do anything, then you are guaranteed an undesirable outcome. Perhaps beforehand it was somehow "pre-determined" which of these attitudes and paths you would take, but that is completely irrelevant for the individual just living life, they have no way to know that one way or another, or any reason to actually care, as they still need to act exactly like they have free will and made the right choice to actually play out a future as the type of person pre-determined to have a desirable outcome. It doesn't actually feel any easier or less painful to accomplish something difficult, even if free will is some sort of illusion when looked at from the outside perspective. You still experience, e.g. trying and failing over and over and never giving up until you succeed. I can buy that, for example perhaps there is something outside our control that decides if you are capable of never giving up, but you still cannot know until you decide to never give up and try it- so it literally does not matter except as a philosophical curiosity. I think a more interesting biological (and philosophical) question is why and how exactly do these GLP-1 drugs work, and why exactly are they so shockingly effective? Maybe they do somehow act on the brain to offer exactly the same psychological benefits as the stoic approach I am talking about, by the same or related underlying mechanism, and they're essentially interchangeable but work more often?
pseudalopex 1y ago
Nothing they wrote implied minuscule or abnormal. Can you define huge fraction and really commit? And cite evidence? I disagree the basic idea of CBT or ACT is leaning into discomfort. In the senses articles suggest David Goggins and Wim Hof advise even less. CBT and ACT work for many patients and don't work for many patients. Some people liked intense exercise their whole lives. Some people hated it when they started but liked it eventually. Some people exercised daily since decades and hated every minute. Do you not believe the 1st and 3rd groups? Pushing through bad feelings is a form of executive control. And ADHD impairments are not limited to impulse control. People who have ADHD who do not take medication have significantly higher rates of driving accidents than people who do not have ADHD or take ADHD medication. Proprioception, internal time perception, and working memory impairments are common.
- _yb2s 1y ago
  > I disagree the basic idea of CBT or ACT is leaning into discomfort. In the senses articles suggest David Goggins and Wim Hof advise even less. I am somewhat baffled by your statement, as I feel it is largely self evident being familiar with, and having tried both therapy methods with professional therapists, and both Goggins and Hof's advice for years. I think a simple wikipedia level explanation of what those things actually are would suffice to answer your question, so I have nothing major to add, unless I am misunderstanding you. Goggins whole shtick in particular is just this one basic point, make yourself as mentally tough as possible by intentionally always doing whatever is difficult. Hof is also just literally getting into very cold water consistently, which is really not easy- and he has no real philosophy or theory, he just has you do it and see what happens. Perhaps the therapy methods are less clear, but reframing things or deciding on clear values and purpose, are in my view, psychological tools to make the difficult endurable, or in some cases even enjoyable. This makes more sense if you're seeing the methods in the context of how the ancient stoics used the same techniques that inspired those therapies- especially Epictetus. > Can you define huge fraction and really commit? And cite evidence? Not really, it's just firsthand experience from doing them, and having widely sought out and read the experiences of others that did online.
  - bruce343434 1y ago
ridgeguy 1y ago
This topic is a great example of how results from down-in-the-weeds biochemistry immediately raise questions at the top levels of consciousness and existence. “Leaning into discomfort” for personal change may well work for much more than a miniscule fraction of people. It may be that such success is made more likely by some structural predisposition – an attenuated neuronal response to negative reinforcement, or some other precondition that allows its “carrier” to keep plugging to a successful outcome. But clearly, there’s also a more than miniscule fraction of people for whom that doesn’t work. Their preconditions may deflect them from even trying that particular path, or cause them to give up along the way. I really don’t know, but that fraction seems at least as significant as the fraction for whom uncomfortable personal development paths lead to success. Early in my career, I strongly believed in free will. I mean, I had it, right? And I didn’t regard my consciousness as all that different from my fellow hominids, so they’re probably all similarly endowed, right? Except... Over time, research with small molecules like epinephrine and the psychedelics showed that perception/decisions/will could be profoundly influenced by neurochemistry. Ditto for various neuronal illnesses that are associated with profound personality changes. I regard the GLP-1 results as a further demonstration that “free will”, whatever that is, is fundamentally mechanistic. There are few, maybe no, organismic drives stronger than hunger. A weekly injection of a GLP-1 agonist turns that drive way, way down in most of those who try it. This commonly exhibits itself in profound behavioral modification: if you were an inveterate snacker, suddenly you’re not interested in snacks. You pass them by in your pantry and at the grocery store. Your cognition around snacking changes, to the extent that not only aren’t you snacking, but you might find yourself setting a reminder that it’s time to have lunch. Given the strength of the hunger drive, that’s a very big deal, and revelatory about how we work. I used to think I understood “free will”. Lately, I find it increasingly hard to define. I’m moving more in the direction of Robert Sapolsky as more research results come in. It feels to me a bit like the “God of the gaps” phenomenon, in which the space available for faith in the supernatural grows smaller with every scientific discovery. It’s a remarkable time to be alive and have the luxury of considering these questions.
- _yb2s 1y ago
  Ah, you might have seen my reply to someone else addressing the free will question from a philosophical angle, but despite also being in the life sciences, I never expected you were thinking about it biochemically. I think it's obvious that we don't have "free will" in that sense, it had never really occurred to me to consider otherwise- people are definitely quite driven by instincts, neurochemicals, etc. they they can't consciously choose. However, I think my comment in the other thread still applies- that for an individual, it doesn't really matter one way or another- your firsthand experience is still going to be one of exercising your will to increase the odds of getting outcomes you want in life, or choosing not to, and definitely not getting them. But there is some biological clue here about who we are, and how our brains work that is fascinating, when you consider the breadth of human health problems and challenges that these GLP-1 agonists influence. I can't wait to see what more is learned about this in the future.
doug_durham 1y ago
Having "grit" is more likely a symptom of coming from privilege. The marshmallow experiment comes to mind. Some kids were able to resist the urge to not eat the marshmallow for the promise of getting two if they waited. Others could not. The kids that could defer reward ended up having better life outcomes. In retrospect it was a test for privilege. Kids from poorer backgrounds tended to go for the immediate reward of the marshmallow. The test really showed that privileged kids have better life outcomes than kids that don't have privilege. Not really a surprising outcome.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- doug_durham 1y ago
  FYI here is the follow on study that controls for socioeconomic factors: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6050075/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6050075/
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]

by _yb2s 1y ago

ineedasername 1y ago

“I am skeptical of the idea that this method of intentionally leaning into discomfort only works for some minuscule abnormal subset of people that are just wired differently” That may be the aspect of this line of thinking that’s not clear then: it doesn’t work for anyone. At least, in so far as the free will is illusory, it is a hallucination that such people have that they made such decisions, and stuck to them. It’s the demon hand syndrome, the person hallucinating a rationale for its motion.

_yb2s 1y ago
The free will question seems to be a red herring- philosophers and physicists can argue all they want about if something like free will is physically possible or not, but for all intents and purposes, even without free will, the path of someone overcoming, e.g. alcoholism after using these methods requires using them in a way that is challenging, and if you decide on the nihilistic stance that there is no free will so there is no point in ever trying to do anything, then you are guaranteed an undesirable outcome. Perhaps beforehand it was somehow "pre-determined" which of these attitudes and paths you would take, but that is completely irrelevant for the individual just living life, they have no way to know that one way or another, or any reason to actually care, as they still need to act exactly like they have free will and made the right choice to actually play out a future as the type of person pre-determined to have a desirable outcome. It doesn't actually feel any easier or less painful to accomplish something difficult, even if free will is some sort of illusion when looked at from the outside perspective. You still experience, e.g. trying and failing over and over and never giving up until you succeed. I can buy that, for example perhaps there is something outside our control that decides if you are capable of never giving up, but you still cannot know until you decide to never give up and try it- so it literally does not matter except as a philosophical curiosity. I think a more interesting biological (and philosophical) question is why and how exactly do these GLP-1 drugs work, and why exactly are they so shockingly effective? Maybe they do somehow act on the brain to offer exactly the same psychological benefits as the stoic approach I am talking about, by the same or related underlying mechanism, and they're essentially interchangeable but work more often?

pseudalopex 1y ago

Nothing they wrote implied minuscule or abnormal. Can you define huge fraction and really commit? And cite evidence? I disagree the basic idea of CBT or ACT is leaning into discomfort. In the senses articles suggest David Goggins and Wim Hof advise even less. CBT and ACT work for many patients and don't work for many patients. Some people liked intense exercise their whole lives. Some people hated it when they started but liked it eventually. Some people exercised daily since decades and hated every minute. Do you not believe the 1st and 3rd groups? Pushing through bad feelings is a form of executive control. And ADHD impairments are not limited to impulse control. People who have ADHD who do not take medication have significantly higher rates of driving accidents than people who do not have ADHD or take ADHD medication. Proprioception, internal time perception, and working memory impairments are common.

_yb2s 1y ago
> I disagree the basic idea of CBT or ACT is leaning into discomfort. In the senses articles suggest David Goggins and Wim Hof advise even less. I am somewhat baffled by your statement, as I feel it is largely self evident being familiar with, and having tried both therapy methods with professional therapists, and both Goggins and Hof's advice for years. I think a simple wikipedia level explanation of what those things actually are would suffice to answer your question, so I have nothing major to add, unless I am misunderstanding you. Goggins whole shtick in particular is just this one basic point, make yourself as mentally tough as possible by intentionally always doing whatever is difficult. Hof is also just literally getting into very cold water consistently, which is really not easy- and he has no real philosophy or theory, he just has you do it and see what happens. Perhaps the therapy methods are less clear, but reframing things or deciding on clear values and purpose, are in my view, psychological tools to make the difficult endurable, or in some cases even enjoyable. This makes more sense if you're seeing the methods in the context of how the ancient stoics used the same techniques that inspired those therapies- especially Epictetus. > Can you define huge fraction and really commit? And cite evidence? Not really, it's just firsthand experience from doing them, and having widely sought out and read the experiences of others that did online.
- bruce343434 1y ago

ridgeguy 1y ago

This topic is a great example of how results from down-in-the-weeds biochemistry immediately raise questions at the top levels of consciousness and existence. “Leaning into discomfort” for personal change may well work for much more than a miniscule fraction of people. It may be that such success is made more likely by some structural predisposition – an attenuated neuronal response to negative reinforcement, or some other precondition that allows its “carrier” to keep plugging to a successful outcome. But clearly, there’s also a more than miniscule fraction of people for whom that doesn’t work. Their preconditions may deflect them from even trying that particular path, or cause them to give up along the way. I really don’t know, but that fraction seems at least as significant as the fraction for whom uncomfortable personal development paths lead to success. Early in my career, I strongly believed in free will. I mean, I had it, right? And I didn’t regard my consciousness as all that different from my fellow hominids, so they’re probably all similarly endowed, right? Except... Over time, research with small molecules like epinephrine and the psychedelics showed that perception/decisions/will could be profoundly influenced by neurochemistry. Ditto for various neuronal illnesses that are associated with profound personality changes. I regard the GLP-1 results as a further demonstration that “free will”, whatever that is, is fundamentally mechanistic. There are few, maybe no, organismic drives stronger than hunger. A weekly injection of a GLP-1 agonist turns that drive way, way down in most of those who try it. This commonly exhibits itself in profound behavioral modification: if you were an inveterate snacker, suddenly you’re not interested in snacks. You pass them by in your pantry and at the grocery store. Your cognition around snacking changes, to the extent that not only aren’t you snacking, but you might find yourself setting a reminder that it’s time to have lunch. Given the strength of the hunger drive, that’s a very big deal, and revelatory about how we work. I used to think I understood “free will”. Lately, I find it increasingly hard to define. I’m moving more in the direction of Robert Sapolsky as more research results come in. It feels to me a bit like the “God of the gaps” phenomenon, in which the space available for faith in the supernatural grows smaller with every scientific discovery. It’s a remarkable time to be alive and have the luxury of considering these questions.

_yb2s 1y ago
Ah, you might have seen my reply to someone else addressing the free will question from a philosophical angle, but despite also being in the life sciences, I never expected you were thinking about it biochemically. I think it's obvious that we don't have "free will" in that sense, it had never really occurred to me to consider otherwise- people are definitely quite driven by instincts, neurochemicals, etc. they they can't consciously choose. However, I think my comment in the other thread still applies- that for an individual, it doesn't really matter one way or another- your firsthand experience is still going to be one of exercising your will to increase the odds of getting outcomes you want in life, or choosing not to, and definitely not getting them. But there is some biological clue here about who we are, and how our brains work that is fascinating, when you consider the breadth of human health problems and challenges that these GLP-1 agonists influence. I can't wait to see what more is learned about this in the future.

doug_durham 1y ago

Having "grit" is more likely a symptom of coming from privilege. The marshmallow experiment comes to mind. Some kids were able to resist the urge to not eat the marshmallow for the promise of getting two if they waited. Others could not. The kids that could defer reward ended up having better life outcomes. In retrospect it was a test for privilege. Kids from poorer backgrounds tended to go for the immediate reward of the marshmallow. The test really showed that privileged kids have better life outcomes than kids that don't have privilege. Not really a surprising outcome.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
doug_durham 1y ago
FYI here is the follow on study that controls for socioeconomic factors: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6050075/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6050075/
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]