Something feels wrong about this article; I can't quite put my finger on what it is. It's like a lot of pop-psych claims are being thrown out there with nothing to back them up. I think I'll wait for more Amazon reviews before picking up this book, if at all.
His previous book sounds interesting though. This just smells too much like a PR piece I think.
You can read the entire book, minus a couple pages redacted here and there, with Amazon's "Look Inside" feature. I don't know if this is intentional -- you usually only get the first 10 pages or so -- but I've just done it successfully on two different computers with different IP addresses, one logged into an account and one not, so you should be able to.
Having scanned the book for about 15 minutes over my morning coffee I think he has an insightful thesis: things we had to work really hard for and/or make major life sacrifices for a half-century ago are now free and abundant; simultaneously, society has gotten a lot less structured and communities (both in the literal-geographical sense and the activity-based sense) are generally weaker. As such, we've become prisoners of the infinite options available to us, and our lives become diluted as a result; e.g., we'd rather get our sexual gratification by opening up an anonymous browser window and visiting Redtube than put in the work to ask someone out on a date and build an actual physical relationship with another human being.
The author's thesis is that we need to train our self-control by doing things that require self-discipline and focus. What I find interesting about it is it really flies in the face of other pop-psych books (e.g., Tierney's Willpower) that suggest that we have a finite reservoir of self-control that we should expend wisely.
That actually sounds fascinating and changes my thoughts, such that I'll probably pick this up.
I've been trying to figure out what bothered me about the way the thesis was presented in the article. I think I picked up on the bit about 'video games, pornography and gambling apps on your phone' and assumed the author was making a moral judgement on those things. That doesn't sound like the case though - i think I was just quick to judge.
> (e.g., Tierney's Willpower) that suggest that we have a finite reservoir of self-control that we should expend wisely.
You mean Baumeister & Tierney's Willpower. That is not how I remember their thesis. I believe they compare willpower to a muscle in that it can become temporarily depleted, but also strengthened through practice. Either way, I would sooner take Baumeister's word for it, seeing as he has done actual research on this.
I think that may be more or less inevitable. We don't even have a good physiological understanding of obesity. We know some things. Weight gain is determined by caloric intake. Maybe the right way to think of it is caloric intake is necessary for weigh gain. Bringing in psychology, neurology/neurochemistry… puff. There is fascinating science going on, but we're currently far from a working understanding.
But, we have other tools. Many of them are unscientific. We call them pseudo science or whatnot. That may not be incorrect, but it is probably missing something. Is AA pseudoscience? It's a social structure and method for alcohol addiction. We have all sorts of scientific knowledge, but not a science based improvement on AA.
It's increasingly seems like there are similarities between substance addiction, activity (video games, adrenaline sports, sex, procrastination, social media..) addiction and other "pathologies." The science does not contradict this. In fact, the contrary is very likely to be true. I've heard various interesting sounding theories that might be rendered as
"Addiction is something that has hijacked the learning process in your brain." IE, your brain responds and adapts to small doses of frustration or satisfaction when you learn to walk, solve math or ride a Harley Davidson. That adaption is learning. Addiction is that kind of learned behavior.
Yet, taking that theoretical level understanding of super-complicated processes in a super-complicated environment and using it in a non-pseudoscientific way is… we're not there yet. When we get there, we can throw out old wives tales. Until then, lets just agree that not everything is science. Some things are a working theory that approximates reality or utilizes some of our other human faculties to create a working solution to current projects.
had the same feeling. dropping Kierkegaard without getting into it. but this could have been the article authors choice. and the quotes from the books author seem very clear... and convinced me maybe there is more in the book than typical american self help.
if someone has the book i would really like to know how well does the book reference prior research... i would prefer a book on these exact topics that is more heavy on research than poetic yarning
His previous book sounds interesting though. This just smells too much like a PR piece I think.