I tried to spend five days, 10. − 14. Dec 2012, without web browsing, even without reading LW. As a reward I gave myself a small piece of chocolate at the evening (inspired by Story 1 in this article). It worked. This week, 17. − 21. Dec 2012, I will try it again. (Why not? I still have 2⁄3 of the original chocolate.)
I am rather surprised by this, because my model of myself predicted that it wouldn’t work; that a small piece of chocolate could not make that big difference in a behavior I’ve been having problems with for years. But I had nothing to lose, so I tried it. It seems like trivial rewards work really well.
If the experiment replicates successfully the next week, I will consider using the same reinforcement for other things I want myself to do or to avoid doing (probably replacing chocolate with something smaller, like M&Ms). And then I can measure whether the new motivating system works better than the old one. Yay, sweet utilons!
You might want to experiment with flipping a coin and giving yourself chocolate only if it’s heads, or similar—variable reinforcers are supposedly more compelling than constant ones.
First thought: “No way! Abstaining from internet for the whole day and then losing the chocolate because of the wrong coin flip, that would make me really angry!”
Second thought: “Oh, maybe that’s what makes the random reinforcement stronger...”
Third thought: A part of the first objection is still valid, because I am the person who makes and protects the rules. So making myself angry or frustrated could engage my emotions and make the reinforcement stronger… but also on meta level, it could make me change or quit the game. (On the other hand, what is the worst possible outcome? If this fails, I can stil return to the original rules.)
I tried to spend five days, 10. − 14. Dec 2012, without web browsing, even without reading LW. As a reward I gave myself a small piece of chocolate at the evening (inspired by Story 1 in this article). It worked. This week, 17. − 21. Dec 2012, I will try it again. (Why not? I still have 2⁄3 of the original chocolate.)
I am rather surprised by this, because my model of myself predicted that it wouldn’t work; that a small piece of chocolate could not make that big difference in a behavior I’ve been having problems with for years. But I had nothing to lose, so I tried it. It seems like trivial rewards work really well.
If the experiment replicates successfully the next week, I will consider using the same reinforcement for other things I want myself to do or to avoid doing (probably replacing chocolate with something smaller, like M&Ms). And then I can measure whether the new motivating system works better than the old one. Yay, sweet utilons!
You might want to experiment with flipping a coin and giving yourself chocolate only if it’s heads, or similar—variable reinforcers are supposedly more compelling than constant ones.
First thought: “No way! Abstaining from internet for the whole day and then losing the chocolate because of the wrong coin flip, that would make me really angry!”
Second thought: “Oh, maybe that’s what makes the random reinforcement stronger...”
Third thought: A part of the first objection is still valid, because I am the person who makes and protects the rules. So making myself angry or frustrated could engage my emotions and make the reinforcement stronger… but also on meta level, it could make me change or quit the game. (On the other hand, what is the worst possible outcome? If this fails, I can stil return to the original rules.)
I was just throwing it out there, it seems likely that the longer time-frame of what you’re doing would make constant reinforcement optimal.