NEUROSCIENCES BASED BRAIN/ MIND REGULATION: BEHAVIORS ASSOCIATED

We are hard-wired to fight or flee under threat, so it is normal to want to act out in defence when we experience or observe the injustices in today’s world. But when we respond with our primitive, survive mind, it raises the stakes for impulsive and unreasonable reactions and in some cases violence, even death. Our survive brain can colonize our hearts and dwarf our humanity if we continue to allow it—as evidenced by large-scale injustices such as racially motivated murders, hate crimes, violent protests, police brutality, deadly reactions to the COVID-19 lock-down and global terrorism.

Survive Mind Versus Thrive Mind

We have a choice to permit our lives to be driven by our survive mind’s violent reactions or drawn from our thrive mind’s calm, compassionate, and clear-minded actions. Our lives are shaped from the inside out. If we lose our inner connection, in small ways and big, our personal lives and the world unravel. It starts with each of us exercising our own levelheadedness, self-control, and inner calm at an individual level.

All of us have a running monologue in our heads with the intention to control ourselves whether it is to stop from blowing up at the injustice we see in news feeds, eating another slice of pizza, or blurting out at a colleague who talks over us in a virtual meeting. But how many times have we said or done something we wish we could take back? We can blame our impulsive, self-immersed, non-thinking survive brain. Once we become clearheaded and regret what we said or did, we have shifted into our reflective, self-distanced, thinking thrive brain. But what if we could act more from our thrive brain (and react less from your survive brain) in the first place?

Self-Talk: Thrive talk instead of survive talk creates greater resilience.

Self-talk and how we consciously use it is a relatively effortless form of self-control in many different areas of our lives: diet, athletic performance, scholastic achievement, emotion regulation and impulsive behaviors. The way we talk to ourselves can help us survive or thrive.There was a time when people who talked to themselves were considered “crazy.” Now, experts consider self-talk to be one of the most effective therapeutic tools available. The science of self-talk has shown time and again that how we use self-talk makes a big difference.

We have an inner voice that provides a running monologue on our lives throughout the day and into the night. This inner voice, combining conscious thoughts with unconscious beliefs and biases, is an effective way for the brain to interpret and process daily experiences.

According to research, we have greater self-control when we use self-distanced self-talk from our thrive brain that entails using our name and non-first-person pronouns (instead of self-immersed first-person pronouns of “I” from our survive brain). Self-distancing gives us psychological distance from the survive brain’s egocentric bias which in turn enhances self-control, lowers anxiety, bolsters confidence, reduces impulsivity, improves emotion regulation, and cultivates wisdom over time. The reason for this difference is that third person self-talk leads us to think about ourselves similar to how we think about others and gives us agency to regulate our frustration, anger, or fear simply by the way we use internal dialogue.

Our “inner voice” can give us the self-control to stop us from making impulsive decisions. Research has confirmed that we act more impulsively when we cannot use our inner voice or talk to ourselves as we are performing tasks. Self-talk incorporating non-first-person pronouns (like the collective “we”) can enhance athletic performance and the ability to regulate thoughts, feelings and behaviours and help us to avoid rumination and improve performance with greater perspective, calm and confidence.

Self-Distancing

As human beings, our sense of self, or ‘ego’ governs a large part of our behavior, like our interactions with other people, our sense of self-worth and the image we have of ourselves in our minds. And often this image is very fragile, susceptible to all kinds of doubt and insecurity. Recent studies show that creating an alter ego or thinking of one’s self in the third person can go a long way in boosting morale and instilling confidence.

Research shows silently referring to ourselves by name instead as “I,” gives us psychological distance from the primitive parts of our brain. It allows us to talk to ourselves the way we might speak to someone else. The survive mind’s story is not the only story. And the thrive mind has a chance to shed a different light on the scenario. The language of separation allows us to process an internal event as if it happened to someone else. First-name self-talk or referring to ourselves as “you,” shifts focus away from our primitive brain’s inherent egocentricism. Studies show this practice lowers anxiety, gives us self-control, cultivates wisdom over time and puts the brakes on the negative voices that restrict possibilities.

First-name self-talk is more likely to empower us and increase the likelihood that, compared to someone using first-person pronoun self-talk, we see a challenge (thrive mind) instead of a threat (survive mind).

The Language of Separation

The language of separation allows us to process an internal event as if it happened to someone else. Thus, our survive mind’s story is not the only story and the thrive mind has a chance to shed a different light on the scenario. Experts have found that the best approach to deal with the survive mind is to respond as if it is another person. We must remember that the voice is not us. Some Examples of the language of separation and practicing self-distancing are:

Broaden-and-Build: The Big Picture

It sometimes helps to think of ourselves as the narrator, instead of the actor, of our thoughts and feelings when we are in a disturbing scene. Scientists report that narrative expressive writing creates a self-distanced versus self-immersed perspective and helps us overcome egocentric impulses, reduce stressful cardiovascular effects, and apply wise reasoning. With this form of self-distancing, we can process and make meaning from a bird’s-eye view instead of a personal perspective, fostering forward movement as opposed to rumination and re-experiencing the same negative emotions over and over again.

Like the zoom lens of a camera, Mother Nature has hardwired our survival brain for tunnel vision to target a threat. Our heart races, eyes dilate, and breathing escalates to enable us to fight or flee. As our brain zeroes in, our self-talk makes life-or-death judgments that constrict our ability to see possibilities. Our focus is narrow like the zoom lens of a camera, clouding out the big picture. And over time we build blind spots of negativity without realizing it. Self-talk through our wide-angle lens allows us to step back from a challenge, look at the big picture, and brainstorm on a wider range of possibilities, solutions, opportunities and choices.

Self-Affirmations

In 2014, Clayton Critcher and David Dunning at the University of California at Berkeley, conducted a series of studies showing that positive affirmations function as “cognitive expanders,” bringing a wider perspective to diffuse the brain’s tunnel vision of self-threats. Affirmations help us transcend the zoom-lens mode by engaging the wide-angle lens of the mind. Self-affirmations help cultivate a long-distance relationship with their judgment voice and see ourselves more fully in a broader self-view, bolstering our self-worth.

Relationships with Our ‘Parts’

When we notice that we are in an unpleasant emotional state—such as worry, anger, or frustration—holding these parts of us at arm’s length and observing them impartially as a separate aspect of us, activates our thrive talk (clarity, compassion, calm). Thinking of them much as we might observe a blemish on our hand allows us to be curious about where they came from. Instead of pushing away, ignoring, or steamrolling over the unpleasant parts, the key is to acknowledge them with something like, “Hello frustration, I see you are active today.”

This simple acknowledgment relaxes the parts so we can face the real hardship—whatever triggered them in the first place. This psychological distance flips the switches in our survive brain and thrive brain at which point we are calm, clear-minded, compassionate, perform competently, and have more confidence and courage.

Self-Compassion

There is a direct link between self-compassion and happiness, well-being, and success. The more self-compassion we have, the greater our emotional arsenal. Studies show that meditation cultivates compassion and kindness, affecting brain regions that make us more empathetic to other people. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), the researchers discovered that positive emotions such as loving-kindness and compassion can be developed in the same way as playing a musical instrument or being proficient in a sport.

The expression of empathy has far-reaching effects in our personal and professional lives. Employers who express empathy are more likely to retain employees, amp up productivity, reduce turnover, and create a sense of belonging in the company. If we cultivate the habit of speaking with loving-kindness, we change the way our brain fires in the moment.

Research shows that when abrasive, survive self-talk attacks us, it reduces our chances of rebounding and ultimately success. Instead of coming down hard on ourselves, loving-kindness helps us bounce back quicker. Forgiving ourselves for previous slip-ups such as procrastination, for example, offsets further procrastination. When we talk ourselves off the ledge using self-distancing, compassion, and positive self-talk, we perform better at tasks and recover more quickly from defeat or setbacks—regardless of how dire the circumstances.

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa

COGNITIVE BIASES: MANIFESTATION AND MITIGATION TECHNIQUES – (CHAPTER 02)

***Continued from Chapter 01 (Covered previously: Cognitive Biases and Debiasing, The Debiasing Process)

Link to Chapter 01:

COGNITIVE BIASES: MANIFESTATION AND MITIGATION TECHNIQUES – (CHAPTER 01)

Various Debiasing Techniques

There are a few general debiasing strategies (sometimes referred to as cognitive-forcing strategies), which can help deal with many of the cognitive biases. Many of these strategies are interrelated since the underlying principles behind them are similar.

A) Develop awareness of cognitive biases: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .>>  In some cases, simply being aware of a certain bias can help us reduce its impact. For example, consider the illusion of transparency, a cognitive bias that causes people to overestimate how well others can discern their emotional state, so that they tend to think that other people can tell if they are feeling nervous or anxious even in situations where that is not the case.

This happens because our own emotional experience can be so strong, we are sure our emotions ‘leak out.’ However, observers are not as good at picking up on a speaker’s emotional state as we tend to expect. What is inside of us typically manifests itself too subtly to be detected by others. We must relax and understand that if we become nervous, we will probably be the only ones to know.

B) Improve the way we present information: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> This can affect the way people process it, and the same information, presented in two different ways to the same person, can lead to two very different outcomes. Accordingly, by modifying the way we present information to people, we can reduce the influence of certain cognitive biases.

The exact way in which this strategy can be implemented depends on the circumstances, and on the cognitive biases that we are trying to avoid. Presenting information in an optimal way, that encourages people to think through it rather than react intuitively, can go a long way toward mitigating various cognitive biases.

C) Favour simple explanations over complex ones: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> This is rooted in the overkill backfire effect, which is a cognitive bias that causes people who encounter a complex explanation to reject it in favour of a simpler alternative, and to sometimes also reinforce their belief in the simpler alternative. When it comes to debiasing, simple explanations are often preferable to complex ones. This concept can be applied in many areas of the debiasing process, from how we think through past events to how we present information.

D) Slow down the reasoning process: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> The benefit of doing this is that it allows to reflect on our reasoning process, and to think through alternative viewpoints, while also helping to avoid relying on biased intuitions. One way of encouraging this is to establish specific routines and protocols, which ensure that we slow down when necessary. Slowing down can help us reduce various cognitive biases, by enabling us to run an unrushed reasoning process, which is less influenced by our biased intuitions and emotional considerations.

E) Use nudges: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> Nudges are simple modifications that are made to an environment to alter people’s behaviour in a predictable way, without forbidding any options or changing their incentives on a significant scale. This means that to count as a nudge, an intervention must be easy to avoid. For example, placing water bottles instead of soda cans near the register of a cafeteria counts as a nudge, while banning soda outright does not. Using nudges usually entails making changes to the people’s decision-making process, in a way that involves the implementation of other debiasing strategies.

One instance where nudges can be helpful is in the mitigation of the backfire effect, which is a cognitive bias that causes people to strengthen their support of their pre-existing beliefs when they encounter evidence which shows that those beliefs are wrong. This bias evident, for example, in the fact that when people are introduced to negative information about a political candidate that they favour, they often end up increasing their support for that candidate. One of the main ways to mitigate the backfire effect is to preface information that people might feel defensive about with questions that encourage them to process it.

F) Change incentives: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> In theory, there are two parameters related to incentives that we can modify in order to reduce the likelihood of biased decision-making: –

1. . . . . . increase the benefits (positive feedback or rewards) of making a non-biased decision. 
2. . . . . .  increase the penalties (negative feedback or punishments) for making a biased decision. 

However, in practice, changing people’s incentives does not always work, and might even backfire in some cases, such as when people feel actively antagonized by the changed incentive structure. Since the effects of changing incentives are difficult to predict, it’s important to be wary if we are thinking about changing them as part of debiasing process.

G) Increase involvement in the decision-making process: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> Increasing how involved people feel about a certain decision and how much they care about it can reduce certain cognitive biases. By ensuring that people care more about making an unbiased decision, we can make them more open to using various metacognitive strategies, which can help debias successfully.

There are many ways in which we can increase people’s involvement in the decision-making process. One of the main ones is to emphasize their role as active participants in their own reasoning process, and to encourage them to rely on conscious reasoning, as opposed to subconscious intuitions. In doing this, we can ask people to clearly outline and verbalize their reasoning process, which can help them identify gaps in their logic, and think in a more rational way.

H) Increase personal accountability: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> When people know that they will be held accountable for their decisions and that their decisions will be scrutinized by others, they tend to put more effort into the decision-making process, which can sometimes help people mitigate certain cognitive biases.

I) Elicit feedback from others: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> Receiving feedback from other people can help reduce certain cognitive biases. This is especially noticeable in the case of biases that influence people’s perception of themselves, such as the worse-than-average effect, which causes people to incorrectly believe that they are worse than other people at performing certain difficult tasks. However, when considering other people’s feedback, it is important to remember that they are also prone to various cognitive biases. Therefore, it is important to always be wary when deciding who to ask for feedback, and when deciding how to implement that feedback once we receive it.

J) Standardize the decision-making process: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> Deciding to make our decisions in a standardized way can help ensure that we use all the necessary debiasing techniques that we need to go through an optimal decision-making process.

For example, the use of a simple mnemonic checklist was shown to help doctors apply important metacognitive strategies and make better decisions in a clinical context.

K) Create favourable conditions for decision making: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> We can facilitate the debiasing process by improving the conditions in which you make decisions. While it is often difficult to make those conditions absolutely perfect, even minor changes can be monumental in helping improve our ability to make rational decisions.

1. Improve internal conditions. These are factors that reduce our cognitive capacity, such as sleep deprivation, as well as factors that increase our cognitive demands, such as multitasking.
2. Improve external conditions. These are factors that reduce our cognitive capacity, such as high noise levels, as well as factors that increase our cognitive demands, such as social pressure.

Bias-Specific Debiasing Techniques

There are also some debiasing techniques that are applicable in more specific cases. They can only help deal with a certain type of bias. The advantage of such techniques is that even though they are applicable in fewer cases, they can often be more effective than generalized debiasing strategies. Some of them are:

A) Reduce your reliance on subjective memory: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >>  Research shows that our memory of past events is subjective, malleable, and prone to various distortions.

For example, there is the rosy retrospection bias, which is a cognitive bias that causes people to recall past events in a way that is more positive than how they experienced those events in reality. This bias can, for example, cause us to remember a past vacation as having been more enjoyable than it really was.

One way to mitigate these issues is to reduce reliance on such memory, by using objective records to examine past events. The main advantage of this technique is that we are better at remembering where information is stored and how to retrieve it, than we are at remembering the information itself.

B) Consider alternative outcomes to past events: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . >> This can also help deal with some of the biases that distort our view of these events. For example, the choice-supportive bias is a cognitive bias that causes people to retroactively ascribe more positive features and fewer negative features to an option that they chose. This bias can, for example, cause to justify a purchase that we made by overemphasizing the positive aspects of the item that we decided to buy. By considering alternative items that we could have purchased, we could potentially mitigate the choice-supportive bias, which could help view the purchase in a clearer, more unbiased way.

When doing this, our focus should be on trying to find a small number of highly plausible alternative outcomes. This is because, as we saw earlier, struggling to find a large number of alternative outcomes to an event can be counterproductive, and could actually hinder our ability to debias.

C) Create psychological distance: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> Consider the spotlight effect, which is a cognitive bias that causes people to overestimate the degree to which others are likely to notice their actions or appearance, meaning that it causes people to assume that others are likely to notice it if they wear something embarrassing or say something stupid, even if that is not the case. We experience the spotlight effect because when we think about how other people see us, we tend to anchor their viewpoint to our own. Since we are so used to seeing things from our own perspective, we struggle to accurately judge how other people see us. One way to reduce the impact of this is to create psychological self-distance when we think about how other people view us. This entails trying to look at ourselves from a perspective that is different from our own, such as from the perspective of the person that we are talking to.

Creating psychological distance can also help fight against other types of biases. For example, the authority bias, which is the tendency to obey the orders of an authority figure, even when you believe that there is something wrong with those orders. One way in which people managed to cope with the authority bias was by increasing the physical and psychological distance between themselves and the authority figure. For instance, when the authority figure gave instructions through a phone, and was not in the same room as the person receiving the instructions, people were more likely to think rationally.

In Conclusion

It is important to keep in mind that different debiasing strategies will vary in their effectiveness and will have a different impact in different scenarios.

**Source Credits:

The book- The Art of Thinking Clearly -by Rolf Dobelli

The book- Predictably Irrational -by Dan Ariely
The book- The Illusion of Transparency and the Alleviation of Speech Anxiety -by Savitsky & Gilovich

The book- Nudge by -Richard H. Thaler & Cass R. Sunstein

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa.

COGNITIVE BIASES: MANIFESTATION AND MITIGATION TECHNIQUES – (CHAPTER 01)

Cognitive bias mitigation (or Debiasing) is the practice through which we reduce the influence that cognitive biases have on people, to enable them to think in a more rational and optimal manner. Cognitive biases are systematic patterns of deviation from rationality, which occur due to the way our cognitive system works. Cognitive biases affect us in various areas of our life, from the way we interact with others to the way that we form our political opinions. Since these biases cause us to think and act in an irrational manner, their influence can be detrimental, which is why people often want to be able to mitigate them.

Examples of Cognitive Biases

Cognitive biases can influence our thinking in diverse ways, including the undermentioned:

A) Cognitive biases can affect how we form impressions of other people: -. . .  For example, the halo effect is a cognitive bias that causes our impression of someone in one area to influence our opinion of that person in other areas. This bias can cause us to assume that a person is highly knowledgeable and has an interesting personality, simply because they are physically attractive.

B) Cognitive biases can affect how we acquire information: -. . . . For example, the ostrich effect is a cognitive bias that causes us to avoid situations where we might encounter information that we perceive as negative. This bias can cause us to avoid going to the doctor, if we believe that the doctor will have bad news for us, that we do not want to deal with.

C) Cognitive biases can affect how we prepare for the future: -. . . . For example, the pessimism bias is a cognitive bias that causes us to overestimate the likelihood that bad things will happen. This bias can cause us to assume that we are going to do badly on an exam, even if we are prepared for it and it is likely that we will do well.

Does Cognitive Debiasing Work?

Research shows that cognitive debiasing does work in some cases, and that proper training and interventions can help reduce certain biases. However, there are situations where it does not entirely work. For example, one study examined people’s optimism bias, when it comes to believing that one’s own risk of suffering from health issues is lower than that of others.

Despite attempts to correct this bias, the researchers found that people’s optimism bias persisted in the face of various debiasing interventions. This demonstrates that debiasing is not always straightforward and finding the appropriate debiasing techniques to use in a certain situation can sometimes be a difficult process.

Nevertheless, it is always ideal to function under the belief that debiasing might be effective. This means we should try and reduce cognitive biases where possible, as long as doing so is not associated with an excessive cost/ repercussion. It is important to be realistic when deciding on debiasing goals, and when we are assessing whether or not our debiasing attempts will be successful.

How To Debias: – Overview Of The Debiasing Process

There are several stages in the debiasing process.

First, a cognitive bias is triggered. Then, we must become aware of this bias, and realize that it has been triggered. Once we realize that the bias has been triggered, we must conclude if there is a need to debias and make a conscious choice and commit to debiasing. After (or if) we do choose to debias, we need to start by assessing the bias, which involves determining in what way the bias impacts us and (or) the people around us. Once we understand what we are dealing with, we need to select the appropriate debiasing technique and apply it. Once successfully debiased, we can now move on to make an optimal decision.

We can also add an additional step, by reassessing the situation after we apply the debiasing strategy, to determine whether the debiasing attempt worked. Else, we can repeat the previous step, and either implement a different debiasing strategy or attempt to implement the previous one again, until successful at debiasing.

Two things to be cautious of are:

a) It is often difficult to accurately assess whether or not we have debiased successfully.

b) Repeated debiasing attempts can often be difficult to implement in practice, especially if we are trying to debias someone else.

Exercising Metacognitive Strategies

Metacognition, which refers to the ability to be consciously aware of your thought process, stands at the core of cognitive-bias inoculation and mitigation. Metacognitive awareness aids in: –

a) being aware of the various cognitive pitfalls and errors that we might encounter when processing information and making decisions,

b) ensuring that we successfully identify cases where cognitive biases affect people,

c)  successfully applying the relevant debiasing strategies, and,

d) ensuring that we accurately assess how successful the debiasing attempts are.

Differences between different debiasing techniques

***To be continued in Chapter 02 (Various Debiasing Techniques for everyday situations)- Link to Chapter – 02:

COGNITIVE BIASES: MANIFESTATION AND MITIGATION TECHNIQUES – (CHAPTER 02)

*Source Credits:

1. The book- Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman
2. The book- Nudge by -Richard H. Thaler & Cass R. Sunstein

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa.

FOLLOW THROUGH BEHAVIOURS: THE AKRASIA EFFECT

A brief story:

In the summer of 1830, Victor Hugo was facing an impossible deadline. Twelve months earlier, the French author had promised his publisher a new book. But instead of writing, he spent that year pursuing other projects, entertaining guests, and delaying his work. Frustrated, Hugo’s publisher responded by setting a deadline less than six months away. The book had to be finished by February 1831.

Hugo concocted a strange plan to beat his procrastination. He collected all his clothes and asked an assistant to lock them away in a large chest. He was left with nothing to wear except a large shawl. Lacking any suitable clothing to go outdoors, he remained in his study and wrote furiously during the fall and winter of 1830. The Hunchback of Notre Dame was published two weeks early on January 14, 1831.

Procrastination is usually a “yes” or “no” question”

For more conventional instances, consider addictive behaviour patterns or compulsive traits like over-shopping and blowing the budget, or manic media use; maybe even something like starting an argument one “knows” one will regret and that will lead to trouble or grief.

Having an explanation seems good because it suggests some kind of intervention based on that knowledge, but in some cases, it just doesn’t work. Yet we still feel the hypnotic pull toward explanations, even if the terms being explained are just accepted in a very uncritical way.

When we make a decision to do something or not, our brain usually has a “gut instinct” answer of yes or no, before the words even come out of the mouth. We consider what benefit it has first, and then what benefit it may have for another person. Then we consider other criteria like time, strength, and effort it will take before we actually decide what it is we are going to do. This all happens in a split second before we commit, and the answer comes out of the mouth.

Often, procrastination occurs when you have decided to complete a task, but you keep postponing until later without consciously choosing to do it then. Not all procrastination is bad procrastination. There are two types of procrastinators- active and passive.

Though you may be convinced by this that you are an active procrastinator the truth is most of us are actually passive procrastinators. We delay our work just because we can and with no justifiable reason.

Maybe it is better to try to “own” the behavior rather than blaming externals. So, it is not necessarily a useless idea. The concept of Akrasia is a sort of promise the executive self makes to itself about self-control and autonomy. And it is also the basis for promises one makes to other people about accountability, or rather, explanations for the occasional breakdown and exception.

The Ancient Problem of Akrasia
Human beings have been procrastinating for centuries. Even prolific artists like Victor Hugo are not immune to the distractions of daily life. The problem is so timeless, in fact, that ancient Greek philosophers like Socrates and Aristotle developed a word to describe this type of behavior: Akrasia.

Human behaviour is complex, and we interpret through a network of concepts which themselves are cultural and philosophical constructs. If the typical definition of “akrasia” is “weakness of will”, then what is will? If will is some vaguely defined power of “mind”, then what is mind? If mind is an active presence within “self”, then what is self? … and so on.

Akrasia is the state of acting against your better judgment. It is when you do one thing even though you know you should do something else. Loosely translated, you could say that akrasia is procrastination or a lack of self-control. Akrasia is what prevents you from following through on what you set out to do. Why would Victor Hugo commit to writing a book and then put it off for over a year? Why do we make plans, set deadlines, and commit to goals, but then fail to follow through on them?

Also, akrasia is loss of self-control, in the sense of action contrary to reason. In akrasia, there is an ingrained habit in an individual, of the non-rational elements of the soul subverting the rational capacities. Action is usually guided in a range of ways by reason. So akrasia is interesting because it involves a departure from a norm.

Why We Make Plans, But Don’t Take Action
One explanation for why akrasia rules our lives and procrastination pulls us in has to do with a behavioural economics term called “time inconsistency.” Time inconsistency refers to the tendency of the human brain to value immediate rewards more highly than future rewards.

When we make plans for ourself — like setting a goal to lose weight or write a book or learn a language — we are actually making plans for our future self. We are envisioning what we want our life to be like in the future and when we think about the future it is easy for our brain to see the value in taking actions with long-term benefits.

When the time comes to make a decision, however, we are no longer making a choice for our future self. Now we are in the moment and our brain is thinking about the present self. And researchers have discovered that the present self really likes instant gratification, not long-term payoff. This is one reason why we might go to bed feeling motivated to make a change in our life, but when we wake up, we find ourselves falling into old patterns. Our brain values long-term benefits when they are in the future, but it values immediate gratification when it comes to the present moment. This is one reason why the ability to delay gratification is such a great predictor of success in life. Understanding how to resist the pull of instant gratification—at least occasionally, if not consistently—can help you bridge the gap between where you are and where you want to be.

A Framework to Beat Procrastination

Strategy 1: Design your future actions.

When Victor Hugo locked his clothes away so he could focus on writing, he was creating what psychologists refer to as a “commitment device.” A commitment device is a choice we make in the present that controls our actions in the future. It is a way to lock in future behavior, bind us to good habits, and restrict us from bad ones.

There are many ways to create a commitment device. We can:

The circumstances differ, but the message is the same: commitment devices can help us design our future actions. The goal is to find ways to automate our behaviour beforehand rather than relying on willpower in the moment.

Strategy 2: Reduce the friction of starting.

The guilt and frustration of procrastinating is usually worse than the pain of doing the work. In the words of Eliezer Yudkowsky, “On a moment-to-moment basis, being in the middle of doing the work is usually less painful than being in the middle of procrastinating.”

So why do we still procrastinate? Because it is not being in the work that is hard, it’s starting the work. The friction that prevents us from acting is usually centred around starting the behaviour. Once we begin, it is often less painful to do the work. This is why it is often more important to build the habit of getting started when we are beginning a new behaviour than it is to worry about whether or not we are successful at the new habit.

We have to constantly reduce the size of our habits. We need to put all of the effort and energy into building a ritual and make it as easy as possible to get started. We need not worry about the results until the art of showing up is mastered.

Strategy 3: Utilize implementation intentions.

An implementation intention is when we state our intention to implement a particular behavior at a specific time in the future. For example, “I will exercise for at least 30 minutes on [DATE] in [PLACE] at [TIME].” There are hundreds of successful studies showing how implementation intentions positively impact everything from exercise habits to flu shots. It seems simple to say that scheduling things ahead of time can make a difference, but implementation intentions can make us 2x to 3x more likely to perform an action in the future.

Fighting Akrasia
Our brains prefer instant rewards to long-term payoffs. It is simply a consequence of how our minds work. Given this tendency, we often must resort to crazy strategies to get things done—like Victor Hugo locking up all of his clothes so he could write a book. But it is sometimes worth to spend time building these commitment devices if our goals are important to us.

Aristotle coined the term Enkrateia as the antonym of Akrasia. While akrasia refers to our tendency to fall victim to procrastination, Enkrateia means to be “in power over oneself.” Designing your future actions, reducing the friction of starting good behaviors, and using implementation intentions are simple steps that you can take to make it easier to live a life of Enkrateia rather than one of Akrasia.

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa.