after that minimal amount of willpower it takes to deploy self-management techniques.
Is that your experience in life? It's not mine. It's not what I observe in other people's lives either.
It would be incorrect to assume he is defending a view where willpower is as central as in any of the other views
From your summary, it looks to me like he is an academic selling an old idea with a new label, and insisting it is shiny and new, never before seen. That's what academics do.
I just finished reading Willpower by Baumeister (which I think has been referenced by a few people here previously). A point there, as well, was that willpower is a finite resource, and success comes from adopting strategies which conserve it's usage.
Not that it's unique to him either.
I suggest that we often fail successfully to navigate these problems because of our commitment to a conception of ourselves as rational agents who answer questions about ourselves by looking to the world. ...I suggest we think of self-control as a problem of self-management, whereby we manipulate ourselves.
Isn't this the whole "man riding an elephant" business?
the myth that willpower equals Self-Control prevents the prescription of policies that would use these managerial techniques to increase people's Self-Control.
People have been suggesting "managerial techniques to increase people's Self-Control" since at least Benjamin Franklin.
EDIT: I'm trying to see the value here. The one point that looked interesting is the "resource availability". Also, stability (which really isn't the same thing as being high status). Are there specific techniques of self management that his "new" way of looking at the problem imply?
Neil's theory has different empirical predictions than Baumeister's, for example, it predicts high Self-Control correlates with low direct resistance to temptations. On the second Lecture he mentions several experiments that would tell them apart. They are different theoretically, there's a difference in the importance they give to willpower. Saying you should save water on the Sahara is different from saying you shouldn't lose your canteen's cover.
It is surely my experience in life that people highly overestimate their causal effectiveness in the world, ...
Last week Professor Neil Levy, a neuroethicist, gave three lectures on Self-Control at the Oxford Martin School. Roughly, the first lecture targeted philosophical issues, the second empirical issues and the third bridged the two. Neil's summaries and audio are at the bottom. In the next two paragraphs I will briefly summarize the take-home message of the lectures.
Over the three lectures, he offered a new approach to self-control. He argues that will-power is of little relevance to self-control, that the self-control character-trait which correlates with success is not will-power and that relying on will-power alone leads to low levels of self-control. He defends that self-control is mainly the ability of self-management, of managing the environment so that temptations become more costly, less salient or inaccessible - he mentions Facebook nanny, Beeminder, commitment devices and so on. Self-management is the ability of not having to use will-power. Will-power is only relevant insofar as it enables these techniques to be deployed, but once in place the techniques themselves consist in avoiding to use will-power altogether. Will-power is an extremely scarce resource, and we should use the little we have so we don't have to depend on it anymore. He cites numerous evidence in support for his view. To mention a few, people with high self-control character-trait are less able to resist temptations, exert less effortful self-control, but are nonetheless more likely to pick environments with few temptations/distractions and better at developing techniques to ignore temptations (e.g. little children sung, slept, etc.). He contends that glucose role in increasing self-control is exerted by signalling high short-term resource availability, a stable environment, and thus low opportunity costs - but he doesn't expect this effect to hold in the long-term. He predicts that unconscious signals of a stable environment will increase self-control, which helps explains why high social-economic status correlates strongly with self-control. Neil has a blog post discussing how the myth that willpower equals Self-Control prevents the prescription of policies that would use these managerial techniques to increase people's Self-Control. By the end, he hinted his view could perhaps be seen as the extended will view, mirroring the extended mind view.
I believe the first lecture is not especially helpful for LessWrongers as it mainly focuses on contrasting his view with the rationalist view within philosophy, which is not pretty rational and likely false. Those interested in the empirical side will find the second lecture more attractive and should check this blog post summarizing it. I think the take-home message is more extensively spelled out in the third lecture. On the first lecture, there is this post by Professor Julian Savulescu, which particularly addresses the objective stance towards oneself present on Neil's view and opposed by the (philosophical) rationalists. There's some disagreement about to what extend these rationalists would really disagree with this view.
Lecture One: Self-Control: A problem of self-management
Lecture One Audio.
Blog post by Professor Julian Savulescu on the objectifying view defended in the first Lecture.
Lecture Two: The Science of Self-Control
Lecture Two Audio.
Blog post by Dr. Joshua Shepherd summarizing the second Lecture.
Lecture Three: Marshmallows and Moderation
Lecture Three Audio.
EDIT: Changed the title from willpower's relative irrelevancy to the myth of Willpower. Added a link to another blog post.