jimrandomh said:

More like, we have multiple parts of the brain which can reach different judgments, and rational arguments act on the wrong part. I think this is what you were getting at (and your subsequent examples seem to support that), but it should be explicit.

Exactly. I think the notion of modularity from evolutionary psychology would help to understand some types of akrasia. While consciousness is probably not a complete bystander per Annoyance, it's merely one of the mental modules in the brain. This hypothesis explains Annoyance's observation that there may be factors in our judgment that we don't understand.

If we act against what we say we want, it may not mean that we "didn't really want it," but that one part of brain wanted it while another part didn't, and the second part won.

"Want" is not always a unitary phenomenon inside the brain; neither is "judgment."