andrewducker | You are not in control

You are not in control

Over here there's an article on self-control, and how hard it is. It uses the idea of first and second-order preferences, where your have both preferences and preferences _about_ your preferences.

I have a first-order preference for cakes, sweets, and other miscellaneous sugary delights. I have a second order preference for healthy eating, which is a preference _about_ that first-order preference. I know, however, that second-order preferences are a hell of a lot weaker than first-order ones. It takes a huge amount of effort to modify a first-order preference, sustained over a long period of time. Unless the rewards are high and the pressure is sustained, it's incredibly likely that the first-order preference will be unchanged.

This is why diets don't work. You want to be skinny, but this is merely wishing, whereas your body _craves_ food, in a much stronger way than you wish you were thin.

The article neatly ties into neatly into a discussion I was having along similar lines with

is_not_well recently - about the way the unconscious is largely in charge of our decisions. The unconscious is what makes most of our decisions, it contains our cravings, our wants, our demands and our first-order preferences. Most people think of their conscious mind as being in control, but largely it sits there as a top level, observing what goes on. There are plenty of studies out there that show that the conscious mind actually finds out what we're going to do _after_ we've decided to do it.

This is a pain, especially as the conscious mind is the only bit that can actually apply logic to a situation. Not that logic is always the most useful way to approach something, but sometimes it is, and when we need to attack something deductively it actually takes up huge amounts of the brain's processing power, as the conscious mind wrests control of the decision-making power for a few moments. Only, frequently, to have it wrested straight back, as the subconscious decides that one more biscuit would be an _excellent_ idea.

The mistake most people make, especially control freaks, is in thinking that they can bludgeon their subconscious into submission, and force it to do what they want. This normally leads straight into all sorts of neurotic behaviour, as the unconscious mind uses all sorts of defence mechanisms to get its way.

The only way to get long term results is to train the subconscious. Think of it like a child, or an animal, or a neural network (whichever one seems like the better metaphor to you), and correct it slowly, giving it constant feedback of the correct kind to encourage it in the right direction. You can't retrain an animal quickly, and there are some things you can never train it to do, but given time, persistence, patience and from learning what methods work best with your particular pet, you can do a lot. And generally it works a lot better than shouting at it, and then sulking when it doesn't instantly learn what you want from it.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Its awfully psychodynamic ;)

The problem with a lot of this stuff is its theoretical, its non-falsifiable. Though I feel lots of things work for different people. Often I will shrug and say "whatever gets you through".

What you're describing sounds terribly like Ego, Id and Superego. It sounds like you're describing the Id which is like a child demanding that its wishes are fufilled, and the other two trying to facilitate with reason.

I think if you believe that your subconscious needs to be trained, then training it will probably work for you.

Also, what exactly is the subconscious? when I feel stressed I feel reckless, I want to overindulge in anything that brings me pleasure. why do I do this? because its a coping mechanism, it offers temporary relief and sometimes perspective on an issue. However often it comes with damage, that only causes more stress in needing to sort things out.

Example - I get stressed, I go out, get wasted, then spend the next few days recovering. If I was stressing about not having enough time for my PhD, then I've just caused even more stress for a short period of relaxation.

I don't like to put too much distance in between the conscious and subconscious. I feel the two are often offered as two "people" who interact, but I feel the link is understated.

I'm not too fussed on the first article. There is a lot more *psychological* literature out there on decision making, cognition, drives and motivation.

On a related note, I have vague memories of depression being explained in terms of the emotion that manifests when you cannot achieve your goals. the mind checks to see the progress, and becomes more depressed when the goal is still not achieved.

Edited 2008-08-11 12:39 (UTC)

It is like Ego and Id. Superego I have less time for.

We know that we have drives, and that trying to control them head on doesn't work. All research into dieting shows that 99% of people are incapable of sticking to them long term, because their conscious wishes can't control those drives.

I do agree that seeing the conscious and subconscious as anything more than metaphor is silly - the brain isn't anywhere near as simple as that - but as a metaphor it has useful descriptive power.

And that kind of article isn't aimed at people with psychology degrees - if it was, it'd be no use for 99% of the population.

Depression, from my observation, comes from a feeling of being trapped. It happens when our anger at a situation is fruitless, and we're reduced to a feeling of helplessness - which is counselling for depression focusses on enabling people and building them back up to the point where they can take charge of their lives - at which point a lot of anger comes out of them. Well, in my experience/reading, anyway.

Edited 2008-08-11 12:47 (UTC)

But this is not true. If it were, no diabetics would control their insulin and I would be constantly sick with celiac. My body craves cheese but I'm not stupid enough to eat it in more than tiny slivers on rare occassions. I've been forced into denial diets several times in my life (migraine, arthritis and and now the celiac/lactose intolerance) and each time rationality was successfuly imposed on craving for years at a time.

As far as I can see the argument is a simple cop out .

(and that is while I do *not* subscribe to the "weakness" theory of obesity).

How much effort did it take you to control your insulin, how many relapses did you have, how often did you have "a little bit"?

Because most of the people I've known with insulin problems indulge occasionally, despite knowing that it will cause problems. I don't know _anyone_ who has been able to go "I will stop X, which I like, right now, and never ever touch it again." Even you, just there, tell me that you eat slivers of cheese occasionally, despite knowing that it's bad for you.

Now can I see how it's a cop-out to describe something that I see all the time, and try to find a reason for it. If an alcoholic falls off the wagon it's not a "cop-out" to say that this is because it's _really, really hard_ and that it takes large amount of effort, sustained over long periods of time, to change them from "person who drinks" to "person who doesn't" and that them beating themselves up because they didn't instantly and permanently change themselves is incredibly counter-productive.

I don't know _anyone_ who has been able to go "I will stop X, which I like, right now, and never ever touch it again."

I do. I can introduce you to at least 2 people who took a conscious decision to give up drinking alcohol and have never touched it again. And yes, they get cravings to just have one drink, particularly in certain social environments, but repeatedly refuse to allow themselves to do so.

I'm intrigues to know:
1) what caused this - a big event, or a long-term change.
2) Whether they cut down beforehand - not necessarily on purpose, but just because they weren't enjoying it as much.

Because I know people who've stopped things - but usually because they stopped enjoying them, they just hadn't realised that they'd stopped enjoying them until a bit after they had :->

You know loads of fans on controlled diets and very few of us feel in the kind of controlled stress you describe.

I only know one person who *does* behave that way and that's my mother who has many issues in which control and loss of control become part of a trajectory in which she finds pleasure.

The thing about controlled diets (as opposed to just "diets") is that they have fairly large consequences for not sticking to them. If eating refined sugar products caused headaches for everyone then they'd find it much easier not to eat sweets, and thus lose weight. Food poisoning, similarly, will cause people to stop eating a particular kind of food instantly, and cravings (so far as I understand) pretty much stop instantly.

It's things that lack (near)instant feedback that cause the issues.

Look at the way normal people act towards biscuits/sweets - claiming they shouldn't, and then having "just one more".

Some kinds of ill effects from food can take up to 2 days to appear - which is longer than our automatic aversion mechanisms seem to be able to detect (unfortunately).

ps. Psychology's greatest research flaw has always been that it tries to extrapolate from those who come to it "in distress". It has not always been very good at distinguishing between the immediate locus of distress and whether that is "natural" or a result of society telling the person that they "should" be distressed.

The UK has been a food hating society for a long time now. God forbid that they should talk to people who throughly enjoy their food (or anything else) while accepting limits or restrictions.

Because I know people who've stopped things - but usually because they stopped enjoying them, they just hadn't realised that they'd stopped enjoying them until a bit after they had :->

You're talking about habits, not addictions.

The whole point of an addiction is that you usually *don't* enjoy it any more - that's habituation. But you have to keep doing it because STOPPING feels so bad.

With habits, having observed this thing no longer pleasures you, you can make an educated decision to stop, and though you may have to make changes to break the habit eg not walk home past the fish and chip shop/pub every night, stopping will not actually pain you physically.

You're talking about habits

Yes. Shouldn't have mentioned alcoholism at all, as that wasn't what the original piece was about.

Alcohol is well known as being an addiction where having "a little bit" usually means "all of it, back to square one". Hence alcohol support groups, GP propoganda, drying out centres, friends, all encourage you strongly to give up "one day at a time" with no option of "just a glass" but no thinking about "no alcohol for ever".

THis is imensely strong reinforcement and yet still often fails. But you do get support for it in the alcohol environment in a way you do almost nowhere else. no one says to a known acoholic, "go on have a treat, just have one", at least no one with any sense. This is not true eg of food or smoking. Also the downsides are so vast - almost no one gets to that place till they are as low as they can go ie either having or about to lose job, partner, kids etc.

"almost no-one gets to that place"

See, that's the type you hear about, people that go through the 'programs' - that's the usual story, the 'rock bottom' thing. IIRC, one of the base tenets of the whole AA movement. But there *are* folks whose lives are at a pretty normal place despite/except the heavy/habitual drinking, and who just quit cold, with no program, no support - and who just never touch another drop. You don't hear about them much. Maybe we should hear more...

sorry - I'll stop semi-hijacking the topic of this thread.

Stages of change, inbuilt with a re-lapse function. Change is a difficult process, and not always governed by our desires. Habit also plays an important function, as does social support, mood, the media. Social cognition models try to explain exactly this.

But that decision to have some cheese is a decision. I say to myself: "I haven't had cheese for a while, if I have x amount I will have y symptoms." Am I up for that?

Alcoholism is an addiction. Eating wheat is not.

Believe me, my diet is pretty effortless. If it weren't that sliver would lead to a chunk etc.

I don't know _anyone_ who has been able to go "I will stop X, which I like, right now, and never ever touch it again."

I think you do. I did that with alchohol.

and for the record, I do not entirely agree that drinking too much alcohol, even regularly, is necessarily an addiction.

Interestingly, my dad did the same (and he was neither a big drinker nor a habitual one). Just gave up one day and hasn't touched it since.

Aha!

Were you enjoying it? Did you actually feel an impulse to do it?

Because, certainly in this case, it can't be a willpower thing, because I know it took you a long time to get your diet under control - and that was with you having reactions to things in it. So why was it easy with alcohol, but not with food?

oh yeah. I enjoyed it. Still would probably. Still miss it at times.

It was easy with alcohol because you don't *have* to drink. You do have to eat.

Life overall is better without - but I didnt' know that til 6 months in.

Now caffeine - that's *evil* to try to quit. Think I have cracked it this time though...

I'm converting this to email.

I've done it.

The secret is to sort of go with it.

The only way to get long term results is to train the subconscious.

hells yeah. i'm glad someone else realises this. people all too often think they have failed when they don't manage one of their goals. they don't see that they have probably made good progress in training their brain to think differently about that situation and to move along.

tis the madness.

I love the concept of "emotional experience".

I still can't define this properly.

However I like to think about it in my terms. You learn from experience, and emotional experience. You maybe learn that arguing is a positive experience because it gets things aired, or maybe you learn its hurtful and pointless. This means in the future when you argue with say a work colleague, emotional experience will teach your emotions how to react, and how much to react.

I think it depends on who you're arguing with :->

hmm, unfortunately i don't think emotional experience is a great way of learning things hehe.

Isn't this tied in with schemas? Or is that old news?

Schema theory is still about! Usually its tied to memory though as a method of integrating information. Also its tied into self-identity, I think its called something like "self-schema". The example given in textbooks about Schemas is what usually happens in restaurants. There's a clearly defined step by step process of what happens (you go in, you're seated, asked if you want a drink, you pcik off the menu, they bring the food, you eat, you pay etc), and once you've been a few times, this gets integrated into your memory.

I was meaning in a more "pop psychology" sense, but I suppose it does link into schema's. I was thinking personally along the lines of things that I would have been nervous about several years ago, but I'm no longer, because I've had years of "emotional experience", and what I meant was, this isnt a "sentance" or a cognition going through my head, its more of a learned "feeling". I tend to think of schemas being a little bit more cognitive or conscious though than in the unconscious.

I also have the opinion that as people get to the end of their 20's and into their 30s they're no longer affected by the crap that would normally drive them crazy from say age 18 onwards (having had the emotional experience). However, I'm yet to fully test this theory yet :)

Edited 2008-08-11 15:33 (UTC)

the understanding I have of it is that (possibly slighty out of date) CBT is indeed about consciously, cognitively, trying to change schemas - but the schemas *themselves* are very much about experiential, emotional and generally unconscious learning - like if you have a bullying negative father you're likely to recreate that relationship with other men - hence yr reaction to men will be very different than if you have a kind supportive one - but this is not reasoned , conscious - no one thinks "because my father was scarey all other men wil be too " because this is obvoously irrational- it feels "instinctive" even. I *think* one of the issues for CBT is indeed to train the unconscious as well as the conscious - which is why psychodynamic therapy still gets customers even tho it's hit rate's not as god as CBT overall? (I can tell myself all I like that men aren't scary but my subconscious just ain't buying it..)

I don't have a good *academic* grasp of CBT, however from my knowledge of it, however I would agree that that's one way to describe it. I know CBT using slightly different terms, focusing on emotions and cognitions rather than drawing in the conscious and unconscious, although it could be depending on how/when/the approach the therapist learned. I imagine the flavour of CBT is going to be different if a psychologist take a course as opposed to a social worker (thats an interesting topic!). I wonder if they tailor the explanation of it to each patient/client?

I know someone who went through psychoanalysis and found it much MUCH more useful than CBT because it started to pull out the real reasons for things. I find CBT to focus on the here and now "here is your problem, your automatic negative thought" you do some experiments and you create evidence to show that your "automatic negative thought" is wrong, and remind yourself of this every time the thought crops up. Which actually would support Andy's post.

I *think* one of the issues for CBT is indeed to train the unconscious as well as the conscious

I remember Vincent making a post on pretty much this topic, saying that in his opinion the B part of CBT was more important than the C bit - change the behaviour and the cognition will eventually change to match it (if change is possible).

These ideas are key to the work I do as a hypnotherapist

http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2008/07/habit-change-is-like-chess/

Interesting piece on doing sufficient preparation to make habit change easier.

That's perfect!

Steer had as great book on this - the one that posits it takes six weeks a to break a habit and six weeks to make a habit. he taught himself to like apples :)

another Steve reader!!! :-)

Defence mechanisms really interest me. I'm fascinated by how they develop, and fascinated that different people can develop similar coping strategies.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

You are not in control

I've not done clinical psychology for a long time...

Re: I've not done clinical psychology for a long time...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

alcoholics

Re: alcoholics

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: I've not done clinical psychology for a long time...

Re: I've not done clinical psychology for a long time...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

I don't actually know enough about this subject...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject