Hacker News Reader

Comment by stoniejohnson | Hacker News Reader

What is hard about things like this is it ultimately boils down to self control.

Sure, by creating the friction tunnel, you are less likely to get distracted online, which makes self control easier.

But the thing is we are smart and computers are fast; meaning most software-based friction tunnels are quick to undo.

I did something similar to what the OP described by solely using the Mullvad Browser, which is in permanent incognito mode.

The moment this introduced friction in some nuanced way that I had not foreseen, I just switched back to my main browser as I could not think of a way to handle this edge case.

For me at least I think the friction tunnel needs to be inherently physical. Using an old computer (with a new one not in the same room) is a much better friction tunnel than changing your browser.

View on HN

Another thought is that the friction should be inherently enjoyable. Another person gives the example of an extension that adds 10 seconds to the load time of Youtube videos. This would be a great time to take a breath, clear the mind, think of priorities, and decide if the youtube video is worth watching.

If that 10 second moment of mental space and clarity becomes enjoyable, then you will not want to reverse the friction. The author's point here is that people often add /too much/ friction.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36330900

I propose that the right amount of friction requires an amount of self control that is enjoyable and refreshing - ie, only a /very small/ amount of self control can ever be sustainable. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36330900

> What is hard about things like this is it ultimately boils down to self control.

Only because society has allowed for the pervasive adoption and exploiting of persuasive technologies. It's like being in a casino, or having a casino in your pocket, 24 hours/day. Reign in some the extremes of persuasive technologies used in social media and distracting software, and we give people back their own wills.

The real answer to these kinds of problems is that there is no ONE effective solution, and to really tackle you must combine various strategies. Self control is definitely useful but if you depend on it solely you will eventually fail.

> What is hard about things like this is it ultimately boils down to self control.

I'd recommend the research of Wendy Wood, a psychologist who studies habit. The tl;dr here is that willpower doesn't actually have much impact. There's an episode of the podcast Hidden Brain[0] which features her, and I think this soundbite is a pretty good encapsulation of the ideas behind her research:

WOOD: They found that - contrary to all of our expectations, that people who are high achievers, who we think of as having good willpower, good self-control, they didn't actually experience many temptations. They weren't conflicted by having lots of desires that were inappropriate and things they didn't want to do. That was the people who were low in self-control, the people who weren't that successful at achieving their goals in life.

VEDANTAM: In other words, this is not a case of people who have, you know, cake in the refrigerator and are very good at resisting opening the refrigerator to eat the cake. These are just people who don't have cake in the refrigerator.

WOOD: Exactly. Or if they do, they don't see it. (Laughter) They have coded that as, OK, that's my kids' cake. I don't eat that. I eat the fruit, and I like the fruit.

0. https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/creatures-of-habit/

First off, thank you for the resource, I'll dig into Wood's research + checkout this specific podcast.

I think what would be interesting to study (and is likely covered by Wood outside of this soundbite) is not the steady state of someone with good self-control, but the transition period to having good self-control.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com