Wow, amazing post! I actually thought of the EXACT same idea too—I’m surprised that someone came up with it independently of me
Anyways, my idea is listed here: http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-confidential-cafe/391872-model-activation-energy-applied-motivation-theory.html (not intended to compete, but some may find it interesting). It might have some more analogies that might be interesting. (e.g., as a person with ADD, I’m especially constrained by activation energy, so I frequently try to find ways to lower it). Automating one’s behavior is a way to lower it.
In short, anxiety, fatigue, and ADD can easily increase activation energy. Stimulants (like ADD drugs), automation, and stress-reducing tactics decrease activation energy.
Or in Robin Hanson’s terms, “near” and “far”. Things that are “near” require less activation energy than things that are “far”.
Wow, amazing post! I actually thought of the EXACT same idea too—I’m surprised that someone came up with it independently of me
Anyways, my idea is listed here: http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-confidential-cafe/391872-model-activation-energy-applied-motivation-theory.html (not intended to compete, but some may find it interesting). It might have some more analogies that might be interesting. (e.g., as a person with ADD, I’m especially constrained by activation energy, so I frequently try to find ways to lower it). Automating one’s behavior is a way to lower it.
In short, anxiety, fatigue, and ADD can easily increase activation energy. Stimulants (like ADD drugs), automation, and stress-reducing tactics decrease activation energy.
Or in Robin Hanson’s terms, “near” and “far”. Things that are “near” require less activation energy than things that are “far”.