Am I Being Too Hard On People With My Willpower Experiment

[David Sklansky]

I'm not fat.

[KenProspero]

Albert Einstein once said -- “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

To answer your question, I don't know whether you're being too tough, but under Einstein's definition, you're probably insane.

If we're talking about self-destructive behavior, smoking, over-eating, drinking, etc. the people who are engaging in this behaviour know what they're doing to themselves. When was the last time you heard someone say "I don't think smoking is bad for me" or "50 lbs overweight -- no big deal".

I think that in many, if not most cases, the resolution is made in reaction to being reminded (constantly nagged is probably a better term) that what they're doing is self-destructive, and to get short-term approval from that person. However, I've known many smokers, some of whom have quit, some of whom haven't. I don't know of one who has quit because because of peer pressure. Same with other self-destructive behavior. People will change when they're psychologically and emotionally ready to change. Period.

About 10 or 15 years ago, I decided that the whole idea of New Year's resolutions are inane and resolved not to make them anymore. I've kept that one.

Ultimately, I agree with the statement, don't make the resolution -- just do it, and tell us when you're done. You're right, making a resolution, then breaking it and disappointing people is wrong. However, it's often hard to resist the pressure of those well-meaning folk who push for the resolution to change. Very simply, if you pressure someone into making a resolution, expect to be disappointed.

If we're talking about relatively simple things -- e.g., 20 push-ups, reading a science book (I've never had pomegranite juice, so I can't say whether this is no problem or pure torture). Yes, it's laziness, none of these seem to require a long-term commitment, and one can expect someone to complete the task for a fairly minimal reward.

Just curious, when you offer moderate amounts of money, is it for 'simple things' or for 'life style changes'. I'd be somewhat surprised if it's the latter, but you never know.

[goofball]

David,

You read stumbling on happiness and think it's an excellent book. Don't they discuss how people are bad at knowing how they'll feel in the future? The author mentions the thanksgiving example about how immediately after the meal he can be heard to say "I"ll never eat again" and while he knows that's not true it doesn't actually seem totally unreasonable.

Just after someone's had a cigarette they feel like it will be pretty easy to give up smoking and not smoke any cigarettes tomorrow. It seems much easier to excercise tomorrow, to not eat rich food tomorrow, whatever. The crux of it is it happens every time. It takes a lot of repetition for people to realize the pattern because <u>each time they truly believe what they're saying</u>. Everytime they swear to 'have willpower' they genuinely feel like they will be able to.

[Beermantm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They change their behavior because of the promise to someone other than themselves and have a stake in it with that person. If you perhaps bet against them they would most likely not take the bet but if you offer money for doing it you are teaming up with that person and supporting them in a goal they want but never follow through on. To be successful at anything in this life your either gifted or part of a team. I would venture to say that the money isn't as important as the team created. The fact that they don't want to let two people down is substantial. The money is just a validation for sincerity.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are they letting down the staker? If they succeed, DS loses money. I don't think he necessarily wants them to succeed. This is not a situation where both people benefit if the first one succeeds. I don't see how a team is formed here.

~MagicMan

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have to see a benefit from the staker is the point. There is a possible benefit that is unseen but it can be satisfaction or monetary however the partnership comes from the person who puts up the stake who obviously wants them to succeed because why else put up the stake? The quickest example I can think off would be a farther putting up a stake for a son or daughter. The benefit is not seen and may well never be seen but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Now if it's a bet then they are saying they expect failure.

[ QUOTE ]
Did you mean: pomegranate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't know what you mean but I'm thinking it might be sarcasm??? Anyway sorry I didn't get it. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They change their behavior because of the promise to someone other than themselves and have a stake in it with that person. If you perhaps bet against them they would most likely not take the bet but if you offer money for doing it you are teaming up with that person and supporting them in a goal they want but never follow through on. To be successful at anything in this life your either gifted or part of a team. I would venture to say that the money isn't as important as the team created. The fact that they don't want to let two people down is substantial. The money is just a validation for sincerity.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are they letting down the staker? If they succeed, DS loses money. I don't think he necessarily wants them to succeed. This is not a situation where both people benefit if the first one succeeds. I don't see how a team is formed here.

~MagicMan

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have to see a benefit from the staker is the point. There is a possible benefit that is unseen but it can be satisfaction or monetary however the partnership comes from the person who puts up the stake who obviously wants them to succeed because why else put up the stake? The quickest example I can think off would be a farther putting up a stake for a son or daughter. The benefit is not seen and may well never be seen but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Now if it's a bet then they are saying they expect failure.


[/ QUOTE ]

When I make an offer like this, my satisfaction could come from the smug "I told you so" if they fail.

~MagicMan

[PokerAmateur4]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you mean: pomegranate?

[/ QUOTE ]I don't think anyone cares that you spotted a misspelling, since it was clear that he did mean pomegranate.

[berserk]

Hyperbolic discounting theory implies that rationally acting individuals will not stick to their resolutions because of the discount rates they will apply to the utility they get from sticking to these resolutions (ie not being obese in the case of eating). If you offer the immediate reward of money, this will highly increase the net-present value of sticking to the resolution, as the reward will be the hyperbolicly discounted future utility + the not discounted monetary reward.

If you offer the money upon completion, I'm sure you will still see people that fail to complete their resolutions. However, even if that money is discounted hyperbolicly, it may be enough to sway the implicit cost-benefit analysis upon which behavior is predicated.

duh.

[Peter McDermott]

One of the things I've been involved with lately has been a systematic review of the evidence for psychosocial treatments for drug dependence. Before we started looking at the data, most of the people involved had their own pet theories about which of the interventions would come out best. Some people believed it would be involvement in 12 step programmes. Others thought it would be long term stays at therapeutic communities, etc. Most popular choices on the panel were cognitive behavioural therapy and motivational interviewing, as there's a widespread belief that these interventions have the best evidence in support. However, the bulk of the evidence for these is predominantly based upon alcoholism treatments, which we explicitly excluded.

Anyway, this review wasn't prepared to look at the weaker forms of evidence, and only looked at studies that used randomized controlled trials -- the gold standard for evaluating treatment efficacy.

To everybody's astonishment, the intervention that is best supported by the evidence is a technique called contingency management. This involves paying people an insignificant amount of money -- usually $5 or $10 -- every time they turn in a clean urine test.

We're expecting some fairly significant resistance to our recommendations, because in this area, emotions often outweigh rationality.

Edit: a quick addition -- although the evidence shows that giving people cash works almost twice as well as giving people vouchers for goods, vouchers are often the politically acceptable option. This is interesting, because the evidence would seem to suggest that we could improve the health and well-being of twice as many people, but the fear that some people will choose to spend their contingency cash on drugs makes some supporters of contingency management disinclined to go that route.

[Run Screamin]

They do it because they are no longer quitting smoking, but winning a bet. The two are much different. One requires internal focus and commitment to better oneself. The other requires internal commitment to compete with another individual. I believe that the mind treats intrinsic self-betterment and individual competition differently.

What you are saying is that they only have the capacity to better themselves when it is dressed up as an alternate activity. I don't believe that is harsh.

[Piemaster]

[ QUOTE ]
They do it because they are no longer quitting smoking, but winning a bet. The two are much different. One requires internal focus and commitment to better oneself. The other requires internal commitment to compete with another individual. I believe that the mind treats intrinsic self-betterment and individual competition differently.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm inclined to agree with this.

Last New Years Eve, two ofmy friends decided to give up smoking. They had both tried to give up smoking several times before. They made a bet that the first one to have a cigarette had to give the other £50. Neither has smoked since.

And before anybody asks, both are earning enough that £50 is not a huge sum of money.