So, I hit under 210 pounds!
I want to talk a bit about this; why it is important to me, and maybe even a little philosophy. This is going to be a nasal gazing post.
I've never had the weight that I want; I enjoy eating too much, and there's this constant struggle. Sound familiar? Right.
So.
A year and a half ago, I entered into a bet with our friendly neighborhood economist. He'd hold onto a check, and if I hit the goal weight by a certain date, he'd destroy it. Otherwise, he'd send it to an organization that I personally find reprehensible. Every single time we've done this, I have won the bet. Usually with weeks to spare.
That is; I went from nothing work to something that works. After Nov 9, when doing this I started giving the money away. I figured if I had the money to possibly spare, then I could go ahead and spare it. This was to causes that I care about; ie, the most recent went to Safety Pin Box -- so money directly in the hands of black women.
Granted, during the winter months I don't do the incentive mechanism and tend to gain back a bunch. I think that's OK for now, and doesn't disprove the overall point. I don't do it during Winter because it is cold and I hate it.
Philosophically, I came around to American pragmatism and it's historical antecedent found in Hume. And this is where my notion of free will has always resided: compatibalism. That is, it can both be the case that our actions are caused by outside events, and that we can be said to have free will.
That I can enter into a contract that so alters my behaviors such that I exercise more and eat less confounds me. My will was free to enter into the bet, and then the bet affected my free will. I do not even feel free when I am doing the incentive mechanism -- I feel the philosophical chains.
Which is odd. I normally do not feel such chains. That is, I normally feel as if my decisions are mine to make for whatever that means. Could it be it is an illusion, and that even the Hume sense of free will is nonsensical?
I'm not sure. I am sure that I'm not pretty like Matt Damon. I am, though, adorkable, which is probably a good thing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
verywell.com - Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic Motivation: What's the Difference? ?
ReplyDeleteDo you have something more than a linky to add, Todd Sprang?
ReplyDeleteI find, for me personally, incentives like this never work. It could simply be about scale - I have no problem losing $20-30 on a failed bet. If the cash got high enough for me to care, it'd be too much to risk with a family to provide for.
ReplyDeleteFor me personally, the motivation is personal excellence. Getting good at something and knowing that I can do it. This flags here and there, but I imagine your motivation does too.
nah, not a lot. the article made an interesting point or two, but that's all i noticed in your post: that you seem torn(?) over changing motivational sources.
ReplyDeletei can personally relate, and have pushed people away who tried to impose their motivations on my intrinsically motivating things. (e.g. parents tried to hound me to practice guitar, when i already loved practicing. i got really annoyed with them b/c i felt interest wane immediately and insisted they leave me alone about it.)
think you're just experiencing normalcy, but why it appears to be human nature, i'm not so certain.
Aaron Griffin note that the form of pre-commitment William Nichols is talking about involves more than just losing some money. Additionally, it involves supporting a cause you find reprehensible, which many people find unacceptable even at a level they can easily afford.
ReplyDeleteIf you want another lens to look at this, consider the divided self. Entering into such a contract is changing the situation for your future self. I have seen some people write about this as a form of free-will paradox (as you do above), but it is not immediately obvious to me how changing the future situation in any way is logically distinct from moderately coercive pre-commitment. Setting an alarm to wake up, configuring reminders, or engaging automated processes (like automated bill payment or savings transfers) are all forms of changing the situation for your future self in a way that nudges in a particular direction.
ReplyDeleteYep, Brendan S. You are correct.
ReplyDelete$10 and my good name supporting the aclu? Pfft.
$10 and my good name supporting the catholic church? ouch.
$10 and my good name supporting the american Nazi party? NO WAY NOT NO HOW
I go the midgrade. Some people go whole hog with things like the nazis, but I cannot get behind that.
The other thing is how this is an interesting mix of internal and external motivations, as I clearly had an internal motivation or else I would never have written the check.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, Brendan S, those things look the same from outside. Internal to my own psyche they feel very different. What I don't know is if that is due to novelty -- that is, is there really something different going on, or does it just seem to because I am not accostomed to being so constrained?
ReplyDeleteI don't know!
One angle might be that the contract involves a social sanction whereas an alarm clock is at least potentially entirely private. My guess is the potential social sanction strengthens goal commitment through increasing goal importance by way of increasing the cost of goal failure.
ReplyDeleteI was just reading the "counteractive self-control" literature for other reasons, but it seems relevant:
psych.nyu.edu - psych.nyu.edu/tropelab/publications/Myrseth2009.pdf
(This paper is short and pretty readable.)
I think that's right for sure, Brendan S!
ReplyDeleteAs one thing that I don't want is to receive letters as a donor from an organization I loath. For them to sell my name to their friendly organizations. For people to come to my house and see, say, mail from the NRA. To have to explain that. Oh god.
So, if I understand the article: desserts are less appealing after entering into a weight loss bet than they are before. That is, the commitment mechanism changes my perception of how good things will be to consume.
Do I have that right?
My read of the "social sanctions" concept is that it might not be the donor org, so much as it is the fact that your friend would know.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, I know I eat better in public than when alone and in private (instant ramen!)
William Nichols yes that is my reading of that particular compensatory control mechanism as well. The process operated through changes in valuation.
ReplyDeleteAaron Griffin Agreed, the public aspect is also important. That's part of why I post it here -- and, correlation not implying causation, but still -- I do a lot better during the weeks when I discuss it here than the ones where I do not.
ReplyDeleteThat's an obvious alternative causal structure, of course, but the potetntial social stigma most def changes the rewards.