Trick Yourself into Breaking a Bad Habit | Hacker News Reader

Trick Yourself into Breaking a Bad Habit

hbr.org

126 pointsingve42 comments

> For example, what you eat is shaped far more by what you see than by what you search for.

The linked study is co-authored by the disgraced researcher/fraudster Brian Wansink. I guess this was one of the studies that didn’t get retracted, but I still wouldn’t put a lot of faith in anything with his name on it.

Do you have an objection to the claims though?

Digging into the study now. It was very small: the subjects were 16 office workers. They analyzed between-subjects rather than within-subjects, which seems a little suspicious given that within-subjects is more interesting and given Wansink’s history of p hacking. Finally, the results comparing visible vs non-visible food (the part alluded to in the HBR article when it says “seeing is eating”) had a p-value of 0.03, so they barely reached significance. My gut says this study is not likely to replicate.

That's interesting, thanks for taking the time to investigate this further (I lack the knowledge about this field and the statistical methods and it was an honest question).

Indirectly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Wansink#Cornell's_invest...

Good to point out a flaw

But is that a nit that changes nothing (e.g., there is significant other valid evidence that supports the same point) and so could be simply updated, or is it the linchpin of the entire argument, without which the entire premise and argument fails?

If it is the latter, it's good to draw our attention to it, but if the former, then this is kind of a meaningless distraction. I haven't got the time ATM to sort it out. Perhaps someone with knowledge could add the needed insight?

By no means does this little nit invalidate the entire article. But since this article is a grab-bag of separate points, we can only critique point by point.

I do think the bad cite weakens this one point—if there were better studies in support of this point, why didn’t the author cite them instead? And since there’s no reliable evidentiary backing for this point, you have to go by whether it feels right to you. Which is fine! That’s how most advice works. But we shouldn’t delude ourselves into thinking that “studies say” this point is right without further evidence.

I saw "change your friends" and noped out. Toxic mindset. That is a key to isolation and an unhealthy, sad life. Makes him sound like a LinkedIn nutter.

If you are meth addict it would be unbelievably naive to think remaining friends with and hanging out with other meth addicts would do anything but hurt your quest to stop smoking meth. Better to be friendless than hooked on meth.

“Friends”: a group of people who reinforce among themselves a particular worldview and the permissible behaviors that go with it

How is changing friends a toxic mindset? Changing friends means new friends, not no friends.

There is a reason they say you can judge a person by the company they keep.

Right but it solidifies a mindset that boils down to “instead of working to communicate with someone about a trait I deem problematic, it’s easier to simply replace that friend with someone else.”

Thank you for this hint.

> We are profoundly shaped by outside forces that manipulate, distract, arouse, and impede us.

Every time I read an article like this, I think it would be better to spend time learning to meditate so your decisions can be more rational and thoughtful in general. The best case from this article is that while other people are tricking and manipulating you, you can also trick and manipulate yourself. Not to say that people who meditate don't use these same strategies, but they are less of a necessity and used in a less underhanded way.

I learned to meditate recently, and it allowed me to quit biting my nails.

I had actually given up on meditation, thinking it wasn't doing much for me practically. But then a month later I tried to quit biting my nails, which I have tried dozens of times in the past, and this time I succeeded.

I didn't even try that hard. I just used mindfulness to separate out the desire to bite my nails from the appearance of my unbitten nails, and the urge faded.

I'll probably get back into meditation some time soon.

> For example, if you want to cultivate a more positive attitude about big changes in your company, lunch more often with those who are leading the charge and less often with those who are forming the opposition.

Sounds like very familiar best-practices advice for the stereotypical corporate boot-licking yes-person.

Speaking of framing, as the article does, the writer seems to be implicitly framing failures to being the best manipulative, sharp-elbowed status climber you can be... as "bad habits".

Reminds me of books about knowing how to have power over people. Inversion of values to me to think that manipulating people is grand.

That book is life changing, if it's 'How To Win Friends'. Maybe for an older person, this stuff is trivial, but for a younger me, it taught me just how much we as a species think only of ourselves, how you can never win an argument, how you cannot browbeat someone into submission. You can at best hope to make the other person want to do something. Look at things from their perspective.

Stephen Covey seemed to hate Carnegie's book too, as if the book was written by a moustache-twirling supervillain. It's not. It's just a very lovely look into human psyche, beautifully illustrated by tonnes of examples (rather than the platitude-filled bullshit that is inside modern books by Ryan Holiday and company).

Maybe I was too biased when I skimmed through it. I understand that people all have complex psychologies and being aware of the recurrent traits is useful. But to me it lacks real warmth.. I'll try reading it again.

My initial attitude toward that section was similar. But in the spirit of doing a charitable interpretation - in every company there are those who want to do good and make a change. And there are those who just want to say No to everything. Just everything. Just no. There are always ten million reasons to not do anything new and just keep being the same. And the article is suggesting that if you spend more time with those who want to change things you will adopt their attitude by osmosis. Doesn't say anything whether any given change is a good one.

If you are an alcoholic, being around people who drink a lot is not helping you. I choose to interpret that paragraph to mean you shoild be around people with attitude you want to adopt.

More broadly I see articles main point to be adopting a systemic approach. Don't think hope or try to magically make yourself "a better person who doesn't do bad things ". Rather come up with systems and methods to enforce behaviour you want in yourself.

IMHO, charitable interpretation is for HN comments.

With HBR, it might be better to see what they're pushing today, and guessing how that affects people who read it seriously. (Though it's often just filler or brand-promotion content that's innocuous, AFAICT.)

If you can also salvage good ideas by considering the content at face value, that's a bonus, but don't let that compromise your critical thinking.

That's a great way to read it to get the most useful value.

I find using ChatGPT to be similar in that if you add/fix the bits it's missing or gets wrong it can be a good time-saver and useful.

If I'm a lowly IC leading a project to improve code reviews, are those interested in my work "bootlickers"? Notice the article didn't say managers, you're assuming it.

I think that's not what this is talking about, or not the message that I expect the writer's target audience to take home.

Is there actually a faction opposed to improving code reviews?

Or are you on your way up, and savvy operators should get with your program, and hitch their wagon to you, including at lunchtime?

Yes, that's what you think but I don't see words in the article saying that.

No faction opposing the goal, but certainly factions who disagree on whether any particular proposed change is actually an improvement

There’s a Mexican saying: “Show me who you’re with, and I’ll tell you who you are.”

It's from Spain

I think most of the proverbs can be found in different languages in similar forms.

But with nuances. The russian saying is similar: "С кем поведёшься, от того и наберёшься" (literally: "You learn from the people you take up with").

One way to same the same thing is "a man is known by the company he keeps", but the best english equivalent would be: "You lie with dogs, you wake up with fleas"

Dime con quién andas y te diré quién eres

We also have

Cría cuervos y te comerán los ojos

In case you want to warn of dangerous acquaintances

https://cvc.cervantes.es/lengua/refranero/ficha.aspx?Par=585....

So maye much be spyed also, by the company and pastyme that he useth. (Heinrich Bullinger, 1541, translated to English by Bishop Myles Coverdale).

Though surely the idea goes back to antiquity and someone like Seneca would have something to say about it (but not in English)!

This is an amazing prescient quote of the current state of employee monitoring, and its 500 years old.

I thought it was from Brazil

And I thought it was be from Portugal, but when I read it's from Spain I adjusted to "from Iberia".

But now someone else mentioned Italy. I wouldn't be surprised if it traces its roots to ancient Rome or Greece.

"No, the spainards came and fucked all the Mayans and turned them into Mexicans"

-- Frank Reynolds

"Dimmi con chi vai e ti dirò chi sei" in Italy.

(On the same subject we also have "chi va con lo zoppo impara a zoppicare", which is probably not pc-enough to safely translate these days.)

same in arabic: "قولي من تصاحب اخبرك من انت" translates to "tell me whose your friend and i'll tell you who you are."

This has worked really well for me. For instance, I deliberately work standing up in the garden with some fitness gear around. Every time I need to wait for something, like a build process or before the next email to write, I do a few bench presses, or push ups. Almost automatically. When I'm seated at a regular office desk, I tend to distract myself with some mindless internet browsing instead. Just creating the right environment can be enough to alter behavior.

The author actually used "soda pop." I've heard plenty of people say "soda" or "pop." But I usually associate "soda pop" with the way people talked in the 1920's - 1940's.

Wikipedia has an entire article on Names for Soft Drinks in the United States [1], but it only says "soda pop" is first attested in 1863, and "is used by some speakers, especially in the Mountain West" without a source for that specific claim.

A Merriam-Webster search [2] says Steve Forbes used it in his magazine in 2021, but his biography says he grew up in New Jersey and has mostly lived on the East Coast.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_soft_drinks_in_the_U...

[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/soda%20pop

(2016) with broken links

You ever consider how much of the smooth-functioning your world relies upon your obliviousness and ignorance?

Get a little smarter and everything breaks. Suddenly all your good habits are bad habits. Heck, science might not even work anymore.

Nice.

How do you break out of the Matrix, when your knowledge of the Matrix and the desire to break out is part of the Matrix and your programming? Hmm.

Step 1 would be careful observation. This might imply something special in the way of self-control.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com