Changing who you are

[andrewducker]

I avoid eating sugar because it makes me feel awful.

It took me a long time to wean myself off of it, and I tried a number of different tactics.

Exerting self-control is rarely easy - your conscious mind just is not good at keeping control over your physical drives for long periods of time.

And saying to myself "I don't want any chocolate cake." just felt wrong - because it clearly wasn't true. I _did_ want chocolate, or cake, or whatever it was I shouldn't want.

What worked the best for me was saying "I am not the kind of person who eats cake." - changing my perceptions of who I was, and pretending to be someone else seemed to entirely bypass the quibbling of my subconscious.

And thus I'm not surprised by research from Yellowstone Park saying that when they put up signs saying "Please don't litter" it had no effect, but putting up signs saying "People who love the environment take their litter home" caused a drop in the amount of rubbish left lying around.

The first is a request - we weight it up against all of our own desires and then make a decision. The second cuts to the core of our being - we have to make a decision about whether we're the Right kind of person or the Wrong kind of person. It's fairly obvious that that kind of approach works massively well.

Comments

[star-tourmaline.livejournal.com]

I think this is a great point and personally very helpful.

[woodpijn.livejournal.com]

This is fascinating. I find the topic of self-control very interesting.

I guess cognitive dissonance or something similar comes into why the littering signs work: people don't want to believe something bad about themselves, and so change their behaviour rather than have to do that.

Not sure about the cake-eating example, though. "The kind of person who eats cake" is not an obviously bad thing in the same way as "people who [don't] love the environment" is (especially to national-park visitors), so I wouldn't expect it to have the same effect. Also, "I am not the kind of person who eats cake" feels false in the same way as "I don't want any cake" does. You might not be a cake-eating person now, but you presumably were when you started this. Why didn't "I am not the kind of person who eats cake" also "[feel] wrong - because it clearly wasn't true"?

[peteyoung.livejournal.com]

Agreed. I went through a moment of dissonance yesterday when my sister sent me some photos in which there was this person who was clearly different from my own self image. "This is not me" was how it felt, and it's connected to the sugar thing. It's useful to step outside yourself occasionally to reinforce knowing how others actually see you in order to change something inside.

[supergee.livejournal.com]

Doesn't work on me. I am not the kind of person who eats cake because I am mildly diabetic. I am the kind of person who would eat sugar with cholesterol poured on it if I could get away with it.

[andrewducker]

Exactly the same here (except that I don't appear to be diabetic, just insulin resistant).

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

Have you been reading Robert Caldini, by any chance?

[andrewducker]

Nope. Should I?

[vereybowring.livejournal.com]

Psychology is fun.
When I worked as a street sweeper the school runs after lunchtime yielded about half my work for the day (in volume of litter got from the ground).
Telling them off for dropping litter would make them drop more.
Another sweeper and myself told schoolkids we got paid on the quantity of litter we collected and they used the bins more - simple yet effective.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

I've cut way back on sugar because I developed the ability to remember the way it makes me feel.

I still eat it occasionally, but I'm cautious about the quantity.

For me, the big change was assimilating the idea that sugar is not automatically a treat or reward. Maybe I didn't have to work on my self-image because I never defined myself as a cake-eating sort of person.

As for the self-image thing, it can backfire if the proposed self-image is too different from what the person actually wants to do. The result can be "Fuck you to hell and back, I'd rather be a bad person than comply".

[hawkida.livejournal.com]

I'm interested in the answers to this because I have the exact same queries. How is "I don't want.." different from "I'm not the kind of person who..."

I could understand "I don't want to be the kind of person who wants..." but I don't see how it's helpful. I like sugar. I'd like to stop liking it because it would help my weight and that'd supposedly have a whole load of health related good side effects, but I do like it, I do want it, and I am the sort of person who likes it. Claiming otherwise would just be lying and I am not particularly good at lying and can definitely see through lies to myself.

[andrewducker]

I am the kind of person who _wants_ sugar. I'm not the kind of person who _eats_ sugar. Big difference.

[andrewducker]

What finally worked near-completely for me was the unpleasant side-effects every time I ate it. And the less I ate it, the easier it was for negative-reinforcement to work, as it became incredibly obvious there was a link.

[hawkida.livejournal.com]

Still seems like a lie to me. If you're not the sort of person who eats sugar then why, the previous day (or month or whatever) were you eating it?

Suppose it was someone else, and you saw them tell a third person, "I'm not the sort of person who reads the Daily Mail" when you saw them with a copy on the tube yesterday. Would you conclude that they're redefining themselves, that they're different now? That they consider themself to be different to the stereotypical reader? Or that they're just a great big liar? Because I'd be tending towards that last option and I'm not seeing a significant difference between you claiming you're not the type who eats cake and him claiming he's not the type to read shoddy newspapers.

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

I find it very easy to abstain from things - and near-impossible to moderate. I wonder if this is how most people are or am I a weirdo?

[andrewducker]

Because of habit. Many people see themselves as caring about the environment, but then litter. If you point out that these two things are in conflict then they cease the action. Actions can frequently lag behind self-identity.

I'm not the kind of person who reads the Daily Mail. But place me on a boring train journey with nothing else to read, and I will read it. I'm not the kind of person who watches Hollyoaks, but if Julie is watching an episode, and I'm in the same room, then I'll end up watching at least part of it.

[andrewducker]

I find total abstention a hell of a lot easier than moderation. Put me next to food and I _will_ eat it. The only way to avoid this is either constant vigilance (which takes a lot of mental energy) or avoiding having it in the same place as me.

[simont]

The second cuts to the core of our being - we have to make a decision about whether we're the Right kind of person or the Wrong kind of person.

I have to say that the second would inspire in me an immediate alarm bell along the lines of "woop, woop, manipulative wording detected". It has the same feel about it as "If you really loved me, you'd <do something which is in fact a completely unreasonable thing for me to demand of you>": it tries to convince you by unsupported assertion that there are only two types of people and that whatever behaviour they're trying to convince you to do is an infallible indicator of the side of their fictitious black-and-white dividing line that they expect you to want to fall on.

Not that I'd object too hard in the specific case of littering in national parks, but the general principle raises all my "deliberate emotional manipulation" hackles and makes me want to refute the false dichotomy and/or dig in my heels out of sheer instinctive perversity.

[andrewducker]

Absolutely. It can definitely do that - and when it places me on the wrong side I'd be likely to get upset at it. When it merely reminds me that I _want_ to be the kind of person who doesn't litter, I'm fine with it.

Heh - maybe all you'd need is "Do you want to be the kind of person who litters?"...

[hawkida.livejournal.com]

I can understand the way the sign is working. It's the difference between DO NOT DO THIS and "have you thought about what you're doing?".

But both "I don't want cake" and "I'm not the sort of person who eats cake" feel like the same statement phrased differently, and together they don't seem particularly similar to a sign compelling you to behave differently because they're personal statements.

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

"Influence: the Psychology of Persuasion" is the classic text on persuasion, and bloody interesting (and useful) reading. "Yes!", the sequel, is lots of short examples of persuasion techniques, and includes the example you mention. Also very interesting.

[zz]

this.

[zz]

my self images are at odds with reality anyway (obviously, given n>1), so trying to modify them in that way probably wouldn't work for me.. :>

if i can see the point and quick-enough results, i can summon self-discipline to resist doing something (having near starved myself for several months in the past), but having the self-discipline to *do* something is vastly more difficult.

[erindubitably.livejournal.com]

Maybe it's a question of time - if you tell yourself "I'm not the sort of person who eats cake" often enough, you'll begin to wonder if you do want it, because obviously you wouldn't if you aren't the sort of person who eats it. So, as Andy said, if you get into to the habit of thinking of yourself one way, your actions will eventually begin to follow the parameters of that identity as well.

[andrewducker]

Self-discipline is something I find incredibly hard. I have the self control of a rat on crack.

[andrewducker]

I've ordered the first one. I'll look forward to reading it.

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

Hmm, from personal experience, the "avoiding having it in the same place as me" is not a sustainable solution. If, just for instance you live with someon who doesn't share your abstention and has ItemX around - or for things that are very environmentally present.

I don't really have the "put it next to me and I will indulge" thing for things I abstain from. You can sit it right in front of me and I'll not touch it. That's what I consider abstention. Total lack of interest/action. I only got there, though, by intermediat stages a bit like you describe.

[lebeautemps.livejournal.com]

Agreed. I am sadly the person who eats cake, and the whole thing too unless shamed by company. The best thing for me is not to have it in the house and so when cupboard surfing, I will be forced into a low sugar alternative. The shame idea works well - take a diabetic friend out for a meal, and you absolutely have to skip dessert so you don't eat in front of them/hurt their feelings.

[slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I will try this.

[henriksdal.livejournal.com]

One of the side-effects of Allen Carr (no, not that one)'s Easy Way To Stop Smoking is that it taught me to brain wash myself. I had always tried to be strong, but that book was just brilliant. For me, anyway, I know many people find it hopeless.

But yes - the idea is to change your own wants rather than to just resist what you think you want.