Self-control is a limited resource, use it sparingly.
miller-mccune.com
miller-mccune.com
This study tells us that self-control might be a bit like a muscle, in that its use acutely makes it weaker. But do we chronically adapt to its use, and become stronger once the temporary fatigue has passed, as with so many other forms of stress? Intuitively, from my experience, we do, but it might be interesting to study. Either way, this possibility makes this study insufficient basis for advice to "use it sparingly."
The chronic adaptation, in other words, is habit. The process of intentionally breaking old habits and establishing new ones seems to always be particularly taxing, but maintaining an established habit, regardless of what it is, is easy. (Ignoring external factors, of course.)
With that in mind, it would be good advice to conserve the limited resource, or at least acknowledge it's variable availability and adjust your expectations of your own abilities in accordance. I'm certain there are many among the ambitious folk of HN who have taken on too many new and exciting challenges at once only to find that they turn into new and exciting chores that we can't even force ourselves to do, instead turning to the things that don't require self-control instead.
We call that procrastination and treat it like a challenge to overcome, too, but if it's a symptom of depleted self-control (and not a weak self-control "muscle"), then we'd be better served by being miserly about how we spend it than by taxing it unnecessarily. In that sense, there is a meta-adaptation in how you consciously manage your attention.
I find that I do gain ability in self-control. As you mention, the same task becomes effortless, but also, new ones become easier to confront. Practicing self-control has, for me, led to it becoming easier in general.
The test would be to see how you perform with novel depleting tasks (like writing without certain letters) where no such learned heuristics might apply.
That's what I mean by a meta-adaptation. It just makes more sense to me that you can learn to manage the demands on your self-control than to boost the total supply of it. It's more like time, to me.
It may of course be some mixture of both, but I always find it interesting when people's mental models of seemingly universal experience differ.
edit: actually, see Cayenne's post.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/10x/the_physiology_of_willpower/ -- exerting willpower leads to glucose-depletion.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=848839 -- this topic has been on here before, though it was a different paper.
Even after my sleeping patterns returned to normal, it was harder to deal with some of the more annoying parts of startup-life. Here’s what it took to get my work stamina back on track:
I’m now doing one thing at a time, wholeheartedly. I don’t think of work when with baby. I don’t think of baby when at work. Sounds trivial, but easier said then done. I use whatever self-control I have left on this.
I separate work and home with an indulging buffer activity. Preferably something that also nourishes the body like mild exercise (but even if not that’s ok). What works now is biking a few miles between home and work, with a short pit stop at my favorite coffee shop.
Took me a couple months to get this to work, and it takes energy to keep it optimized. But when it clicks right, be prepared for a powerful feedback loop of goodness.
don't really get this study and line of thinking.
Are they saying there's an optimum sweet spot because if you don't exercise self control at all then it's hard to have a decent amount of it.
The fact that you imagine this task being 'hard' indicates that you are aware of the mental exhaustion the task will cause. It's actually the exact same explanation given in the article, only you overlook it, because the 'hardness' of the task seems so obvious that you forget to ask why it is 'hard'.
From a classic play by Moliere: Why do sleeping pills make you sleepy? Because they have sleep-inducing qualities!
alternatively, it might even be the same task, but two groups that have a different attitude to it (some might consider it play, others work).
(i suspect you can also continue down your route, re-labelling things; for example, you might say that people only calls things "work" if, for that individual, they are "theft-inducing". at that point i am not sure if we simply agree to disagree, or if the argument becomes whether you are still learning something new over the original experiment)
I will add that maybe some people felt not only 'owed' something but an urge for vengeance. The stricter test condition is not merely one requiring 'self control' but is rather draconian in the degree to which it requires self-control. There is a difference between expecting self-restraint and imposing hardship on people. "What goes around comes around". When you crap on people for purposes of your so-called experiments, don't be all shocked when they crap on you if given the opportunity.
Also, with a small n of 84, I think more experiments should be conducted in this area.
Notes:
If you try to do something bad (that part of you knows is wrong), this will set up repetitious, conflicting thoughts which act to deplete willpower.
Willpower is replenished by sleep.
Activities seemingly opposite to those activities which require willpower are known as pleasures. However, my guess is that these also drain neurotransmitters, rather like revving an engine in neutral.
Therefore the way to maximise useful activity is to:
(a) do something that is genuinely in accordance with your highest wishes and values (b) decide that it will be your sole source of pleasure and entertainment