Here's a link to a short op-ed about some tips to develop self-control. The author get them from talking with Walter Mischel, a researcher who correlated impulsiveness as a child (measured by ability to delay eating sweets) and various metrics as an adult (education attainment/cocaine use/weight). Mischel has a new book coming out, but this is not a review of the book. I thought this might be of interest because it talks a little about how self-control is a skill that can be developed and even gave some specific things to do.

1. If possible remove unhelpful triggers from your environment. If not possible, try to reduce the emotional appeal of the trigger by mentally associating it with something unpleasant. One example he gives is imagining a cockroach crawling on the chocolate mousse that a server at a restaurant offers.

2. Develop specific if-then plans such as "if it is before noon, I won't check email" or "If I feel angry, I will count backward from ten." The goal of these kinds of checks is to introduce a delay between impulse and action during which you are reminded of your goal and have a chance to consider the impact of following the impulse on that goal.

3. Link the behavior that you want to modify to a "burning goal" so that you have emotional impetus to actually make the desired change.

I am going to take the free Coursera class "Think Again: How to Reason and Argue" starting Monday, January 13 (three days from now) and I thought I'd to see if there was any interest in going through this as a group. This is one of the MIRI recommended courses under the "Heuristics and Biases" section. If you're interested and you will sign up if we get a group together, please leave a note in the comments (if you will only sign up if the group hits a specific size, please leave that requirement in the comments as well). If enough people are willing to sign up (5 or more? idk), I will start a group on Google (or somewhere else if that's preferred) so that we can have a forum to share thoughts, ask questions, etc. Otherwise, email may be a better way to maintain contact. 

EDIT: We hit five people willing to start, so I created a Google group here. If you're interested in taking the course with us, please sign up there.

The recommended text is fairly inexpensive on Amazon (<$20 USD) and can be found on libgen.info for free if that's your thing. It's taught in English, lasts 12 weeks and predicts that it will take 5-6 hours/week. More info from the course website:

Think Again: How to Reason and Argue

Reasoning is important.  This course will teach you how to do it well.  You will learn how to understand and assess arguments by other people and how to construct good arguments of your own about whatever matters to you.

About the Course

Course Syllabus

Recommended Background

Cengage Advantage Books: Understanding Arguments

Author: Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter, Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter (Walter Sinnott-Armstrong), Fogelin, Robert J.
Publisher: CENGAGE Learning

Suggested Readings

Course Format

FAQ

This article critically examines previous studies that showed a link between working memory training (specifically via n-back training) and fluid intelligence, finding that the results may not have been as positive as reported owing to a number of factors including the use of a no-contact rather than active control group, and difficulty selecting tests that isolate the impact of working memory on fluid intelligence. The authors also present findings from a new study that show no improvement in fluid intelligence from dual n-back training, visual search training (active placebo) and no training (no contact placebo).

PubMed

Journal Challenged

A few weeks ago, Adele_L suggested that the repositories were underutilized and looked for suggestions on how to improve that. In that spirit, I added the following links to the Special Threads wiki page.

Solved Problems Repository - A collection of "solved problems in instrumental rationality."
Useful Concepts Repository - A collection of concepts that Less Wrong users have "found particularly useful for understanding the world."
Boring Advice Repository - A collection of advice that is optimized for helpfulness rather than depth of insight.
Useful Questions Repository - Questions that are useful to keep in mind in various situations.
Bad Concepts Repository - A collection of useless or harmful concepts
Grad Student Advice Repository - A collection of advice for graduate students.
Textbook Repository - The Best Textbooks on Every Subject
Reference repository - List of references and resources for LessWrong
Procedural Knowledge Gaps - How to do things that are "common sense" but that you may not know.
Mistakes Repository - A list of life-course altering mistakes that LW members have made.
Good things to have learned - A collection of skills and life lessons LWers have learned
Financial Effectiveness Repository - Tips for maximizing financial returns on (not necessarily market) investments.

In a similar vein, there is also a wiki page for the LessWrong Communities How-To's and Recommendations.

If there are other repositories that I've missed or a better way to collect these things, please link to it in a top level comment so that I get a direct message. A year and a half after this was originally posted, I still get suggestions and still add them or explain why I don't add them.

Edit: Added a few more to the list.

I was reading about the effectiveness of bicycle helmet laws (here) and wondered how worthwhile it is to save your life at the expense of some aspect key to your current identity (Note that the paper linked doesn't say that this is the situation; this was just a tangential thought).

Let's say that I perform some activity that carries a 10% chance that I will die but otherwise carries no risk of injury. There is some piece of safety gear that I can wear that cuts that risk in half, but for some reason adds a 10% chance that I will be permanently brain damaged such that I will not be "me" as I understand it now. Should I rate this as 15% fatal with the safety gear or is there some other way that this should be evaluated?

For example, the Forer (or Barnum) effect leads people to believe that vague and general descriptions of personality traits are very accurate when they believe that the results are tailored to them (based on some attribute like astrological sign).

If there were a service available to you that would only send you predictions like "you are more likely to notice and compensate for your biases today" would it be worth signing up for or is there a Shelling point around not deliberately engaging in irrational thought? Is there a way to calculate utility for limited self-deception?