Btw, “Just Do It” and “Monoidealism” are essentially the same thing, described differently. “Irresistible Instant Motivation” and (Vladimir Golovin’s version of) “Self Affirmation” are specific alternative ways to achieve a monoideal or “just doing it” state. (Specifically, Vladimir’s self-affirmation of “I want to do X” is a weaker form of something I call the Jedi Mind Trick, which is repeatedly saying “I am now doing X”, and refusing to let any contrary/conflicting thought take hold.)
So, properly, “monoidealism” is simply the state in which you have exactly one thing on your mind, with no conflicts. It’s a condition that results in one naturally taking action in relation to the thought, rather than a technique in and of itself.
So, If somebody is saying they use monoidealism or “The Hidden Meaning Of ‘Just Do It’”, they are simply saying they go after that state directly (and perhaps reflectively) rather than using some other technique like affirming, counting down, envisioning+comparison (“Instant Motivation”), etc..
Many other techniques listed here also reflect attempts to reach a monoideal state by manipulating the outside world, rather than the inside one. The author of “Getting Things Done” talks about creating a “mind like water”, where the purpose of tracking things is to allow everything to be out of one’s head.… i.e., no conflicting thoughts. Removing outside barriers is another, since the lack of a barrier means one less thing that you will think about. ;-)
So, in short, “monoidealism” is not a technique. It is the desired end-state we wish to replace akrasia with. Specific anti-akrasia techniques may further be classified by whether they seek monoidealism indirectly (by manipulating the outside world) or directly (by manipulating one’s thoughts).
Presumably, there are also techniques which do not go after monoidealism either directly or indirectly, but I’m hard pressed to think of one. Even things like Pomodoro and LeechBlock attempt to remove sources of conflicting thoughts, after all. (But I would be most interested in hearing of a counterexample, and I’ll admit that systemic prohpylaxis such as exercise, nutrition, drugs, etc. are a bit of a stretch to include in this category. Most forms of meditation, though, would clearly be training one’s skill at maintaining monoideal states in the face of competing inputs.)
Anyway, the usefulness of a particular technique to a particular individual will largely depend on whether it addresses their particular stumbling blocks in achieving a monoideal state.
For example, a person whose primary obstacle is self-doubt will not be helped much by removing external obstacles! A person who has only one thing to do won’t be helped by Structured Procrastination or Getting Things Done, and so on.
Meanwhile, although I’m the “creator” or popularizer of more than one method on this list, I personally don’t use any “motivational” tricks on an ongoing basis… for the simple reason that motivational tricks can’t overcome “Bruce” in the long run.
That is, if “yourself” really wants to not do something, it will simply transfer your akrasia to the use of the anti-akrasia technique itself! I’ve experienced this many, many times before… which is why you don’t see me inventing any new techniques.
(They’re pretty easy to invent, btw, once you know that the goal of any such technique is to induce a monoideal state. I bet lesswrongers could come up with a crapload of ’em… and in fact they already have!)
Anyway, AFAICT, the only long term approach to chronic (as opposed to episodic) akrasia is to:
Self-modify so as to limit the number of conflicting thoughts that can occur in the first place: if you don’t have any “buttons” for your tasks to push, then you can’t lose your monoideal state that way.
The latter is necessary because without developed skill at self-observation, you will never “get” what is setting you off in the first place, nor will you be able to modify it. The first few years of my blogging consist of mostly very superficial self-observations, at a time when I was still looking for logical reasons why I did things.
Now I know to be suspicious when my brain hands me a logical answer, because (alas) logic and action are simply not related in the way our brains are built. Logic is primarily a weapon we use to persuade other people, and to prevent ourselves from being persuaded. It seems likely there was a lot less evolutionary pressure on being able to figure out or understand reality or “truth”, than there was on offensive and defensive persuasion capability!
This means that logic and verbal sophistication are the natural enemies of both motivation and self-modification, since our logic is intended to refute any ideas that might cause us to self-modify (in response to verbal persuasion/suggestion/priming)… and it’s also intended to keep our inner motivations from being discovered by others!
For this reason, verbal overshadowing is the #1 obstacle to self-understanding and self-modification, for pretty much all applications, not just anti-akratic ones. Your logical, verbal mind is designed to deceive others and prevent them from deceiving you. But unfortunately, it simply counters verbal persuasion, regardless of who it’s coming from. You can’t convince yourself of anything by arguing and ranting, in the same way that you can’t convince anyone else by arguing and ranting.
Actively persuading another person requires that they become fully engaged in the discussion, and it’s no different in relation to yourself. Unless you become fully engaged with yourself in the same way, you’re just shouting into the wind.
As another LW put it with respect to rational relationships: “There ain’t no one. There’s a .67 or a .64 that you round up to one”
edit: I get a bit...uhh...psychotic, when I’m tired. I wrote the following draft comment at something like 4am. I don’t really know what I meant, but perhaps it does mean something someone else can gain from
Mono idealism inspires wishful thinking, it eases analysis paralysis and helps establish utility function despite complexity if value. Imagine if we could factor in dynamic inconsistency into a mental construct we than appreciated to the point of monoidealisation? Alas, ones abstract thinking would have to be quite strong.
Btw, “Just Do It” and “Monoidealism” are essentially the same thing, described differently. “Irresistible Instant Motivation” and (Vladimir Golovin’s version of) “Self Affirmation” are specific alternative ways to achieve a monoideal or “just doing it” state. (Specifically, Vladimir’s self-affirmation of “I want to do X” is a weaker form of something I call the Jedi Mind Trick, which is repeatedly saying “I am now doing X”, and refusing to let any contrary/conflicting thought take hold.)
So, properly, “monoidealism” is simply the state in which you have exactly one thing on your mind, with no conflicts. It’s a condition that results in one naturally taking action in relation to the thought, rather than a technique in and of itself.
So, If somebody is saying they use monoidealism or “The Hidden Meaning Of ‘Just Do It’”, they are simply saying they go after that state directly (and perhaps reflectively) rather than using some other technique like affirming, counting down, envisioning+comparison (“Instant Motivation”), etc..
Many other techniques listed here also reflect attempts to reach a monoideal state by manipulating the outside world, rather than the inside one. The author of “Getting Things Done” talks about creating a “mind like water”, where the purpose of tracking things is to allow everything to be out of one’s head.… i.e., no conflicting thoughts. Removing outside barriers is another, since the lack of a barrier means one less thing that you will think about. ;-)
So, in short, “monoidealism” is not a technique. It is the desired end-state we wish to replace akrasia with. Specific anti-akrasia techniques may further be classified by whether they seek monoidealism indirectly (by manipulating the outside world) or directly (by manipulating one’s thoughts).
Presumably, there are also techniques which do not go after monoidealism either directly or indirectly, but I’m hard pressed to think of one. Even things like Pomodoro and LeechBlock attempt to remove sources of conflicting thoughts, after all. (But I would be most interested in hearing of a counterexample, and I’ll admit that systemic prohpylaxis such as exercise, nutrition, drugs, etc. are a bit of a stretch to include in this category. Most forms of meditation, though, would clearly be training one’s skill at maintaining monoideal states in the face of competing inputs.)
Anyway, the usefulness of a particular technique to a particular individual will largely depend on whether it addresses their particular stumbling blocks in achieving a monoideal state.
For example, a person whose primary obstacle is self-doubt will not be helped much by removing external obstacles! A person who has only one thing to do won’t be helped by Structured Procrastination or Getting Things Done, and so on.
Meanwhile, although I’m the “creator” or popularizer of more than one method on this list, I personally don’t use any “motivational” tricks on an ongoing basis… for the simple reason that motivational tricks can’t overcome “Bruce” in the long run.
That is, if “yourself” really wants to not do something, it will simply transfer your akrasia to the use of the anti-akrasia technique itself! I’ve experienced this many, many times before… which is why you don’t see me inventing any new techniques.
(They’re pretty easy to invent, btw, once you know that the goal of any such technique is to induce a monoideal state. I bet lesswrongers could come up with a crapload of ’em… and in fact they already have!)
Anyway, AFAICT, the only long term approach to chronic (as opposed to episodic) akrasia is to:
Self-modify so as to limit the number of conflicting thoughts that can occur in the first place: if you don’t have any “buttons” for your tasks to push, then you can’t lose your monoideal state that way.
Monitor and manage “yourself”, rather than self-identifying as the one who is doing or not doing things.
The latter is necessary because without developed skill at self-observation, you will never “get” what is setting you off in the first place, nor will you be able to modify it. The first few years of my blogging consist of mostly very superficial self-observations, at a time when I was still looking for logical reasons why I did things.
Now I know to be suspicious when my brain hands me a logical answer, because (alas) logic and action are simply not related in the way our brains are built. Logic is primarily a weapon we use to persuade other people, and to prevent ourselves from being persuaded. It seems likely there was a lot less evolutionary pressure on being able to figure out or understand reality or “truth”, than there was on offensive and defensive persuasion capability!
This means that logic and verbal sophistication are the natural enemies of both motivation and self-modification, since our logic is intended to refute any ideas that might cause us to self-modify (in response to verbal persuasion/suggestion/priming)… and it’s also intended to keep our inner motivations from being discovered by others!
For this reason, verbal overshadowing is the #1 obstacle to self-understanding and self-modification, for pretty much all applications, not just anti-akratic ones. Your logical, verbal mind is designed to deceive others and prevent them from deceiving you. But unfortunately, it simply counters verbal persuasion, regardless of who it’s coming from. You can’t convince yourself of anything by arguing and ranting, in the same way that you can’t convince anyone else by arguing and ranting.
Actively persuading another person requires that they become fully engaged in the discussion, and it’s no different in relation to yourself. Unless you become fully engaged with yourself in the same way, you’re just shouting into the wind.
[edit: formatting]
I’ll group them together, but I don’t want to lose the individual data: people may find one formulation of the concept more useful than another.
As another LW put it with respect to rational relationships: “There ain’t no one. There’s a .67 or a .64 that you round up to one”
edit: I get a bit...uhh...psychotic, when I’m tired. I wrote the following draft comment at something like 4am. I don’t really know what I meant, but perhaps it does mean something someone else can gain from