Self-Control Matters Far More Than Raw Intelligence | Hacker News Reader

Self-Control Matters Far More Than Raw Intelligence

madepublishing.com

150 pointsdiscolemonade65 comments

The article takes as given that people who hack rather than watch Netflix do so because of their superior self-control — does anybody else doubt that?

I've had times in my life when I've been really prolific and times when it would take a Herculean effort to get anything worthwhile done. When I'm prolific, it's not because I'm exercising self-control to stop myself from watching Netflix — I'd just rather work on Thing X than watch a movie. When I find myself watching Netflix instead of putting in time on something I've been wanting to do, it's because at that moment the movie is more appealing than the work. It's the same force pushing in different directions.

I'm not saying you can get by with no self-control (there are always some less pleasant things you need to do), but I think taking this article at face value might lead people down the wrong path.

I can relate with the article in that I've noticed in myself that if I ever go a week where I watch more movies/TV than usual, I VERY quickly notice myself feeling like it's OK to watch that amount, or more, in the future. Actions of that comfort turn very quickly into habits, and that's where the real danger lies - falling into comfort. It's really why so many people work boring jobs. I bet you a good amount of them have dreams, but are too comfortable and lack the "metacognition" (or vision, self-control, foresight, execution skills) to take action.

When I find myself watching Netflix instead of putting in time on something I've been wanting to do, it's because at that moment the movie is more appealing than the work.

When this happens to me I challenge myself first to figure out why the work is less appealing, and then once I've figured that out I attempt to remove the block. This strategy has been somewhat successful, but sometimes the barriers are too big and annoying and horrible to push through :|

In those cases, on goes the movie and I simply hope that time and help from others will resolve the issue.

There will probably be a lot of people who will disagree with me on this, but here I go anyway: I think self control and discipline are overrated. Some of my best work has come out of me being distracted and unfocused.

I generally find that it's better to indulge my lack of focus in a controlled manner than it is to try fighting it.

What kind of work was it? Something highly creative? EDIT: those who upvoted as "me too" can answer too.

I think that he isn't going to answer. He has got distracted.

Funny. But for the record, HN is the distraction. Therefore, I would be distracted if I did respond. :-)

And you did...

I suppose you could say that. I guess maybe the two things are related. :-)

I agree, creativity and freedom to do what you feel/want are very connected. However, if the project is large enough, self-control and discipline is required to turn that project into something great, especially for entrepreneurs who wear many hats.

I agree. Creative and brilliant ideas can come at anytime, but putting in the work to get those ideas to market, or to polish them off until presentable to outsiders is where the disciple comes in.

I can wake up in the middle of the night with a great idea to improve a UI workflow, or to squeeze more performance out of a process, but if my disciple doesn't kick and I write the code to get it done,

Also it doesn't take intelligence to makes sure my Press page, About page and Resume stay current, it just takes discipline.

All of my prior jobs have been given to me based on my completed portfolio projects, not on my great ideas. And numerous co-workers have been let go because their brilliance never results in 'finished' projects.

I see your point, but how much of that work lasted longer than [arbitrary unit of time]?

While I can see bursts of undirected creativity stimulating small, quick discoveries, anything that takes longer than, say, a week (probably more like a day), just doesn't seem achievable.

Then again, you said your "best work", not biggest. I suppose those are actually be mutually exclusive in many cases.

Not the person you're replying to, but I often find my "best work" to be undirected side projects as well, but you're right that it tends to be something that can at least be prototyped in a week. If it can't go from idea-germination to some useful checkpoint in a week, and it's not what I'm officially "supposed" to be working on, it'll tend to get abandoned partly done.

The stuff that can be finished in a week often feels like my best work, though, at least intellectually (and you can get a good amount done in a week if you're excited about it). The week-long side projects tend to have more novelty, which sometimes even results in more impactful published papers: you're proposing the first X to do Y, and you have a working system to boot (in academia not always required, but a nice plus if you have it).

My biggest projects tend to require some focus and months, but they tend to be more of the grind variety. Take that initial prototype, either one I've produced or one someone else has published, and build a Real System on it, working out all the details, including engineering and theory as appropriate.

Yeah, I think I came to the realization as I was finishing my post above that for most people, "best" and "biggest" really are incompatible, for precisely the reasons you mention. Once a project becomes sufficiently large, it can become a grind to work on; additionally, the scope is inevitably bigger, which means even more work to make sure it's hitting on all cylinders.

A small, quick project that does just one thing well is probably a lot easier to see as your "best" because there's just fewer edge cases for you to say "boy, I wish I would have done it this other way..."

Actually, I would say that my "biggest" work is my best work. It might not be as pretty, but there's little more satisfying than coming up with a good solution to a complex problem.

Generally speaking, my approach to programming is more trial and error than organized and methodical. But then again, my work style doesn't work in all situations nor does it work for everyone else. I'm generally better at starting a project than finishing one. However, just like some projects take longer to finish than others, some projects take longer to start than others. So I I don't think that time is terribly pertinent.

With that in mind, a certain amount of distractibility is a blessing for me. If something distracts me, that means it will distract whoever is finishing a project. Therefore, it's important to address those distractions ahead of time.

I know exactly what you mean. Sometimes if I just let my mind wander I come up with the most amazing insights and then I have to--SQUIRREL!!!!

That's the best way to come up with ideas. But at some point you have to implement them, and that's where discipline comes in.

I consider myself to have a hell of a lot of self control, sometimes to a fault. There have been times in my life that I feel less self control would have helped me.

For instance, ive been in a few one way fights in my life, I've never hit anyone back. I remember the adrenalin rushing through my body and the fight or flight response gearing up, but my mind overcomes that and I usually end up talking myself out of it or someone else interjects.

But because I control the fight or flight I end up getting the shakes after the incident because I didn't fight back nor run away, since shaking is the physiological response to burn off the adrenalin.

Personally, I feel I'd have done a lot better in those situations if I'd acted on impulse and actually fought back. Hell even running away could've served me better aswell.

What you experienced is completely normal in violent situations. If you want to read a very good book on reactions and consequences of violent situations you should read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Violence-Comparison-Martia...

Even if you've never been in a violent encounter, this book will help you understand how you will react. Keep in mind, you don't choose when you become part of a violent situation, violence chooses you.

Maybe, maybe not. While I can't deny the visceral satisfaction of responding physically, you also sometimes have to deal with the legal consequences of those actions. Short of defending my or a loved one's life or property, I personally find very little reason to respond to someone else's physical threats.

What I'm saying is that I think you probably did the right thing.

You would probably have gotten the shakes even if you had hit back. It's quite common, as is evacuating the bladder, etc., after high-stress encounters, even for people who can anticipate having to have those encounters (police, etc.).

Too much self-control/discipline can also cause you to single-mindedly pursue the wrong path for many years before realizing all the time and effort you've wasted. Outward success is pointless if it is not felt inwardly as well.

Discipline needs to be directed by intuition, which is connected to impulse. So it's not simply about the ability to suppress impulse -- creative ideas come as strong impulses. It's about the ability to harness and direct your impulses in ways that make you happy. If that's watching films all night, then maybe that's fine. I know some people who would need to exercise quite a bit of discipline to control their workaholic impulse for a night in order to sit down and enjoy a good movie...

That was not caused by too much self control. If you did make the wrong choice (and I stress the if since which is better is highly context dependent and you did not describe the situations), then it is simply that you made the wrong choice.

The self control permitted you to make that choice, in either direction, instead of having it made for you by impulse.

(As an aside, a less brave person could easily have the opposite experience. They hypothetically did not have the self control to overcome their fear and fight when they should have. They gave into the impulse to be passive/surrender.)

It is impossible (and a fallacy, I think) to judge A as lesser than B when it is impossible to definitively state the consequences of B. You have zero idea of what B would have looked like or felt like, only an estimation. You're comparing a known truth (how your non-violence makes you feel) to an estimation of the truth.

In simpler terms you have no way of knowing if listening to the impulse to fight back would have led to legal charges, serious injuries or death - for you or your opponent.

tl;dr: Internet tough guy turns out to not be so tough in real life.

I'm sorry, I know this is HN and not reddit but my lack of self-control has prevented me from keeping this one to myself.

To respond in seriousness, I'm the same way. There's several times I haven't allowed a situation to escalate to the point I had to fight, but afterwards I always find myself wishing I would have.

"The reason they chose to hack instead of watch movies goes to the heart of what really separates people with self-control from people without it."

I hate stuff like this. When people say that their being is the only right thing.

I think you're missing the context. He's referencing his friend who says he wants to accomplish X, but does Y instead. It's not that Y < X; it's that the guy truly does want to do X but just can't help doing Y instead.

He uses his friends problem exemplary, but by saying 'they', he generalizes it.

It's really, really hard to take an article seriously when it takes an "impulsive" five year old and has him committing statutory rape as an adult. Kind of an unnecessary example, no?

Not really - it is a real world action with real consequences.

He could have gotten her pregnant too, but that wouldn't have been as good an example, since that would require the women to take risks too.

Actually your example seems like a better one. Most men would read his example about rape and say (truthfully) "I would never do that!"

Neglecting to use a condom in the heat of the moment? I imagine the line becomes grayer. It's not longer this abhorrent thing where the consequences are binary (did or did not rape), but instead more of a risk/reward thing where judging the consequences requires more fuzzy logic.

Interesting. Are you saying that "statutory rape" is generally considered abhorrent in the US?

I'm not from US, and in my country the roughly equivalent (but different) crime is called "seduction". It's not nearly as bad as "rape", either legally or socially. A rapist might get lynched in prison, while nobody besides a 17yo girl's parents would care about a "seducer" nowadays. Moral issues aside, unprotected sex with an adult would be much riskier than protected sex with a minor.

Would most American young men really say that they would never have consensual sex with a minor? Even if the guy is 18 and the girl is 17? My understanding is that most guys wouldn't do it in situations like a one-night-stand, when the perceived risky of being caught/charged is higher. But if the girl is their girlfriend I believe most guys would do it.

I have friends who fell into the gray area. Forgetting a condom can be easy in the heat of the moment, especially if there was a long 'wait' before hand. However, my friends had good self control... until we got one excessively drunk and sent her home. She ended up at her boyfriends who'd been out at a party himself. 9 months later they had a kid, literally from a 1 time mistake.

I've always had strong self-control. Even when I'm excessively drunk (and I tolerate alcohol well) I am in control. I've never behaved far from the norm when intoxicated, I've had the piece of mind to ensure my wife takes her birth control pill when I've been acting like the ball in a game of pong whilst going down a corridor.

Self-control is certainly a strong factor in the gray areas. I would bet money that most rapists don't have a problem with self-control, I would say the ability to wait until an opportune time shows a high degree of self-control; a self-control issue would be an old man on a train squeezing a school girls ass. I would say rapists have an impulse-control disorder, they're willing to gamble a minor short-term gain for a huge long-term loss. Someone with self-control issue tends to gamble a small short-term gain with an normal long-term loss.

Having children isn't a life-ending consequence of having sex. In fact, it's down right average. Going to jail is a life-ending consequence for the majority of people.

A 15 year old having unprotected sex is more an impulse control disorder than a 25 year old. A 25 year old having unprotected sex and having a child is normal, if not expected in the majority of circumstances.

It would not have been a better example, because it is at least equally the womans fault (arguably more, since she has more options for birth control than he does) - statutory rape is not.

That really is a much better example. The first example implies some sort of correlation between impulsiveness or lack of self control and a willingness to perform criminal behavior.

"One thing I’ve noticed is how rarely you see very ambitious people who are overweight. It’s probably because of metacognition."

Caesar also feared thin men, because they could overcome the smaller temptations that small-time power brought with it, focussing instead on going big-time.

Somehow I tend to lean towards a softer interpretation towards people: so I would assume there might be other factors at play, for example with the guy who watches Netflix instead of writing his apps. Perhaps he subconsciously doesn't believe in his success? In general, I think the only way to cure an addiction is to replace it with something better. That is why often alcoholics and drug addicts seem to recover by becoming ultra religious ("better" being subjective, but it fills the void). Instead of looking down on people without self-control, why not try to help them find something better or motivate them?

Of course with a lot of self-control maybe the app guy would just sit down and write the apps. But can self-control then not also backfire? At other times HN is flooded with articles about failing early enough or being prepared to change course. Self control would prevent that and therefore make you less adaptive (at least one possibility).

As for the kids with Marshmallows experiment, yeah, I've heard about it, the guy also wrote a bestseller called "Emotional Intelligence" (notice he is good at marketing). But how many kids did he test? Has it been repeated? And maybe it was other factors - perhaps the kids not taking the Marshmallows were more intelligent and had already learned that Marshmallows are bad for you. Perhaps kids from families with higher socioeconomic status feed less candy to their kids, so the kids craving for candy less were already from better backgrounds. (Not saying that is the explanation, just saying there could be lots of factors at play besides self-control. Personally, I never liked Marshmallows, not even as a kid...).

The question here is not whether we should look down on people with certain traits but to find out what makes a person effective.

It is not about judgment, it is about studying the interaction between human traits and the society.

As for the critique of the experiment, proper screening and appropriate statistical analysis allow to rule out these factors.

Just read the research paper for yourself http://www.columbia.edu/cu/psychology/metcalfe/Old%2520Lab%2...

Link doesn't work, unfortunately. Hope to get around to reading it eventually :-/

I actually assume it was a good study, but still, what is self-control? It seems a rather fuzzy thing, if measured by marshmallow craving. It might be too simplistic to reduce things to it.

>>Perhaps he subconsciously doesn't believe in his success?

Maybe the guy watching movies is trying to relax?

I used to have bad self insight into how worn out I was. Now I try to listen to my body and take it easy when needed.

Sooo... Today I exercised. Tomorrow I'll watch Pan's Labyrinth, which I just bought on Bluray. And I won't read up on a few class libraries I want to learn more than seeing that movie again... :-)

Edit: I should write out the point simpler: Maybe the guy has a bad year/decade for some reason beyond his control (family, health, stress, etc).

'I’m a driven person and I surround myself with other driven people. Generally, when I land on an exciting new idea, I can’t wait to jump on it'.

I read this as 'Self-control is great because I have great self-control.' I'm a big believer in the thesis of this article (to an extent, anyway: I'll take someone with high intelligence and low self-control over an extreme example of someone with low intelligence but high self-control), but he completely turned me off in the third paragraph. And then again when he likened a fifth grader wanting a treat right now with an adult committing statutory rape.

Isn't "can't wait to jump on an exciting new idea" the opposite of self control?

Is there something actually based on fact and data that anyone can recommend about the subject of self-control (and it's impact on being successful)?

TED talk video (fun, aimed at a general audience) http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/joachim_de_posada_says_don...

Jonah Lehrer writeup for the New Yorker (6 pages) http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/18/090518fa_fact_...

The actual research (direct link to PDF) http://www.columbia.edu/cu/psychology/metcalfe/Old%20Lab%20W...

Those three are all the same piece of research.

Yes, sorry if that wasn't clear.

Those are all based on the marshmallow experiment. Is there anything beyond that?

Well, it's like 30 years of research and half of Walter Mischel's entire career!

Yes, I was worried it might sound like that. I know marshmallow experiment from previous HN submissions and it's quite interesting. I was just curious if there are any other interesting studies or theories that may have not been that popular but are worth knowing about. I'm certainly not trying to undermine Dr. Mischel's research.

Roy Bauermseister’s work on ego depletion is a good place to start. http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/584/baumeis... http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/pubs.html

The gist is that self-regulation appears to be a limited resource in the brain. This has many important implications, but the most relevant one is that treating it as a psychological phenomenon (resulting from certain ways of thinking or the presence or absence of certain personality traits) will only get you so far towards better utilizing it, if it gets you anywhere at all. As with time, thinking of willpower as a scarce resource that ought to be guarded carefully and spent wisely yields benefits that brooding about lack of it does not.

This will hopefully steer you away from the trap that the submission author fell into, wherein we paint over all matters of behavior or habit with layer upon layer of cognition and meta-cognition. We all love rationality and making conscious willful decisions, but as far as our brain is concerned, it’s more of a hobby than a full-time job. Whatever good goal-setting systems and positive self-image do, they evidently are not at the heart of the problem of self-control.

Metaconginiton or as the author calls it, "thinking about thinking" sounds like intelligence to me.

Self-control is mentally controlling yourself. It takes an active, thinking, controlled mind to put off what is self-indulgence now for one's own greater good. This may be subjective but I find that most intelligent people are self-controlled by definition.

Metaconginiton or as the author calls it, "thinking about thinking" sounds like intelligence to me

It's usually used to refer to something more akin to self-awareness than raw horsepower. Noticing that you didn't understand a paragraph that you just read is something that some people have to learn later in life than others, for example. It may have to do with intelligence, but also probably motivation and cognitive skills.

Edit: fixed typo I may have -> It may have

The article is a bit too one-sided while not taking in other factors that play in life.

Still, I agree that Self-Control is absolutely important when it comes down to pursuing your dreams. The benefit (or destruction if you don't self-control) comes at a average-over-time basis

"I know a guy who constantly talks about wanting to start his own business. He’d like to build it around his very own iPhone app. He’s a talented Flash designer who resolved several years ago to teach himself how to develop apps. About 6 months ago, he bought himself a book on how to do that. He hasn’t cracked it open yet. Instead, he spends his weeknights watching Netflix."

Yeah but the guy who does build the empire around a flash app has to have the impulsiveness to actually do that, too. It's equally possible to be gridlocked by fear of failure masquerading as "impulse control".

For some people, doing something productive isn't an act of self-control--it's just what you prefer doing. I can't sit and enjoy a movie when I'm excited about a project I'm working on; I'll just sit there thinking about how much I want to get back to work.

I think the article makes a lot of conclusions that aren't based on facts, just assumptions.

The article makes a false distinction--'raw intelligence' is not necessary different that 'self-control.' Like emotional intelligence, 'self-control' is a necessary but not sufficient part of any useful meaning of 'intelligence.'

No amount of efforts or will can ever be more enduring then our love of the work. Then, even if we are willing to use the wills, instead of love, to control our behaviour, life is miserable.

Self-control is pretty strongly correlated with high intelligence.

All depends on your definition of high intelligence. I know some very intelligent (rapid cognition, knowledgeable, very capable of thought...) people, who completely lack any form of self-control and are essentially bums.

I would add that genius is more defined by an extreme tenacity than intelligence.

Yet another guy just discovered a Marshmallow study? ^_^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_gratification

What's the deal with all the porn references? Seems like the author has some issues.

Perhaps he should have used more objective references. I believe the author does not find much worth in porn. Your subjective opinion is clearly different. How is having "issues" related with his viewpoint?

I meant that the numerous references to porn detracts from the article, and instead makes you think about what the author thinks of porn. I didn't mean "haha, the author is a recovering porn addict".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com