Moderating Oneself

The semantiking was this

which seems to me like you are saying “there exist some number of people on Earth with more self-control” as if I were claiming that Yadi had more self control than anyone on Earth.

Now you are talking about averages among groups of people, which could be translated to expectations about unknown persons. Ok, I submit that regardless of whether or not that is true, you cannot say anything about any particular person and their level of self-control. The thing you’re talking about as “tautological” is only evident after you acknowledge that individual levels of desire for something have to be taken into account before you can evaluate a person’s level of self-control. That’s already conceding the point I was making.

As far as averages go, shrug. Self-control is probably a component, but it’s one of three variables here with unknowable coefficients so you can barely speculate about populations and can’t say anything about specific individuals.

And, I suspect caring about posting here is a much bigger factor than self-control. Like, I bet you could design a bunch of experiments to determine self-control that had nothing to do with posting here and it wouldn’t correlate very well with whether or not people have asked for self-bans.

Okay. How about this.

I manage my candy addiction by not havingg candy in the house. If there is candy. I eat it.

Someone else has candy in the house, doesnt eat it all the time, but eats it occasionally.

If we eat the same amount of candy, who has the most self control?

More specifically. Why is “not keeping it in the house” not a kind of self control. While simply resisting the urge to eat it is?

I think that taking one big action that ceases subsequent temptation is, for most people, a lot easier, than resisting a constant numerous temptations, so yes, I think someone who can do the latter shows much more self-control. I think decision fatigue is a real thing, so constantly having to say no to yourself is much harder than knowing the answer is no from someone else. Obviously both cases show more self control than someone who elects to do neither.

But why is utilising the easier (more effective) technique less self controlled?

In assessing competence in pretty much every other field, the outcome is what matters.

FYP to tell you what I was saying. I’m not sure if that changes anything in your mind.

Like I said, I thought this was implied. I think everyone realizes that someone who posts here once a month probably has different levels of desire than someone who posts 20 times a day. And by extension, it’s possible for posters of equal volume to have differing levels of desire (e.g. astroturfer vs normal reg).

I think that self-control is issue-dependent. For example, someone may have great self-control wrt not going on tilt when getting repeated coolered, but at the same time they could have terrible self-control when it comes to eating candy. I suppose there is probably a correlation between self-control in poker and candy, but I don’t think you could do an experiment in poker and apply it reliably to candy (and it sounds like that is what you believe as well).

that sounds pretty awesome tbh

Yeah, this. Relying on other people to control you is literally the opposite of self-control.

I’ve got to say I’m pretty pleased that this thread had 20+ new replies and it was all just reasoned discussion.

5 Likes

I’m glad that you’re back!

4 Likes

+1

1 Like

+2

2 Likes

I was wondering where the hell you were. Welcome back!

1 Like

So firstly. There wasnt really any mention of others is the candy scenario.

I mostly keep candy out of the house by not buying it.

But either way. Why does it matter if other people are involved? You manage your behaviour as a means to influence your environment and the behaviour of others.

Thinking self control is about some iron will internal resistance thing seems an unjustified distinction, as well as being less effective.

If a former drug addict avoids hanging out with his old drug friends as a means of maintaining sobriety, is that not self control?

It is a form of self-control. No one is suggesting otherwise.

Are we doing these addicts a disservice if we don’t rigorously enforce self-bans and force them to explicitly opt back in if they want to participate?

But theres a sort of stack rank?

What im getting at is the only reasonable measure of self control s whether your self is controlled. Whether you achieve your goal. Any other stack rank or measure is completely arbitrary.

I don’t think anyone is trying to say it is weak. But it requires less strength then someone who self bans themselves for a month successfully without asking the mods to ban them.

Lol. I dont care. Im just finding the discussion interesting.

In poker, we call that results-oriented thinking.

I’ll be honest I did not anticipate starting this with a single tipsy post laying in bed at 11pm last night. Love the discussion though.

Edit: seems worth if it’s own thread as well.