The Willpower Instinct: How Self-Control Works, Why It Matters, and What You Can Do To Get More of It

by Kelly McGonigal

Some neuroscientists go so far as to say that we have one brain but two minds—or even, two people living inside our mind. There’s the version of us that acts on impulse and seeks immediate gratification, and the version of us that controls our impulses and delays gratification to protect our long-term goals.

ID and self, the ego is the actor.

You can’t exactly kill a desire, and because the cravings are inside your mind and body, there’s no obvious escape. The fight-or-flight stress response, which pushes you toward your most primitive urges, is exactly what you don’t need right now. Self-control requires a different approach to self-preservation—one that helps you handle this new kind of threat.

This seems like the override system missing in Joseph LeDoux's book on emotion.

Segerstrom calls those changes the pause-and-plan response, which couldn’t look more different from the fight-or-flight response.

LeDoux studied the fight or flight response, willpower is the mechanism to counter fight or flight mode, the pause and plan mode.

If you tell yourself that you are too tired or don’t have the time to exercise, start thinking of exercise as something that restores, not drains, your energy and willpower.

Its all about perspective.

Because self-control also demands high levels of energy, some scientists speculate that chronic self-control—like chronic stress—can increase your chances of getting sick by diverting resources from the immune system. You heard it here first: Too much willpower can actually be bad for your health. You may be thinking: What about all that stuff in the first chapter about how important willpower is for health? Now you’re telling me self-control is going to make me sick? Well, maybe. Just like some stress is necessary for a happy and productive life, some self-control is needed. But just like living under chronic stress is unhealthy, trying to control every aspect of your thoughts, emotions, and behavior is a toxic strategy. It is too big a burden for your biology.

Doubtful, but maybe this is why i had so much avoidance, resistance, denial, and escape from the truth I was writing that one day - i can control how my subconscious thinks and acts. View Journal entry for 5/3/18 - review incident for additional logic twists that may have caused this denial of the truth i have utilized - ways of working with my subconscious.

Self-control, like the stress response, evolved as a nifty strategy for responding to specific challenges. But just as with stress, we run into trouble when self-control becomes chronic and unrelenting. We need time to recover from the exertion of self-control, and we sometimes need to spend our mental and physical resources elsewhere. To preserve both your health and happiness, you need to give up the pursuit of willpower perfection. Even as you strengthen your self-control, you cannot control everything you think, feel, say, and do. You will have to choose your willpower battles wisely.

Here's the rest of my answer - this is more or less how i've discovered to make it work. Self analysis, counter analysis, negative and positive analyses, apply corrective habits to stack the deck better in my favor.

A brain that could bias your decisions toward immediate gratification when resources are scarce, but toward long-term investment when resources are plenty, would be a real asset in a world with an unpredictable food supply. Those who were slower to listen to their hunger, or too polite to fight for their share, may have found the last bone already scraped clean. In times of food scarcity, early humans who followed their appetites and impulses had a better chance of survival. He who takes the biggest risks—from exploring new land to trying new foods and new mates—is often the most likely to survive (or at least have his genes survive). What appears in our modern world as a loss of control may actually be a vestige of the brain’s instinct for strategic risk-taking. To prevent starvation, the brain shifts to a more risk-taking, impulsive state. Indeed, studies show that modern humans are more likely to take any kind of risk when they’re hungry. For example, people make riskier investments when they’re hungry, and are more willing to “diversify their mating strategies” (evolutionary psychologist–speak for cheating on their partner) after a fast.

So when the brain recognizes That you are low on willpower, it will release control to your impulse system where it will do all in its power to regain more willpower. Suddenly craving and eating sweets, for example. perhaps those with ADHD are constantly using their willpower to maintain focus, and the evolution is that finishing the task you want to complete refills your willpower through serotonin. Once several wanted tasks are complete, the person seems to regain their impulse control.

Taking the effort to stop, breathe, and find a less stressful response was not just about giving her sons a better mom. It was about enjoying being with her sons, and feeling good about what she had given up to be a stay-at-home mom. With this insight, Erin found that it was easier to keep her cool. Not yelling at her boys became a way of not yelling at herself, and of finding the joy in the messy reality of mommyhood.

Sometimes figuring out what twist of logic that is behind the habit you wish to control is the answer.

Sometimes we make a conscious choice to give in to temptation.

We often choose autopilot.

These studies shocked a lot of people. Psychologists had long assumed that once you expressed an attitude, you would be likely to act in line with it. After all, who wants to feel like a hypocrite? But the Princeton psychologists had uncovered the exception to our usual desire to be consistent. When it comes to right and wrong, most of us are not striving for moral perfection. We just want to feel good enough—which then gives us permission to do whatever we want.

The worst part of moral licensing is not just its questionable logic; the problem is how it tricks us into acting against our best interests. It convinces us that self-sabotaging behavior—whether breaking your diet, blowing your budget, or sneaking a smoke—is a “treat.” This is lunacy, but it’s an incredibly powerful trick of a mind that turns your wants into shoulds.

These two mind-sets have very different consequences. When people who have taken a positive step toward meeting a goal—for example, exercising, studying, or saving money—are asked, “How much progress do you feel you have made on your goal?” they are more likely to then do something that conflicts with that goal, like skip the gym the next day, hang out with friends instead of studying, or buy something expensive. In contrast, people who are asked, “How committed do you feel to your goal?” are not tempted by the conflicting behavior. A simple shift in focus leads to a very different interpretation of their own actions—“I did that because I wanted to,” not “I did that, great, now I can do what I really want!”

Its important to note that if you give a sense of accompishment with your words instead of reminding them of their steadfastness towards their goals, a person is more likely to relapse.

Is there a rule you can live with that will help you end the kind of inner debate that talks you right out of your goals?

Congratulations: You have just met, and fallen for, the halo effect. This form of moral licensing looks for any reason to say “yes” to temptation. When we want permission to indulge, we’ll take any hint of virtue as a justification to give in.

To see this in action, you don’t have to look any further than dinner. Studies show that people who order a main dish advertised as a healthy choice also order more indulgent drinks, side dishes, and desserts. Although their goal is to be healthy, they end up consuming more calories than people who order a regular entrée. Dieting researchers call this a health halo. We feel so good about ordering something healthy, our next indulgence doesn’t feel sinful at

(Though judging by what people order at the movies and restaurants, I’d say many of us believe diet sodas have a similar calorie-negating effect.)

When dieters saw the words “Fat Free!” on the outside of the package, it more than canceled out the sin of the chocolate devil’s food cookies on the inside.

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

This goes for any type of positive change, including how we try to motivate ourselves. We need to feel like the kind of person who wants to do the right thing. Moral licensing turns out to be, at its core, an identity crisis. We only reward ourselves for good behavior if we believe that who we really are is the self that wants to be bad. From this point of view, every act of self-control is a punishment, and only self-indulgence is a reward. But why must we see ourselves this way? Moving beyond the traps of moral licensing requires knowing that who we are is the self that wants the best for us—and the self that wants to live in line with our core values. When this happens, we will no longer view the impulsive, lazy, or easily tempted self as the “real” us. We will no longer act like someone who must be bribed, tricked, or forced to pursue our goals, and then rewarded for making any effort at all.

The flood of dopamine marks this new object of desire as critical to your survival. When dopamine hijacks your attention, the mind becomes fixated on obtaining or repeating whatever triggered it. This is nature’s trick to make sure you don’t starve because you can’t be bothered to pick a berry, and that you don’t hasten human extinction because seducing a potential mate seems like too much of a hassle. Evolution doesn’t give a damn about happiness itself, but will use the promise of happiness to keep us struggling to stay alive. And so the promise of happiness—not the direct experience of happiness—is the brain’s strategy to keep you hunting, gathering, working, and wooing.

Dopamine is the call to action, serotonin is the pleasure reward.

Then there was the anticipation of connecting by modem to AOL, hoping the computer would tell us, “You’ve got mail!” Well, now we have Facebook, Twitter, e-mail, and text messaging—the modern equivalent of psychiatrist Robert Heath’s self-stimulating devices.

Because we know there’s a chance we’ll have a new message, or because the very next You Tube video may be the one that makes us laugh, we keep hitting refresh, clicking the next link, and checking our devices compulsively. It’s as if our cell phones, BlackBerrys, and laptops have a direct line into our brains, giving us constant jolts of dopamine.

Advertising Is about triggering the dopamine center of the brain - the promise of reward. We dont even know what to do with the reward, we just know we need to get it.

you’re like most of my students, you’re probably wondering where all this leaves us. The promise of reward doesn’t guarantee happiness, but no promise of reward guarantees unhappiness. Listen to the promise of reward, and we give in to temptation. Without the promise of reward, we have no motivation.

Possible cause of depression in those with ADD/ADHD is desensitization Along with bein g aware subliminally of the failings of willpower.

For example, when a cocaine addict remembers a fight with a family member or being criticized at work, his brain’s reward system becomes activated, and he experiences intense cravings for cocaine. The stress hormones released during a fight-or-flight response also increase the excitability of your dopamine neurons. That means that when you’re under stress, any temptations you run into will be even more tempting.

When stress goes up for any reason, willpower goes down. Memories can cause stress, which triggers dopamine excitability. I wonder, if a drive to act is currently being suppressed when stress is added, does a person follow the current drive, a New one related to the stressor, or the favored neural pattern of survival - such as the addiction?

First coined by dieting researchers Janet Polivy and C. Peter Herman, the what-the-hell effect describes a cycle of indulgence, regret, and greater indulgence.

look for self justification for the decision - a missing piece, if you will, to counter the regret and push us forward.

Instead of minimizing the harm by not taking another bite, they would say, “What the hell, I already blew my diet. I might as well eat the whole thing.”

Justification of the choice.

Crucially, it’s not the first giving-in that guarantees the bigger relapse. It’s the feelings of shame, guilt, loss of control, and loss of hope that follow the first relapse.

Your self esteem detects that there is an attck on your self worth and acts to make you feel better, which is by releasing dopamine, and because youre thinking about the thing that makes you guilty, you desire more of the guilty pleasure.

This leads to even bigger willpower failures and more misery as you then berate yourself (again) for giving in (again). But the thing you’re turning to for comfort can’t stop the cycle, because it only generates more feelings of guilt.

You slide down the pyramid of morality and further give into the temptations you should deny yourself.

Common sense says that the message “Everyone indulges sometimes; don’t be too hard on yourself” will only give dieters permission to eat more. And yet getting rid of guilt kept the women from overindulging in the taste test. We may think that guilt motivates us to correct our mistakes, but it’s just one more way that feeling bad leads to giving in.

acceptance of our humanity leads to regaining our willpower. It is in this acceptance of self that we regain our self worth and can continue towards our goals.

These findings fly in the face of our instincts. How can this be, when so many of us have a strong intuition that self-criticism is the cornerstone of self-control, and self-compassion is a slippery slope to self-indulgence? What would motivate these students if not feeling bad for procrastinating the last time? And what would keep us in check if we didn’t feel guilty for giving in?

Be a friend, not a boss to yourself. Friends help, a boss critiques.

One reason forgiveness helps people recover from mistakes is that it takes away the shame and pain of thinking about what happened. The what-the-hell effect is an attempt to escape the bad feelings that follow a setback. Without the guilt and self-criticism, there’s nothing to escape. This means it’s easier to reflect on how the failure happened, and less tempting to repeat it.

Cognitive dissonance, dopamine, self esteem to self justification, falling deeper in to the abyss.

False hope syndrome is especially sneaky because it masquerades as self-control. In fact, it does such a good job fooling us, I’d wager that while you were reading this very section, it took you a moment to realize that I was describing another willpower trap, not the silver lining of feeling bad. And that’s exactly why the promise of change is worth looking at. There is a fine line between the motivation we need to make a change, and the kind of unrealistic optimism that can sabotage our goals. We need to believe that change is possible; without hope, we’d resign ourselves to the way things are. But we must avoid the common trap of using the promise of change to fix our feelings, not to fix our behaviors. Otherwise, we can turn what looks like willpower into just another version of a rat pressing a lever, hoping this is the time we get the reward.

If we can commit to the change we envision, this false hope could be utilized to spur hope and change, however the person will need all the tools to help themselves stay the course of their commitment. This is very difficuilt, this is opposite what the human brain wants for itself - instant gratification and self serving desires in the moment.

High future-self continuity seems to propel people to be the best version of themselves now. For example, Ersner-Hershfield noticed that people high in future-self continuity were more likely to show up for the study on time, and people low in future-self continuity were more likely to blow the study off and have to reschedule. Struck by this accidental finding, he began to explore how future-self continuity affects ethical decision making.

A very interesting finding - ADD also shares this trait. How is this different than someone who has ADD?

feeling connected to our future selves protects us from our worst impulses.

Christakis and Fowler have found the same pattern of contagion in other communities, and for willpower challenges as diverse as drug use, sleep deprivation, and depression. As unsettling as it may be, the implication is clear: Both bad habits and positive change can spread from person to person like germs, and nobody is completely immune.

My house has changed so drastically since i started to crawl out of my depression by learning to be a psychologist...

THE SOCIAL SELF

This entire first section is absolutely dripping with insight, I want to highlight it all.

Humans are hardwired to connect with others, and our brains have adapted a nifty way to make sure we do. We have specialized brain cells—called mirror neurons—whose sole purpose is to keep track of what other people are thinking, feeling, and doing. These mirror neurons are sprinkled throughout the brain to help us understand the full range of other people’s experiences.

MIRRORING WILLPOWER FAILURES

This section, too, bleeds insights.

Our sense of self depends on our relationships with others, and in many ways, we only know who we are by thinking about other people. Because we include other people in our sense of self, their choices influence our choices.

Mark Ansel, the psychologist who developed this approach, argues that religious communities should take on more responsibility for supporting behavior change.

Religion is a huge social means into acceptance - with as much influence on devotees as religious leaders have, it makes sense to utilize these persons for positive, communal change.

Wegner calls this process the operator. The operator relies on the brain’s system of self-control and—like all forms of effortful self-control—requires a good deal of mental resources and energy.

Parallel to the 'director' theory?

Another part of your mind takes on the job of looking for any evidence that you are thinking, feeling, or doing whatever you don’t want to think, feel, or do. It’s like the young woman observing, “I keep thinking of it over and over and over . . . every time I try and not think about a white bear, I’m still thinking about one.” Wegner calls this process the monitor.

Analytical observer.

This can sound good—automatic self-control!—until you realize how critical the cooperation is between operator and monitor. If, for any reason, the operator runs out of steam, the monitor is going to become a self-control nightmare.

We are self-actuating, self serving meat popsicles, barely cognizant of our own being, both observing and directing the autopilot meat popsicle as best we can.

Wegner suggests an antidote to ironic rebound that is, itself, ironic: Give up. When you stop trying to control unwanted thoughts and emotions, they stop controlling you. Studies of brain activation confirm that as soon as you give participants permission to express a thought they were trying to suppress, that thought becomes less primed and less likely to intrude into conscious awareness. Paradoxically, permission to think a thought reduces the likelihood of thinking it.

You are allowed to have whatever thoughts you want, you don't have to act or think they are really you or what you want.

The willingness to think what you think and feel what you feel—without necessarily believing that it is true, and without feeling compelled to act on it—is an effective strategy for treating anxiety, depression, food cravings, and addiction. As we consider the evidence for each, we’ll see that giving up control of our inner experiences gives us greater control over our outer actions.

Another experiment found that when people try to push away self-critical thoughts (“I’m such a loser,” “People think I’m stupid”), their self-esteem and mood plummet faster than when people openly contemplate such thoughts.

Self esteem working to preserve your sense of self worth - if you think poorly of yourself, your self esteem will match your inner feeling of self worth.

This is true even when people think they have succeeded at pushing the negative thoughts away. Ironic rebound strikes again!

The reverse psychology effect is present behind the scenes.

When a worry comes up, he instructs the anxiety sufferers to notice what they are thinking, feel the anxiety in their body, and then turn their attention to their breathing. If the anxiety persists, he encourages them to imagine their thoughts and emotions dissolving with the breath. He teaches them that if they don’t fight the anxiety, it will naturally run its course.