Okay. How about the only effective measure of control is its likelyhood of achieving the desired result…
But thats not why we think drunk driving is bad. We think driving drunk is bad because it doesnt work. We have the evidence to show it.
Im arguing that changing the environment or working via others is as effective (or more effective) in probabilistic terms. Its not just about whether it worked once.
1 Like
Surely one of your goals is to spend less money and resource time? Youve kind of assumed the question there.
I.e. if a strategy doesnt achieve all its goals then yes, it wont have achieved all its goals.
More or less what goofy said.
I already did this with micro yesterday. Desire to post is a factor that you can use to assess how much self-control one requires. Our convo on that entire point is upthread if you are interested.
To cut to the chase, just imagine I had said this to JT instead.
But thats not what youve been arguing.
The candy scenario.
Person 1. Decided not to buy candy once a week at the supermarket.
Doesnt eat candy.
Person 2. Buys candy. Spends all week walking past the candy. Willfully resists through supreme power of will.
Doesnt eat candy.
Person 2 has more willpower according to you?
Its worse on effort, and equal on outcome.
Person 3: I bought this candy but it’s bad for me so do me a solid and hide it/lock it up somewhere so I can’t get to it
Doesn’t eat candy but is a burden with no self control and is clearly bad
Sometimes mine don’t. I just spent an extra $20k to expedite some clinical labeling in order to meet a corporate milestone. Could have gotten it done 3 to 5 days later and saved $20k, but then my boss would have been pissed off. As far as I’m concerned, I met my goal and would be happy to argue the point since I was still within the budget, even if I could have gotten it done cheaper (and still on time) had we not experienced some delays.
It’s hard when we keep switching from candy to self-banning. Those two are different in that the self-ban requires you to impose on a mod, whereas the candy scenario doesn’t require you to force someone else to do something. Goofy’s response applies just fine to self bans. Getting someone else to do something necessarily diminishes the amount you have to do yourself.
Now as far as the candy is concerned, just the way you have written it out makes is very clear that one of those requires more self-control than another.
But now youve changed perspective.
If youre evaluating others in relation to you. Then sure. How much effort they impose on you is a useful thing to measure. But thats more. “Do i like this person” or “are they too much effort”. Dont confuse it with some subjective measure of self control, normative judgement type thing.
More broadly though. For me, the understanding that environment drives behaviour and being supporting of others as they manage that… these are both requirements for being a good person. Rather than a burden
Im mainly focusing on the candy. Because i think this is an interesting topic. Less interested in the self bans.
As an aside though. Im pretty sure a few mods have pointed out that a ban takes about 15 seconds. Its not much of an imposition.
1 Like
Dammit Johnny, I thought we had agreed that you were IrishMorkFromCork?
I’m glad it didn’t offend you. it was never my intention to come across as malicious or insinuating anything. I just don’t want this place to bleed away its members.
3 Likes
Imagine someone brings candy to person 1 and 2‘s houses. Which one is less likely to eat it? Seems to me that person has more self control/will power/whatever you wanna call it.
I have no interest in using cocaine. This requires zero self-control from me. I do not have to tell friends to keep cocaine away from me.
Person two has a combination of genetic profile, childhood history (trauma, etc.), mental health, and life experiences that results in an extreme temptation to use. This person asks their friends to keep cocaine away from them.
Who is practicing more self-control here? It’s certainly not me. We can’t assess the strength of one’s self-control unless we know the strength of the forces working against that self-control.
2 Likes
It seems like the underlying issue here is not as much the definition of self-control but the value judgments surrounding it and having varying degrees of it. That would seem to be the more worthwhile thing to tackle than trying to jigger the definition so as to be more respectful to people.
It 99.9% does.
People get a rush out of “owning” people who make a post they perceive as bad. Then they get a response to it and try to smack them down again to get the same rush.
I don’t see the appeal to it anymore. But others relish in the arguing by treating it as some kind of academic battleground. I used to as well but it got boring and I was largely unfulfilled by it.
Yeah. It’s more of a general statement rather than one specific to a community or individual.
Fixed my post 
Do we think we’re clear of it? Anybody who has seen The Social Dilemma knows that none of us are immune to its impact even if we don’t use it.
I mean there’s a clear distinction between posting on UP and social media in that I don’t think most people are posting on UP seeking approval from other members here. But people who take an ungodly number of selfies for that perfect shot to share on Instagram are putting their self-esteem on the line.