Good stuff. A positive look: an accumulation of small habits snowballing into major positive behavioral changes. Is it fair to say that all the “small habits”, “tiny habits”, “atomic habits”, “I’m-just-waiting-for-the-publication-of pico habits” are a sum-threshold attack at the established behavioral patterns?
And for a sinister comedy view: Amelie Poulain’s attack comes to mind.
Maybe? It’s a bit weird because that situation would involve some non-unified agency, which we don’t understand super well. Like, you’d have [you_1, who decides to enforce various small habits] and separately [you_2, who is made of unconscious habits], and you_1 is supposed to be sending influences to you_2 in a way that is below some threshold—what’s the threshold? Is it that you_2 will resist / not be dragged along with large changes, but can be forced into small ones? And then, there’s supposed to be some large aggregate effect. What is that? Is it just a bunch of small habits, or is the point that something else changes? Is that large change supposed to be in you_2?
So, it would potentially require some dichotomy of self. Within this definition the sum-threshold attack is closely tied to the agent launching it. What if by slightly changing the environment we reach a certain threshold that it becomes the agent pushing us to enact further changes? You rescue a dog, but the dog really rescues you.
Good post. Made me think, so thx!
Ps. The movie is silly but the scene I was referring to was Amelie slightly moving a toothbrush and other things in the victim’s apartment leading to a spectacular collapse of that person’s routine and their rampant paranoia.
Good stuff. A positive look: an accumulation of small habits snowballing into major positive behavioral changes. Is it fair to say that all the “small habits”, “tiny habits”, “atomic habits”, “I’m-just-waiting-for-the-publication-of pico habits” are a sum-threshold attack at the established behavioral patterns?
And for a sinister comedy view: Amelie Poulain’s attack comes to mind.
Maybe? It’s a bit weird because that situation would involve some non-unified agency, which we don’t understand super well. Like, you’d have [you_1, who decides to enforce various small habits] and separately [you_2, who is made of unconscious habits], and you_1 is supposed to be sending influences to you_2 in a way that is below some threshold—what’s the threshold? Is it that you_2 will resist / not be dragged along with large changes, but can be forced into small ones? And then, there’s supposed to be some large aggregate effect. What is that? Is it just a bunch of small habits, or is the point that something else changes? Is that large change supposed to be in you_2?
Haven’t seen that movie, maybe I will later.
So, it would potentially require some dichotomy of self. Within this definition the sum-threshold attack is closely tied to the agent launching it. What if by slightly changing the environment we reach a certain threshold that it becomes the agent pushing us to enact further changes? You rescue a dog, but the dog really rescues you.
Good post. Made me think, so thx!
Ps. The movie is silly but the scene I was referring to was Amelie slightly moving a toothbrush and other things in the victim’s apartment leading to a spectacular collapse of that person’s routine and their rampant paranoia.
Yeah that sounds like an example!