Akrasia and the Self Mindfuck: How to get lasting results

[Telarus]

http://blog.beeminder.com/akrasia/

The term commitment device is from game theory and applies to strategic situations. It refers to a way of changing one's own incentives to make an otherwise empty threat or promise credible. This can be quite rational. A classic example is from Thomas Schelling, who pioneered this aspect of game theory. You've been kidnapped and you'd like to promise your kidnapper that if they let you go you won't rat them out to the police. The promise is useless because the kidnapper knows you'll have no incentive to keep it once you're free (and so they won't set you free). But if you can change your future incentives (implicate yourself in the crime, perhaps?) then suddenly your promise can carry weight. Limiting your future options by voluntarily imposing consequences on your future self can be quite valuable in a strategic negotiation or conflict.

But it's hard to characterize as rational the use of self-binding with no one but oneself... until you appreciate that there's in fact more than just one self.

GO READ IT

[The Johnny]

LeechBlock might be an interesting thing to tinker with 

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Nice.

I'll give this a whirl.

[Cain]

Everyone should read Schelling's The Strategy of Conflict anyway.  And Codes of the Underworld by Diego Gambetta for good measure. 

[Triple Zero]

But it's hard to characterize as rational the use of self-binding with no one but oneself... until you appreciate that there's in fact more than just one self.

This reminds me of a Lesswrong article about an experiment with a omniscient alien and a person that has to choose a box: http://lesswrong.com/lw/nc/newcombs_problem_and_regret_of_rationality/

In Newcomb's problem, a superintelligence called Omega shows you two boxes, A and B, and offers you the choice of taking only box A, or both boxes A and B. Omega has put $1,000 in box B. If Omega thinks you will take box A only, he has put $1,000,000 in it. Otherwise he has left it empty. Omega has played this game many times, and has never been wrong in his predictions about whether someone will take both boxes or not.

The thing is that, he argues that a perfectly rational agent instead of a human (like a really smart decision-tree calculating AI machine computer robot) would be unable to rationally choose to pick just one box (which has the bigger reward).

I dunno, it's not really a straight connection, but letting go of what is currently rational versus what will have the better outcome later--except that your "commitment device" is kind of the reverse of it.

Anyway, I'll read the article closely later on, but intuitively I don't like the idea that there is in fact more than just one self. I think. No. Just as a thought experiment, not a fact. But who knows, maybe the article will convince me otherwise

[Triple Zero]

on the article. I can understand the idea from a game-theory POV in a hostage situation. but a bit further down the article describes it as a battle against procrastination.

it's said that the battle of procrastination is a battle with your future self. your future self is an asshole that is trying to sabotage your wonderful plans. this is bullshit, your future self is you and it just means that if you don't feel like doing X right now, chances are pretty high that if you plan to "do it tomorrow", your tomorrow self won't feel much like it either, cause he is you.

this was not meant as an argument against "multiple selves" btw (I'm going try harder for that one), just an illustration to be able to talk of the dangers of this technique. dangers? well maybe I'm unique and differently wired than everybody, but having been kicking myself over my terrible procrastinations in 2000-2006, seven years, I've really tried everything. the "limiting your future self's options, locking him into one single choice (getting to work) only" trick was the one that finally kicked me over the edge into a panic attack followed by a burnout from which I'm still not recovered three years later (they say it takes the same amount of time as you spent building it up--I can't wait until 2013/14).

just sayin.

sometimes if you can't do something, it's because you can't do it, and forcing it is going to break you.

it works the same way as in sports.

so if you tried any and all ways of "naturally" trying to get something done, and they consistently failed, this one might just be fool-proof (oh yes, I did get my work done, and no it wasn't worth it, at all), be careful what you wish for.

in the gym, you're not supposed to tie the weights to your wrists, to make sure you can't drop them, either (or somehing. you get the idea).

[Placid Dingo]

Read to the bottom. Author notes exactly what you say; there's only one self. However he argues thinking in terms of two selves can be more useful.

Basically I think he's saying that to hack your behavior you need to hack your own rewards. So i might arrange to meet a friend for a gym day instead of just going myself. Suddenly I'm not worried about long term health; I'm worried about short term letting down my friend.