Hacker News Reader

This makes me think somewhat of my current reading... The Ethics of Ambiguity, by Simone de Beauvoir. Although she's talking about our relationships with other people and the world, rather than our relationship with our future selves, there is significant overlap.

She talks about freedom in an existentialist sense. As her partner Sartre noted, we are all free, but freedom is terrifying, so we do all sorts of things to retreat or hide from it. She follows through on the implications of that freedom. One common interpretation of existentialist freedom is that we need only care about ourselves, not others (Nietzsche was a major proponent of this). She points out that this interpretation of freedom can lead to authoritarian, oppressive rule (she was writing in the immediate wake of WWII). So she argues that in order to exercise our freedom, we must use it to defend and exercise the freedom of others as well. To stand by when others are oppressed and lose their freedom (whether from external or internal cause) diminishes our own freedom, and puts our freedom at real risk. Our internal carelessness about the freedom of others leads directly to external risk to our own freedom.

It's a fascinating book. Extremely dense, but beautifully written and motivating. I find myself reading sentences again out loud, just to enjoy them.

I can see her argument easily extended to our relationship with our future selves - decisions we make with our freedom now can have negative impact on our future freedom. ie eat that cake now, still be fat tomorrow.

Just wanted to jump in here to say (with the imperfect authority of an undergrad philosophy major) that your characterization of Nietzsche is very wrong.

A quick google search provided a slightly more nuanced but still absurdly basic view of Nietzsche's view on selfishness from the man himself: "Self-interest is worth as much as the person who has it: it can be worth a great deal, and it can be unworthy and contemptible."

I'd say my characterization lacks nuance. Yes, Nietzsche is greatly caricatured (and this interpretation falls within that), but Simone de Beauvoir's critique of his philosophy and its dangers to freedom are much, much better than this. Nietzsche is a lot better than he's usually given credit for, but there are nonetheless some pretty big gaps in applying his ideas to society.

To be really odd here, I quit reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra to read Simone de Beauvoir instead, and it was a good decision, but I'll get back to all that Superman stuff eventually.

You haven't adequately criticized Nietzsche for the record. So we can't know if this Simone person is up to something.

For the record, I'm not criticizing Nietzsche. I'm saying Simone de Beauvoir criticized Nietzsche in a manner I found interesting enough to remark upon.

"This Simone person" pretty much invented second wave feminism with her book "The Second Sex", and is widely regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century. Her work changed the course of history. So yes, she's definitely up to something.

I doubt it's that complex. Occam's razor suggests a simpler explanation: there is discomfort in starting a task, therefore people delay starting that task. It's a pain avoidance strategy, which sounds much more likely than some self-referential, future-self theory.

Well, why don't we overcome the discomfort? We overcome it for other things. Lack of identification with future-self means we don't see harm our current actions inflict on our future self as harm to ourselves.

Correlation of that would seem to be that those who are best at dealing with discomfort are the best at doing tasks - I've found that I'm most productive that its less about being able to overcome discomfort, and more about not having the discomfort in the first place. Fear of failure, of not meeting expectations, etc can be put upon one by ones self and also the community. How do they train soldiers to be "doers" at first? They first break down the ego, and then establish fear and punishment based on NOT doing as ordered, so that it is always the path of least resistance and (internal) discomfort to do what is ordered. If you procrastinate up to the point that you have to pull an all nighter to get something done, thats because your fear of not doing the thing is finally present and overwhelming the discomfort to doing the thing.

Finally, "whipping" or punishing ones self into being uncomfortable in order to do the thing primarily just does damage, and builds resistance to even thinking about the subject. Decrease the discomfort in doing the task (by breaking it down, and visualizing what success will reward you with), increase the discomfort for not doing the task (by putting off immediate rewards and gratification until the task is done), and you can ride down the hill instead of pushing upwards.

I think the future-self theory is an attempt to explain the pain-avoidance.

Procrastination causes more discomfort in the long term, so without an explanation for why prioritize preventing discomfort now over discomfort later this explanation falls short. That is what GP is attempting to provide.

I've heard of one technique to fight akrasia which relies on your theory.

It's an exercise where you contemplate you future self as a friend, whose is immediately benefits from your actions. So if you're trying to not eat an extra serving of cake you imagine your future self as a friend who gets fat when you eat that extra serving.

I'm usually content with very little; just for myself, I wouldn't make a lot of effort to acquire wealth. Future me loves money though. It's not just that future me has interests that require money; future me is getting screwed, by a guy named Anno Domini. Future me is poor, feeble, unhealthy, and unloved. You know, unless I work hard to avoid that. Future me is an entitled bum, but they don't really have anyone else to take care of them, so I do what I can.

Be sure to thank past you whenever it's appropriate.

There is an episode of Roderick on the Line where John Roderick goes on at length describing his relationship with past-John and future-John, and all the woes that past-John has visited upon him, and all the reasons he can't be bothered about future-John's wellbeing.

That reminds me of this Seinfeld bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-Cz-LK16g4

Massive offtop, sorry about it. I've been noticing this a lot lately.

I have a pet theory than the reason people procrastinate, is because they don't concretely identify their future selves, as being the "same person" as their present self.

What is the purpose of the two commas in this sentence?

I recall reading somewhere that the "correct" way to use two commas, is when the words between the two commas can be omitted from the sentence. I don't follow that rule, as you might have guessed. I personally use periods as a "resting point" in the middle of a sentence. Ie, if I were saying this sentence out loud to an audience, at which points would I pause?

The problem with non-standard usage is that it is confusing.

When I see a comma, I expect it to have a particular meaning. When it doesn't, I assume I misread.

You're welcome to use commas however you like, but know that others will be re-reading your sentences and wishing they didn't have to.

IMO, you are suggesting way more thought than is actually going on in most cases. I think you are right about not identifying with future selves being part of the issue, but I think it is usually just memory, at least when talking about following through with a plan decided previously with significant deliberation. When considering plans in depth we do think about the future and what would be better, but in the moment of making decisions we are usualy involved in something else. I also don't think the article is right that it is usually preferring immediate gratification over long term benefits, but just that doing something towards the previous plan is an intrusion into whatever else we happen to be doing at the time and an interruption of focus or more immediate plans. We then only consider the previous plan superficially and are quick to accept some potential workaround to needing to work on it now (that is, it isn't that we are discounting our future but just not really considering it at all). I've found it helpful to try to notice if something is a potentially significant change to a previous plan and get out of the flow of whatever I am doing and consider it in more depth before actually making a change. Just getting out of the flow briefly when making the decision is enough to actually consider the future and make a good decision about following the previous plan or changing it.

Related philosophical work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasons_and_Persons

Reasons and Persons by Derek Parfit

I have a pet theory that procrastination is mostly caused by fear of failure and having two sets of valuations. One overt, reasonable that makes us create plans and one internal, emotional, that makes us not following them because the thing we won't to achieve is worth barely anything in that system.