It seems to me that the way a task is framed greatly affects how much willpower it requires. If you give a college student tasks of equal cognitive difficulty, one of which is part of the computer game and one of which is a homework assignment, they typically require much more willpower to complete the one that’s a homework assignment.
So I don’t see how the fact that telling people they have unlimited willpower works falsifies the model. It could just reframe tasks so they require less willpower.
If willpower is the ability to sustain activity in the absence of reinforcers, maybe telling people they have unlimited willpower causes them to see their willpower flagging as a reinforcer (“my willpower’s flagging, but I’m so mighty that it will never run out! Heck yes!”)
Which is a very nifty scheme if you could make it work: whenever you have been going without a reinforcer for a while, just give yourself a pat on the back for being so awesome and that’s your reinforcer, allowing you to go on forever.
This reinforcer bit nicely explains the surprise gift finding mentioned. Maybe willpower depletion rate is proportional to length of time you have been exerting effort without a reinforcer, or something like that.
By the way, this perception of willpower depletion strategy could make a good situation/response spaced repetition card:
It seems to me that the way a task is framed greatly affects how much willpower it requires.
Yes; I can’t remember which overcomingbias posts it was in, but Robin Hanson has floated a theory that willpower is a hack whereby, for social reasons, we override our natural and correct (in the EEA) instinct. Obviously, it doesn’t pay to make such an ability infinitely strong; people who go on hunger strikes to make a point have few offspring. So, a task framed as something useful in the EEA would require much less willpower than something framed as socially praiseworthy, but otherwise harmful.
It seems to me that the way a task is framed greatly affects how much willpower it requires. If you give a college student tasks of equal cognitive difficulty, one of which is part of the computer game and one of which is a homework assignment, they typically require much more willpower to complete the one that’s a homework assignment.
So I don’t see how the fact that telling people they have unlimited willpower works falsifies the model. It could just reframe tasks so they require less willpower.
If willpower is the ability to sustain activity in the absence of reinforcers, maybe telling people they have unlimited willpower causes them to see their willpower flagging as a reinforcer (“my willpower’s flagging, but I’m so mighty that it will never run out! Heck yes!”)
Which is a very nifty scheme if you could make it work: whenever you have been going without a reinforcer for a while, just give yourself a pat on the back for being so awesome and that’s your reinforcer, allowing you to go on forever.
This reinforcer bit nicely explains the surprise gift finding mentioned. Maybe willpower depletion rate is proportional to length of time you have been exerting effort without a reinforcer, or something like that.
By the way, this perception of willpower depletion strategy could make a good situation/response spaced repetition card:
Front: You notice you are pushing yourself.
Back: “Bring it on, I could do this all day.”
Yes; I can’t remember which overcomingbias posts it was in, but Robin Hanson has floated a theory that willpower is a hack whereby, for social reasons, we override our natural and correct (in the EEA) instinct. Obviously, it doesn’t pay to make such an ability infinitely strong; people who go on hunger strikes to make a point have few offspring. So, a task framed as something useful in the EEA would require much less willpower than something framed as socially praiseworthy, but otherwise harmful.