Yvain comments on Applied Picoeconomics - Less Wrong

46 Post author: Yvain 17 June 2009 04:08PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (76)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Yvain 18 June 2009 04:12:52PM 5 points [-]

I'm going to have to read this a few more times before I understand it fully, but I want to address one thing right away:

For example, how many Republican senators and Baptist ministers would you guess have sworn mighty oaths to never have gay sex...what you have done sets up an expectation that a single failure will lead to the destruction of someone's entire life... and that is NOT a responsible thing to suggest or prime, EVER.

The way I dealt with this was to make my oaths in one month blocks. So the Republican would have to swear "I won't have any gay sex...this month." Even for the most lustful, this should be possible.

If, at the end of the month, this was so painful he wants to just give up on this, he can. Or if he thinks he can do it, he could also include the statement in his next month's oath.

What I found was that there's a very different mental feeling between "I can never do this again" and "I have to wait a month to do this." The latter is annoying but bearable, and it's why I included the "never make an open-ended oath" point up there.

(if you want to test this for yourself, but don't have any repressed homosexual urges, masturbation makes a good test case)

I don't think this technique is at its best for something where doing it once is a disaster, like gay sex for Baptist ministers. I think it's better for something like dieting. Tell yourself you won't eat cookies the whole month, do it in the full knowledge that you'll start eating cookies again when the oath runs out, pig out on cookies for one day, and then when you have no desire whatsoever for any more cookies, swear to diet again for the next month.

Comment author: pjeby 18 June 2009 04:36:02PM 4 points [-]

I don't think this technique is at its best for something where doing it once is a disaster, like gay sex for Baptist ministers.

I'm saying that your "dooming myself to a life of laziness forever" is an artificially created disaster, where none would have existed otherwise. The closeted gay thing was just giving an example of how (as I said), "For certain personality types, creating this sort of bargain is dangerous."

IOW, using your "doom" model, if a person swears not to eat cookies for a month, and then fails to do so, they will now consider themselves doomed forever. That's the kind of failure mode I'm talking about.