tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post112831792850645144..comments2024-01-28T00:20:40.933-08:00Comments on Agoraphilia: Will Power: Fund or Muscle?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1128805881676831082005-10-08T14:11:00.000-07:002005-10-08T14:11:00.000-07:00I'm not really expressing much confidence in the g...I'm not really expressing much confidence in the government. I don't even know what the trainer state would do (though I imagine it would involve changes to public education and to corrections). I don't know what the market would do either (is there a market for practicing resisting temptations?) I guess I'm just trying to show that the will power muscle doesn't provide a new argument in favor of libertarianism, just a new context for libertarianism vs. paternalism arguments to take place. Our ideas about how the muscle building would take place are too vague for this argument to go very far beyond this generic conflict, I think.<BR/><BR/>My view is that, first of all, there should be more research to figure out how important generalized will power is. Would people benefit significantly from more will power? Baumeister's studies, as far as I know, have mostly been limited to artificial laboratory experiments that do not say much about this question. If will power is important, then the government should investigate the effects of its programs on will power and try to modify them to achieve their goals in a way that's consistent with the goal of promoting will power. Whether or not existing government programs negatively impact will power, if it is important then the government should look into programs that would be effective at increasing will power, including programs that would help free market approaches to will power enhancement flourish. These are really just my generic positions on anything with the potential to have significant benefits - just plug in other words for "will power" into the template (and omit that Baumeister reference). Your (generic) response is that the market will do a pretty good job on its own (due to incentives), and bureaurocrats would mostly just mess things up, seek rents, and expand the bureaurocracy.Blarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654557196171228300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1128798027162886372005-10-08T12:00:00.000-07:002005-10-08T12:00:00.000-07:00Blar -- I find your confidence in government distr...Blar -- I find your confidence in government distressing!<BR/><BR/>I think most people (notwithstanding the inevitable exceptions) will develop their self control muscles to the extent they need to, if faced with the full cost and responsibility for their own decisions. In the face of greater temptations, they'll tend to develop bigger muscles. Of course, it's important for children to have guidance in this process, lest they be exposed to too many temptations too quickly. But we should expect adults to have developed their will power muscles, because the failure to expect that is a self-fulfilling prophecy.<BR/><BR/>Your "trainer state" sounds like a perfect example of the phenomenon that I'm talking about: paternalist policies create the very conditions they're supposed to correct, thereby justifying more intervention. This is just one example of the broader phenomenon in which failed government policies create effects that are blamed on markets or individuals, thus providing a pretext for more intrusive government policies.<BR/><BR/>Does the market provide the efficient amount of self-control training? I don't know for sure. I do know that the more people demand training services, the more will be provided, so at least the incentives are in the right place. Government agents, on the other hand, have exactly the wrong incentives. Bureaucrats foolish enough to solve the problems they're assigned to lose their jobs or get their budgets cuts. So I have no reason to think the Self-Control Training Administration would provide the right amount or kind of training.Glen Whitmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01425907466575991113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1128796488413991382005-10-08T11:34:00.000-07:002005-10-08T11:34:00.000-07:00One other question is how strong will power muscle...One other question is how strong will power muscles are formed. You seem to suggest that all we need is for the government to get out of the way, and people will build up their will power on their own. But a crafty paternalist might recommend a "trainer state" that enacts policies to help people develop stronger wills. Has anyone argued that the free market is efficient with respect to will power training, as it is with production and allocation? The nanny/trainer state might be able to help people in ways that are only minimally detrimental to will power training, while also training people to have stronger wills than they would've had without government intervention.Blarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654557196171228300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1128349119493110412005-10-03T07:18:00.000-07:002005-10-03T07:18:00.000-07:00Roy Baumeister is your man. He's done a lot of wo...Roy Baumeister is your man. He's done a lot of work on self-control (a.k.a. self-regulation a.k.a will power), such as <A HREF="http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~dewall/bul1262247.pdf" REL="nofollow">this paper</A>. He defends both the idea that will power is a limited resource and the idea that it is a muscle. I believe that he and his colleagues came up with the limited resource theory first, and then expanded it to the muscle theory to account for both the long-term and short-term effects. They continue to use both metaphors.<BR/><BR/>I think that the implications of the muscle theory are not so firmly against the nanny state. There are two risks. One is that you won't use your self control muscle enough, in which case it will be weak and you'll be low on will power. The other is that you will use your self control muscle too much, in which case it will often be fatigued and you'll be low on will power. Your fear is that the nanny state is pushing people in the direction of not using their self control muscle enough. Another fear is that trends in our society like increasing choices and a consumer culture that creates temptations are pushing people towards having to use their self control muscle too much. Which view is correct? They could both be correct, for different people or at different times.<BR/><BR/>The other thing to keep in mind is that will power is just one piece of the story. Many of the things that can be achieved through the exertion of will power can also be achieved in other ways, by using clever strategies or by making subtle changes to the situation.Blarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654557196171228300noreply@blogger.com