Against Willpower (2017)
I&#x27;ve taken precisely one psychology class in my entire life, back in High School. But the most important lesson of Psychology was that Psychology itself is a very young field filled with dangerous pseudoscience. (The only younger field is maybe Computer Science, but even Comp. Sci has mathematical traditions that go back centuries). There&#x27;s a ton of false-science which &quot;sounds correct&quot; but fails to yield any real results when under test.<p>For example, Sigmon Freud, while one of the first true scientific minds of Psychology, still created the theory of Psychosexuality. The full theories of psychosexuality is utterly insane by today&#x27;s standards (Ex: Freud&#x27;s theory that male children undergo an &quot;Phallic phase&quot; wherein they develop Oedipus Complex and sexual attraction for their mother: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Oedipus_complex" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Oedipus_complex</a>), but its important to study them if only to understand how easily pseudo-science develops. Also, lots of people still believe in Sigmon Freud&#x27;s ramblings, even today (Ex: Freud&#x27;s &quot;Anal Retentive&quot; and &quot;Anal Expulsive&quot; theories are still colloquial concepts, even as modern psychologists have dismissed the idea). So knowing the pseudo-science helps you dismiss the irrelevant stuff.<p>So under this context: is &quot;Willpower&quot; just as busted as a concept as Freud&#x27;s Psychosexuality? By demonstrating &quot;Willpower&#x27;s&quot; roots in Victorian-era literature, this article really speaks to those who have actually studied Psychology: this was a dangerous era that was filled with pseudo-science. And therefore, we must question the concept of Willpower.<p>----------<p>With that being said: pseudo-scientific concepts may give rise to true science. The pseudo-science of Alchemy gave rise to Chemistry (Robert Boyle: an Alchemist, is credited with both Chemistry and the modern Scientific Method). But its important to recognize pseudoscience, so we can advance as a people. Alchemists were very wrong about &quot;elements wish to return to perfection: closer to God&quot;... but those Alchemists were the ones who first defined the elements to begin with!<p>And Freud&#x27;s ideas of Id, Ego, and Superego ultimately gave rise to modern Psychology and experiments. Perhaps &quot;Willpower&quot; should be treated in the same respect. There&#x27;s clearly an element of self-control that exists, but it is perhaps poorly understood by... at least... laypeople.<p>Once again, I&#x27;m not very studied in Psychology. But I do know enough about Skinner-boxes and the strong scientific experiments that define addiction. Getting people addicted to something is a very well understood science (precisely exploited by Slot Machines and Loot Crates in modern video games). We all want a solution to addiction, but whatever the answer... its not well understood by laypeople yet.<p>-----------<p>The article may be a bit provocative by dismissing Willpower from the get-go. But I&#x27;m in agreement with its discussion. Perhaps willpower as a concept is at least partially incompatible with reality. But how is it wrong? What concepts of Willpower are false? And is there any nugget of truth we can extract from the concept of Willpower?