Great post, especially in emphasizing our misunderstandings about state self control. But I am afraid it gives the impression that our understanding of conscientiousness (or trait self control) is more thorough and accurate than it actually is. Yes, we know it is impacted by genetics and environment, but that is not really very insightful. Every human behaviour is downstream of the interaction between genetics and environment. As Eric Turkheimer discusses in his concept of gloomy prospect, we do not have any idea how genes are related to any personality trait or complex behavioral tendencies, and we probably wouldn't have a comprehensive idea anytime soon (or ever as Turkheimer claims). As for the environment, we have some vague ideas but nothing elaborate about the mechanisms through which our personalities are shaped by environment. So the most honest claim is that psychology doesn't yet know whether what people do can improve their chances at a better life or not and if it does what specific behaviors improve this chance. Here it gets into philosophy; does the absence of evidence that state self control improve life outcomes mean those who have a better life outcome have just win the lottery of genetics and environment and have no role whatsoever in it? It seems awfully close to an appeal to ignorance to prove something that we have YET no evidence for it
This is a super thoughtful comment. I need to think about this a bit more. Your philosophical point about the absence of evidence is especially interesting. I guess I’ve taken the absence of evidence as affirming the null, meaning we have evidence for absence, and our Bayesian results confirm this. But we’ve only found this in a couple of studies as far as I can tell. So is it better to look at this absence of evidence and simply state we don’t know, and all else being equal why not give “trying to change” a chance? Part of me says yes, but it seems like we’ve been doing this for 100 years now and as far as I can tell, it hasn’t made a lick of difference. What are your thoughts about how best to proceed given this state of affairs?
Thank you for your kind reply. Well, maybe I am too careful but I believe our state of knowledge at the present does not allow us to make any confident conclusion about the determinants of conscientiousness or a successful life. My interpretation of these findings would be something in line with this: state self control doesn't seem to be a necessary or sufficient cause for conscientiousness.
I seriously doubt we can philosophically draw any more general conclusion related to impact of "willpower" or lack thereof on success or happiness. First of all because willpower is a vague lay concept that cannot be exactly mapped into state or trait self control. Second, at least in my opinion, the bigger question here (whether some aspects of success or happiness can be a sign of moral virtue) is still mostly in the realm of philosophy rather than psychology
If, as we virtue-ethics people try to, we consider self-control not as a trait (a fixed tendency) but as a virtue - a good quality to be pursued on an ongoing basis, with a view to developing a good life - maybe the 'problem' goes away. Or did Aristotle, in contrasting the 'akratic' (lacking self-control at an ordinary level) and the 'akolastic' (seriously avoiding personal responsibilty), have just as good a picture of what's going on? Somehow I don't think the 'science is settled.'
That’s a really interesting question! I doubt it. It just makes you less hungry I bet. But wouldn’t it be wild if having fewer cravings for food led to fewer wayward desires more generally? I wonder if I can get some money from big Pharma to run this study!
Purely anecdotal but I have two friends who are sisters who began semaglutides half a year ago and both have stopped food bingeing behaviors, vaping nicotine, and the one who was also struggling with binge drinking and poor sleep habits has improved both hugely. In their cases, It *does* appear like the drug has helped with state self control in the short term which has been fascinating to see. That said, I’m highly skeptical of any drug that is believed to be a magic bullet- and whether these trait changes will be seen over the long term (how about that 7 year mark?) or will continue if the drug is discontinued at some point by the individual, remains to be seen. And the possible adverse effects of using this drug life long is just as mysterious. It just hasn’t been long enough. Lol I def think big pharma would pay for the study though ! I really enjoyed this piece !
At the risk of sounding cocky but not at all dismissive, I have to say that not a single aspect of this timely article as well as the research underlying it (though I have zero familiarity with this literature) is in the least surprising to me. Indeed I'd have experienced a serious epistemological shock if the findings in this area were different from what the author reported. What Micheal and others had to arrive at through the tortuous (but perhaps surer) path of scientific induction, I did by scientific deduction.
When it comes to the epistemology of human nature and behavior, empirical methods are still secondary to and less potent than the good ol' scientific deduction. But I believe the best approach is one in which the two complement each other. Unfortunately nowadays, too many social science research have been shallowed by the over reliance on pure empirical induction while almost doing away with the most epistemologically solid tool when it comes to addressing questions about human beings - logical and empirical deductions.
So Michael, you consider the status quo to be wrong regarding self control and are therefore trying to make productive changes? Good for you! But this might just be the iceberg tip of the problem. To straighten such things out I think psychology will need to develop an effective basic model of how conscious beings function in general. Here’s a model that might successfully predict when people will and won’t be “conscientious”.
The basic theory is that all consciousness, whether human or any other kind, is inherently driven by means of a desire to feel good rather than bad each moment. So “state” rather than “trait” is primal here. But beyond the present evolution also needed conscious beings to plan for future circumstances. Thus it created “hope” which causes them to presently feel good about doing things that ought to help them in the future (or to be concise, “invest”), as well as “worry” that makes beings feel bad about not investing. I suspect you’ve already found that “conscientious people” tend to have more hopeful things to potentially invest in, as well as more worrisome things to potentially lose when they fail to.
Very very interesting, and I had a good laugh in a couple spots too. I tend toward the trait self-control, although not displaying all the points mentioned (rules, who needs those?); Tom doesn't really seem to display any self-control as one would define it. His ADHD really puts a huge damper on such a thing! He mostly runs on autopilot (and yes, he used to be one) so breaking old habits can be really tough.
I've noticed traits and states can be confusing to parse when observing surface behavior. For instance, I've made myself appear low-Neuroticism over years of practice, because I've examined my priorities and reactions and simply don't get annoyed by things like I used to. This gets often mistaken for being high-Agreeableness, since I don't complain about things (like living in a noisy building). I assure you I am not high in Agreeableness 🤣
I wanna have more compassion about realizing you’re wrong, and publicly admitting so after a life time of work is called into question. But. As part of the unlucky lottery I think I’m just angry to see things ive been gaslit about for years finally proven in the science. I mean, countless damage has been done by psychiatrists, other medical professionals, policymakers, educators, managers, etc., by nearsighted elitism, and now….we just chalk it up to an “oops”? Maybe not, maybe you’re personally doing a lot to make some sort of amends, but personally the public mea culpas add up to little more than lip service for me. How are you making the lives better for the types of people impacted (or those about to be impacted) the most? How are you working to combat this narrative amongst your own field, your own peers? How many of the people in this grit industrial complex are really being taken to task for irresponsible research? For their carelessness in being put in positions of authority? Those people who have been victim blamed for their own suffering are still struggling, now more than ever in this political hellscape. What are they to do?
Social psychology has been one of the worst intellectual disaster areas at the root of contemporary public losses of "trust in science" (in technocratically deformed deliberative democracy, if I'm being drier and cutting). Very nice to see mistakes acknowledged and a commitment to cleaning up the mess here. I remain hopeful that these disciplines and institutions can recover some of the good reputation that would justify prior public trust. Maybe they'll even earn some new, further trust!
Great post, especially in emphasizing our misunderstandings about state self control. But I am afraid it gives the impression that our understanding of conscientiousness (or trait self control) is more thorough and accurate than it actually is. Yes, we know it is impacted by genetics and environment, but that is not really very insightful. Every human behaviour is downstream of the interaction between genetics and environment. As Eric Turkheimer discusses in his concept of gloomy prospect, we do not have any idea how genes are related to any personality trait or complex behavioral tendencies, and we probably wouldn't have a comprehensive idea anytime soon (or ever as Turkheimer claims). As for the environment, we have some vague ideas but nothing elaborate about the mechanisms through which our personalities are shaped by environment. So the most honest claim is that psychology doesn't yet know whether what people do can improve their chances at a better life or not and if it does what specific behaviors improve this chance. Here it gets into philosophy; does the absence of evidence that state self control improve life outcomes mean those who have a better life outcome have just win the lottery of genetics and environment and have no role whatsoever in it? It seems awfully close to an appeal to ignorance to prove something that we have YET no evidence for it
This is a super thoughtful comment. I need to think about this a bit more. Your philosophical point about the absence of evidence is especially interesting. I guess I’ve taken the absence of evidence as affirming the null, meaning we have evidence for absence, and our Bayesian results confirm this. But we’ve only found this in a couple of studies as far as I can tell. So is it better to look at this absence of evidence and simply state we don’t know, and all else being equal why not give “trying to change” a chance? Part of me says yes, but it seems like we’ve been doing this for 100 years now and as far as I can tell, it hasn’t made a lick of difference. What are your thoughts about how best to proceed given this state of affairs?
Thank you for your kind reply. Well, maybe I am too careful but I believe our state of knowledge at the present does not allow us to make any confident conclusion about the determinants of conscientiousness or a successful life. My interpretation of these findings would be something in line with this: state self control doesn't seem to be a necessary or sufficient cause for conscientiousness.
I seriously doubt we can philosophically draw any more general conclusion related to impact of "willpower" or lack thereof on success or happiness. First of all because willpower is a vague lay concept that cannot be exactly mapped into state or trait self control. Second, at least in my opinion, the bigger question here (whether some aspects of success or happiness can be a sign of moral virtue) is still mostly in the realm of philosophy rather than psychology
If, as we virtue-ethics people try to, we consider self-control not as a trait (a fixed tendency) but as a virtue - a good quality to be pursued on an ongoing basis, with a view to developing a good life - maybe the 'problem' goes away. Or did Aristotle, in contrasting the 'akratic' (lacking self-control at an ordinary level) and the 'akolastic' (seriously avoiding personal responsibilty), have just as good a picture of what's going on? Somehow I don't think the 'science is settled.'
Do you think semagutide based drugs might improve one's conscientiousness?
That’s a really interesting question! I doubt it. It just makes you less hungry I bet. But wouldn’t it be wild if having fewer cravings for food led to fewer wayward desires more generally? I wonder if I can get some money from big Pharma to run this study!
So far it seems helps with alcoholism and other types of addiction as well. It also modestly increases brain function.
Purely anecdotal but I have two friends who are sisters who began semaglutides half a year ago and both have stopped food bingeing behaviors, vaping nicotine, and the one who was also struggling with binge drinking and poor sleep habits has improved both hugely. In their cases, It *does* appear like the drug has helped with state self control in the short term which has been fascinating to see. That said, I’m highly skeptical of any drug that is believed to be a magic bullet- and whether these trait changes will be seen over the long term (how about that 7 year mark?) or will continue if the drug is discontinued at some point by the individual, remains to be seen. And the possible adverse effects of using this drug life long is just as mysterious. It just hasn’t been long enough. Lol I def think big pharma would pay for the study though ! I really enjoyed this piece !
At the risk of sounding cocky but not at all dismissive, I have to say that not a single aspect of this timely article as well as the research underlying it (though I have zero familiarity with this literature) is in the least surprising to me. Indeed I'd have experienced a serious epistemological shock if the findings in this area were different from what the author reported. What Micheal and others had to arrive at through the tortuous (but perhaps surer) path of scientific induction, I did by scientific deduction.
I treated something similar but broader (the question of whether we have the freedom and, if we do, the extent as well as the cost of changing who we are) in a lengthy write-up on my Substack. https://open.substack.com/pub/isoe/p/the-intransigence-of-personality?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1gxdk6
When it comes to the epistemology of human nature and behavior, empirical methods are still secondary to and less potent than the good ol' scientific deduction. But I believe the best approach is one in which the two complement each other. Unfortunately nowadays, too many social science research have been shallowed by the over reliance on pure empirical induction while almost doing away with the most epistemologically solid tool when it comes to addressing questions about human beings - logical and empirical deductions.
So Michael, you consider the status quo to be wrong regarding self control and are therefore trying to make productive changes? Good for you! But this might just be the iceberg tip of the problem. To straighten such things out I think psychology will need to develop an effective basic model of how conscious beings function in general. Here’s a model that might successfully predict when people will and won’t be “conscientious”.
The basic theory is that all consciousness, whether human or any other kind, is inherently driven by means of a desire to feel good rather than bad each moment. So “state” rather than “trait” is primal here. But beyond the present evolution also needed conscious beings to plan for future circumstances. Thus it created “hope” which causes them to presently feel good about doing things that ought to help them in the future (or to be concise, “invest”), as well as “worry” that makes beings feel bad about not investing. I suspect you’ve already found that “conscientious people” tend to have more hopeful things to potentially invest in, as well as more worrisome things to potentially lose when they fail to.
I haven’t done much on Substack yet, though I did get into this in my first post if you’re interested. https://eborg760.substack.com/p/post-1-the-instantaneous-nature-of
Very very interesting, and I had a good laugh in a couple spots too. I tend toward the trait self-control, although not displaying all the points mentioned (rules, who needs those?); Tom doesn't really seem to display any self-control as one would define it. His ADHD really puts a huge damper on such a thing! He mostly runs on autopilot (and yes, he used to be one) so breaking old habits can be really tough.
I've noticed traits and states can be confusing to parse when observing surface behavior. For instance, I've made myself appear low-Neuroticism over years of practice, because I've examined my priorities and reactions and simply don't get annoyed by things like I used to. This gets often mistaken for being high-Agreeableness, since I don't complain about things (like living in a noisy building). I assure you I am not high in Agreeableness 🤣
This comment literally had me LOLing.
I wanna have more compassion about realizing you’re wrong, and publicly admitting so after a life time of work is called into question. But. As part of the unlucky lottery I think I’m just angry to see things ive been gaslit about for years finally proven in the science. I mean, countless damage has been done by psychiatrists, other medical professionals, policymakers, educators, managers, etc., by nearsighted elitism, and now….we just chalk it up to an “oops”? Maybe not, maybe you’re personally doing a lot to make some sort of amends, but personally the public mea culpas add up to little more than lip service for me. How are you making the lives better for the types of people impacted (or those about to be impacted) the most? How are you working to combat this narrative amongst your own field, your own peers? How many of the people in this grit industrial complex are really being taken to task for irresponsible research? For their carelessness in being put in positions of authority? Those people who have been victim blamed for their own suffering are still struggling, now more than ever in this political hellscape. What are they to do?
F depressing
This is good, I think, as far as it goes. But better is realizing Robert Sapolsky is right. That is harder to do, IMHO.
Social psychology has been one of the worst intellectual disaster areas at the root of contemporary public losses of "trust in science" (in technocratically deformed deliberative democracy, if I'm being drier and cutting). Very nice to see mistakes acknowledged and a commitment to cleaning up the mess here. I remain hopeful that these disciplines and institutions can recover some of the good reputation that would justify prior public trust. Maybe they'll even earn some new, further trust!