I agree with magfrump on using citations, and I’m also interested in seeing how different anti-akrasia frameworks relate to each other. For example, the Motivation-Opportunity-Ability model comes to mind, which seems strictly simpler than the “five hindrances” presented here. But I guess there is the question of how specific vs. how general we want to be: too fine-grained and the model becomes impractical to use; too coarse-grained and it loses effectiveness due to being vague.
I think the different anti-akrasia (or, as I might prefer, pro-getting things done) frameworks are hierarchical in some cases.
The Motivation-Opportunity-Ability model would be closer to the top of the hierarchy. Opportunity and Ability are requirements that can’t be ignored, but they also aren’t usually what people are talking about with akrasia. You don’t blame “akrasia” when you can’t do something because you forgot your tools at home, you blame poor planning.
When you find yourself in the right situation with the right tools and full ability to solve the problem and yet you still find that you aren’t working on it, you know that your problem is Motivation. Something like the Five Hindrances model as well as any method based on looking at the Motivation Equation are addressing Motivation specifically.
Also, the Motivation Equation is abstract and lacks built-in solutions, while something like the Five Hindrances approach is specific and actionable. You can look at the Motivation Equation and realize that the problem is that your Delay term is too big. Okay, so? You should be able to work on things that don’t require instant gratification.
But you could look at the Five Hindrances model and view this as an Aversion to wasting time and also a straightforward instance of Laziness/Lethargy. Apply the appropriate antidotes to those hindrances. Suddenly you find that you did the task despite that daunting Delay term.
I agree with magfrump on using citations, and I’m also interested in seeing how different anti-akrasia frameworks relate to each other. For example, the Motivation-Opportunity-Ability model comes to mind, which seems strictly simpler than the “five hindrances” presented here. But I guess there is the question of how specific vs. how general we want to be: too fine-grained and the model becomes impractical to use; too coarse-grained and it loses effectiveness due to being vague.
I think the different anti-akrasia (or, as I might prefer, pro-getting things done) frameworks are hierarchical in some cases.
The Motivation-Opportunity-Ability model would be closer to the top of the hierarchy. Opportunity and Ability are requirements that can’t be ignored, but they also aren’t usually what people are talking about with akrasia. You don’t blame “akrasia” when you can’t do something because you forgot your tools at home, you blame poor planning.
When you find yourself in the right situation with the right tools and full ability to solve the problem and yet you still find that you aren’t working on it, you know that your problem is Motivation. Something like the Five Hindrances model as well as any method based on looking at the Motivation Equation are addressing Motivation specifically.
Also, the Motivation Equation is abstract and lacks built-in solutions, while something like the Five Hindrances approach is specific and actionable. You can look at the Motivation Equation and realize that the problem is that your Delay term is too big. Okay, so? You should be able to work on things that don’t require instant gratification.
But you could look at the Five Hindrances model and view this as an Aversion to wasting time and also a straightforward instance of Laziness/Lethargy. Apply the appropriate antidotes to those hindrances. Suddenly you find that you did the task despite that daunting Delay term.