I've been getting mileage out of the "Bezos criterion": "When faced with a decision, let your 80 year old self decide."
Very crisp, for helping me steer towards the things that matter to me in the long run, without precluding meaningful things in the moment.
Another strategy of this flavor is the use of mantras that connect you with the meaning of your action.
When I wake up early in the cold and dark, and I don't feel like getting up, I have sometimes had a TAP of saying out loud "_Now_, is when I (can) claim my power."
Because that moment is sometimes hard, and there's temptation to go back to sleep, but it also has a lot of leverage on how good my day will be.
(My mantra is (maybe?) a little corny-sounding from the outside, but it has resonance, which is what matters.)
I guess this also ties in with TDT/FDT-style thinking: What you decide to do now is reflective of what you will decide to do in all similar circumstances, so the magnitude of your in this moment choice is non-trivial.
Also in this vein are general TAPs / mantras for self signaling, I've found Nate's "do the right thing, even when it's too late", to be a useful mantra lately.
Particularly, open twitter, and then remind myself that I do the right thing even when it is too late, and then immediately close twitter.
Strategies for 1, that don't involve TAPs:
You could just practice (sorry, maybe that does secretly involve TAPs). For instance practice smelling the warm chocolate chip cookies and feeling the desire for them, and walking away anyway.
Or, in #3 of this comment, @AnnaWSalamon gives an example (originally from Andrew Critch) where you're ostentatiously self-signaling so that you know that you can do something.
These are strategies like electively emphasizing different elements of an experience (like the doritos example in Nate’s post here), and other kinds of reframes, or Tony Robins’ process for working with...
...“neuro associations”: asking 1) what pain has kept me from taking this action in the past, 2) what pleasure have I gotten from not taking this action in the past, 3) what will it cost me if I don’t take this action?, 4) what pleasure will it bring me if I take this action.
(Maybe this is better classed as the first or last of Spencer's categories, instead?)
4.
TAPs again. But specifically TAPs that steer you AROUND the danger points in the first place.
In practice, this looks like doing frame-by-frame debugging to uncover key junctures that are easy to intervene on, and setting up interventions there.
I find that I'm much better off with short, intense bursts of exercise, because I can something-like distract myself while I let the physical pattern run.
Exercise that I need to hold for long minutes is harder, because it tends to draw my attention to the pain.
Maybe there are other strategies for distracting yourself from pain?
I guess another approach here is learning to ENJOY pain.
There's a kind of pleasure in fasting, for instance, because you're exerting your will over your baser desires. "I'm in control of me, not my stomach."
6.
I think I basically covered approaches in this category above.
(I suspect that the type signature of 6 is not like the others. 6 seems like one mechanism by which the others can work.
@SpencrGreenberg, do you think that there is a principled distinction between 3 and 6?)
But in any case, another strategies in this category include invoking the "meaning" of an action or experience, so what would be tagged "bad" get's tagged as "good" instead.
Classic example: When you would be frustrated with something, you instead feel gratitude "for the opportunity to train."
Or the fasting example above.
Notably, two really big / important classes of interventions seem missing from this list, if someone were going to use it as a practical guide.
Both those classes entail not needing to use "self-control" at all.
The first thing that seems to be missing are approaches that are aiming for internal alignment / non-coercion.
If you're trying to do "self-control", that means that there is at least one part of you that is at odds with at least one other part of you. You're fighting yourself.
Much better is to not be in conflict in the first place.
Ideally, get all the relevant parts on the same page, by incorporating what all of them know, understand and want, so that they can cooperate, instead.
There are a bunch of approaches to this: Internal Family Systems, Internal Double Crux, Nate's Compassionate Austerity. Lots of people have their preferred framework.
The second major class of interventions is perhaps the most important of all of these: intervening on the environment.
Humans are ecological creatures, and our behavior is determined in huge-part, by our context. The most practical way to change your behavior is to change your environment.
If you want to stop eating cookies, just don't have cookies in the house.
If you want to stop wasting time on facebook, block facebook.
If you want to exercise more, buy a squat rack so that you don't have to walk to the gym any more. Or even better, get a workout buddy.
(Probably you'll need to do some things in addition to buying a squat rack. I would guess that that alone wouldn't work for most people.
But I did learn in the pandemic this year, how much better it is to have weighs at home, even though my gym was only 10 minute walk from my house.
It turns out the difference between 10 minutes and 1 minute is really significant.
I don't think I'll ever not have my own barbell and weights for the rest of my life. It's just worth it.)
If you get internal alignment or crafting your environmental context right, you won't NEED self-control.
(Oh. And if you're wondering what TAPs are, or frame-by-frame-debugging, or some of the other terms I used, you can find out more with ctrl-f in this document.
Being physically implemented, all change has to be physically implemented.
But some change is the result of the system taking inputs, responding to them, reflecting on itself, and changing the way that it operates, often it quite radical ways.
Does anyone else find being an embedded / naturalistic agent disturbing?
Like, I could be injected with a chemical that would cause my cells to make new proteins, which could alter my brain.
It could change the algorithm that this body is running.
Which, from a computational theory of identity, is to say that you could inject me with a chemical that would delete ME, and replace me with someone else.
That's horrifying. It feels like one of the things that "shouldn't be allowed".
Today, I was contemplating becoming rich enough that I could be confident that I wouldn't be able to spend all of that money on X-risk related projects, and I could give a chunk to Give Directly, every year, or every month.
(This wouldn't be the important, world-saving, money. It would be what I have LEFT OVER from that, which I could give away to help people have better lives.)
Thinking about that, I started to feel a kind of happiness and optimism and...brightness, that I haven't felt since I was first getting involved in EA, back in 2015.
I'm increasingly hopeful that the combination of a shift to remote work + the breakdown of the legitimacy of the existing institutions, is a good thing, because power and initiative will accrue to states and cities as they provide notably better governance than their competitors.
It seems to me that moving the locus of power down to a more local level is a win for the world, because it can increase variance in governance.
Because of network effects, a handful of hubs can be disproportionately important to global well-being. Which means that creating highly productive urban centers with unusually good governance waaaay outweighs the cost of all the places that end up with worse governance.
I'm currently reading "The Pragmatist's Guide to Sexuality", in which the authors outline a central framework:
"Arousal pathways should be thought of as existing in one of three states: positive, neutral, and negative. Negative arousal is experienced as a 'gross' sensation."
Broadly, they are conceptualizing the disgust reaction that a person might have to various sexual acts (say incest, or necrophilia) as something like "inverse arousal." The same basic thing, but with the sign flipped.
I, personally, apparently have a much lower sex drive than most men: I seem to be much less compelled by arousal, or typically have a weaker form of arousal, or something.
If we're gonna label me, it's not far off to say that I'm asexual. I'm comparatively uninterested in sex.