LW-ers report improving over time. Moreover, they report improving more since finding LW than in an equal-sized chunk of time before finding LW
Tribal signalling? Akrasia is something we care about, and rationalists are supposed to win.
Could also be that reading articles about akrasia makes you feel like you're more productive even if you're really not.
I would have suggested, and still do suggest if another poll will happen, the question,
How many tabs do you have open in your browser right now?
to see if that correlates with e.g. procrastination. Large any-given-moment tab count, I hypothesize, correlates negatively with focus, and maybe slightly negatively with conscientiousness.
Procrastination is worst for me on tasks where effort is only ambiguously related to goals. For example I know I need to study to do well on a test, but am poorly calibrated on how much I need to study.
If effort and goal completion become strongly linked I seem to have no trouble.
Having a kitchen floor that had/hadn't been cleaned in the last month correlated with: nothing.
This was perhaps the result I was most excited for. Finally, scientific validation.
The most important thing i learned from less wrong is "Cause and Effect".
Since i filled out the poll i would like to say something.
What i think the poll did not take into account is that procrastination seems to be caused by conflicting beliefs. I can completely cure myself from procrastination on one specific subject if i manage to find and correct all the conflicting beliefs. It also helps to allign them with a goal you have, this turns a once procastination inducing task to something you get OCD about doing whenever it pops up.
But thats also a...
"I am doing X because Y." "Y does not motivate me to do X."
That's a flat-out contradiction. It means you've either mis-stated something or one of the statements is wrong.
In this case, it's the first statement that's inaccurate. First, you're not "doing school to improve your chances on the market"... because, as stated, you're not actually doing it, except for a few days out of most weeks.
So what you probably mean is, "I intend to do school to improve my chances on the market". But this statement is still false, unless it is also true that "I intend to improve my chances on the market". Do you, in actual fact, intend to improve your chances on the market?
I expect not. Rather, I expect that your motivation is to appear to be the sort of person who you think you would be if you were ambitiously attempting to improve your chances on the market... which is not really motivating enough to actually DO the work. However, by persistently trying to do so, and presenting yourself with enough suffering at your failure to do it, you get to feel as if you are that sort of person without having to actually do the work. This is actually ...
However, reported LW-er akrasia levels do not decrease with respondent age, which pulls against the thesis that LWers start out akratic but generically improve as we get older. They also do not decrease with "months since discovering LW/OB", which pulls against the thesis that LW helps.
This is a little surprising to me, since Conscientiousness is supposed to improve somewhat with age. Obvious explanation: a selection effect inasmuch as older people with greater skills and Conscientiousness will be busy with non-LW things.
The use of phrases like "help procrastination/akrasia, and not harm it", "improved procrastination", etc. is a bit confusing. It's not immediately clear whether you mean "more procrastination" or "better, that is less procrastination" in each particular case.
Consuming coffee/tea/caffeine most days correlated with... successfully getting exercise and answering the Anne question correctly
These results were in bold and were personally striking to me. Also, I'm not sure what to make of it, but it looks like the Anne question is not significantly correlated with the exercise question.
If I remember correctly, I contributed to these correlations with positive answers on all three, but I would not have expected those things in my life to be related to each other. It suggests that some aspect of my life is systema...
Nice job, thanks.
Couple of nitpicks:
suggesting that a tendency to deliberately choose one's work tasks may help procrastination/akrasia, and does harm it.
There may be a typo in here somewhere.
I find that numbers in a table are easier to read when aligned around a decimal point. The same effect makes it harder to interpret .26 right below .3 when skimming. I suggest using the same number of digits and writing .30 there.
Great results, beautifully reported. Thanks, Anna.
I have been having some success getting more work done using the trivial website mytomatoes.com. This is a 25 minute timer, you essentially precommit to working for 25 minutes. I find it relatively easy to nip in the bud my urges to diversion when I am still in the 25 minute precommitment.
In hindsight I'm not sure I answered the Anne question correctly. Is everyone either married or unmarried or do divorced and widowed people count as neither? This is not obvious to me (I am not a native speaker of English).
Is it worth putting a "tl;dr" summary at the top of this post? Something like "System II reasoning apparently not correlated with akrasia. Caffeine may be good. Exercise may be good. Deliberately choosing which tasks to work on may be good. Akrasia correlated with unhappiness and anxiety".
Many thanks for the interesting data & write-up.
- When you go grocery shopping, how often do you think carefully about which product to buy, vs. just grabbing something and putting it in your cart?
I'm wondering a little about what that means. I tend to choose carefully for quality or at least how much I like it, give some attention to price, and don't give nearly enough attention to knowing what I've already got.
I think your table has two missing zeros- you report two p values of .8, which is much higher than your threshold. (The 3,18 cells)
The CRT is more standardly used for such measurement
I'm astonished by how many people attach such a great significance to that test. Three questions all of which are relatively common trick questions. For each question, I would expect about 60% of people to have already encountered it (or a very similar one) before somewhere else, about 20% of people who encounter it for the first time to give the correct answer, and about 90% of people who have encountered it before to remember (or remember how to derive) the correct answer.
In fact, I had thought that those three questions were only a sample, and when I realised they were the whole test, I was like 'WTF?'
I think the researchers who use it were probably equally astonished at how much weight they end up putting on the results of the CRT, but it turns out to have massive predictive power - way more than you could possibly expect from a 3 question test. This is surprising, but that is not enough to reject it out of hand. Remember, if you think that a test which has been used repeatedly in a large body of scientific literature over many years has some obvious flaw or seems counter-intuitive for some reason, you should bear in mind that the scientists using it were probably at least as surprised as you are by the result, and will have made every effort to nail it down
As for the numbers you give, they cannot possibly be true. Even as late as 2011 (eg, in this paper) the mean number of correct answers given by participants was 0.7, and fewer than 5% of students got all three answers correct (your numbers would suggest a mean number of correct answers more than 1.5, and that more than 12% should get all three questions right, even if prior exposure to the three questions was independent).
Yes, it would be nice to have alternative tests to the CRT (I'd love to see a copy of the 8 question CRT...
When I was a kid, I didn't have a problem with procrastination. I procrastinated on purpose. Now, I have a problem with procrastination. I did it so much as a kid that I ingrained it into the depths of my mind.
Fortunately, I just now realized this. And now that I know it exists, it's really easy to fix.
Oh, it definitely causes akrasia, for me. The sequences are a seemingly endless supply of novelty!
Edit: Never mind...it doesn't cause my akrasia; it is merely how the tendency that is already there now expresses itself.
Edit 2: From now on, I commit to reading any post I desire to comment on in its entirety, before doing so. The original comment was pathetically irrelevant, sorry.
Test of: Decision Fatigue, Rationality, and Akrasia.
Shortly before the Summit, Alexandros posted a short discussion post wondering whether rationality training might cause akrasia by prompting folks to make more decisions using deliberate, conscious, "system II" reasoning (instead of rapid, automatic, "system I" heuristics) and, thereby, causing decision fatigue.
This conjecture sounded interesting to me, and I'd wondered similar things myself, so I put up a poll to gather data.
Procedure
I put this poll on up LW, asking a number of questions that I hoped bore on: (1) akrasia levels; (2) how the person's akrasia levels had shifted since they came to LW; and (3) how many decisions they made via deliberate "system II" processing. 70 LW-ers completed the survey in time to get included in my data analysis; perhaps because the survey was on Discussion, these were mostly folks who'd been on LW for a while; median response to "months since you started reading LW/OB" was 19.
I also wanted a control group so as to distinguish real LW anomalies from random bugs in most humans' self-reporting architecture. I tried to ask Reddit, but got only 7 responses; then I tried Mechanical Turk and received my full 100 desired responses... but it is hard to be sure that Mechanical Turk data is from real humans.
Validity of “akrasia/procrastination” self-reports
It would be nice if self-reported akrasia levels correlated with (lack of) success with common goals, such as income, exercise, and living in a non-filthy house. To assess participants' akrasia, I asked the following questions:
I replaced all responses with z-score estimates, replaced income with "income controlled for age", and started looking at correlations. Of these items, #3 and #4 failed to correlate with the other "akrasia" questions[2], so I discarded them and noted that "akrasia" might be less of a dimension than I was hoping. The others all correlated in the expected directions, although weakly, as shown:
(This table contains all correlations between the listed variables that occurred with p-value < .25, together with the associated p-value; note that the dataset was fairly small, so the absence of a statistically significant correlation does not necessarily imply the absence of a correlation.)
LW (thinks it is?) more akratic than average
On average, LW-er survey participants regarded themselves as having more trouble than usual with procrastination:
Mechanical Turk-ers regarded themselves as more average (and, especially, regarded their childhoods as more average), suggesting that this isn't just a "everyone thinks they have the most trouble" effect (though such effects do exist)[3]:
My guess is that LWers' perceptions of having more trouble than average with procrastination represents a real difference in folks' getting-things-done powers, and not just a difference in self-image. One piece of data supporting this is that LW-ers report higher than baseline rates of autism/asperger's: 5% of survey participants, compared about one percent of the general population. 20% of LW-ers report having ever had a depression diagnosis, which also seems to be somewhat above baseline rates. (Depression and autism both correlate with difficulty getting things done.)
Improvement over time?
LW-ers report improving over time. Moreover, they report improving more *since finding LW* than in an equal-sized chunk of time before finding LW; the difference in reported improvement over the two intervals is fairly small, but is statistically significant at the p=.001 significance level.
Mechanical Turk-ers do not report improving, and are not rosier about their last two years than about the two years before that -- suggesting that the above isn't just due to a bug in the human self-assessment system:
However, reported LW-er akrasia levels do not decrease with respondent age, which pulls against the thesis that LWers start out akratic but generically improve as we get older. They also do not decrease with "months since discovering LW/OB", which pulls against the thesis that LW helps.
Deliberate decision making not harmful
To test the conjecture that excessive conscious decision-making (over-reliance on deliberate, conscious, "System II" reasoning instead of on automatic heuristics) causes akrasia, I asked:
Question 19 is a question from the research literature that is designed to test individuals' tendency to engage in "fully disjunctive reasoning", and, thus, to assess at least one aspect of folks' tendency to use system II reasoning in preference to automatic system I heuristics. The CRT is more standardly used for such measurement, but previous testing had indicated that LW-ers mostly hit the ceiling on the CRT, so I used the more difficult Anne question instead.
None of these questions correlated positively (to any discernably above-chance extent) with the indicators of akrasia. In fact, question 8 had a significant negative correlation with current self-reported procrastination levels (correlation -.26, p-value .03), suggesting that a tendency to deliberately choose one's work tasks may help procrastination/akrasia, and does not harm it.
On the other hand, questions 7, 8, and 19 also did not correlate strongly with one another; so it is possible that these are just not good indicators of folks' degree of reliance on deliberate, conscious, "System II" decision-making. Nevertheless, when you combine these fact that none 7, 8, or 19 indicated procrastination with the reported improvement after LWers find LW, it seems to together constitute reasonable evidence against LW and rationality training being harmful, or at minimum against them being sufficiently harmful to show up with such datasets.
Other correlations
Most of the remaining variables correlated with one another in the manner that common sense would suggest (e.g., being in school correlated with being young). Still, for completeness, here are all correlations among the questions that appeared correlated with a p-value <0.03; note that since I compared 25 variables with one another, we should expect about (25*24/2)*.03 = 9 correlations at this significance level, and 0 to 1 correlations at the p=.001 significance level just by chance. [4]
For ease of scanning, correlations that I personally found interesting are in bold. "Income" is instead "income adjusted for age and student status"; I adjusted kitchen cleanliness for student status as well.
The correlations:
Raw data
In case you want to play with the raw data yourself, here it is:
Given the importance of taking actions that actually relate to one's goals (for happiness, income, world-saving, you name it -- and, hence, for real rationality), further investigation here would be welcome, either via further polls on LW-ers or others, or, perhaps even more easily and usefully, via Google Scholar.
[1] Originally, I asked about "trouble with akrasia" (now and as a kid) rather than about "trouble with procrastination". I edited the question after realizing I'd want a control group with non-LWers, and that that group would not reliably know the term "akrasia". So, the LW-er responses are partly to one wording and partly to the other.
[2] Both items correlated strongly with student status; when I controlled for student status (subtracted out the constant necessary to remove the correlation), "have had late bills reported to credit agencies" correlated strongly with diagnoses of ADD, autism/Asperger's, and depression, but with nothing else; dirty kitchen floors correlated with nothing.
[3] This is further suggested by the fact that Mechanical Turk-ers may well *have* more akrasia than average at present; they are working on Mechanical Turk, and have fairly high numbers of depression diagnoses.
[4] There are 34 correlations at the p<.03 significance level, and 12 at the p<.001 significance level, which is more than we should expect by chance; this is not surprising, since of course e.g. being in school is correlated with being young, and so of course we see some non-chance correlations; the question is how many of the non-obvious correlations are just chance.