Science Saturday: Exercising Self-Control (Joshua Knobe & Roy Baumeister)

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by miceelf

People with ADHD (and I would know) are capable of what is called hyperfocus, where they can focus very intensely on a very particular thing and literally spend hours concentrating on it. The classic example is the kid who can't sit still for anything else but super mario brothers. I suspect there's a lot of domain specificity in general with self-control.

Yes, if you think of ADHD as difficulty tuning out distractions and locking in one activity, the whole thing makes sense. When the ADHD person finds something that's salient/appealing enough to allow that lock-in of their attention, the rest of the world disappears. The problem is reaching that threshold to lock in. School teachers aren't exactly the most appealing target.

Athletes devote a huge amount of time and effort on a very circumscribed set of activities and forego a lot of activities that most of us wouldnt. But outside of the gym and playing field, as a group, they tend not to be overly blessed with an abundance of self-control.

True.

[uncle ebeneezer]

This all rings very true. Both for myself, and many musicians I know. Some of the guys I play with go from total ADD in one area to tunnel-vision focus in a heartbeat.

I guess the big challenge is: how does one take the natural capacity for laser-focus and use it in areas that are not as attractive?

[Cincinnatus]

Originally Posted by thouartgob

Arguably so. Compare "you look nice today" to "you look hot" or "you look sexy". There is more of a sexual connotation.

Obviously saying, "you look sexy" has more of a sexual connotation, but nobody said that. And saying "You're hot" is more along the lines of slang for "you're attractive". My larger point is that it seems ok to make fun of someone's appearance (which is to say they aren't attractive), but not ok to say they are attractive. Whether you choose to say, "you look nice today", "I like what you've done with your hair", or "nice shoes", you're making a value judgment on their physical appeal to you. To say, "dude, lame glasses", or "dude, lame hair" is also a value judgment on that person's appeal to your aesthetic values.

Originally Posted by thouartgob

Also if you could point to where there were people commenting on how HOT some of the male diavlogers are that would help.

I don't have an apples to apples comparison; we rarely do in life. Again, I can only point to aesthetic judgments made by others. Your speculation is duly noted, but I still want a clarification of the rules by bloggingheads, so as to prevent any future confusion.

[Cincinnatus]

Originally Posted by miceelf

A fellow poster was banned for a comment he made about a man's appearance.

I'll take your word for it. This inconsistency is the reason I call for official clarification.

[Cincinnatus]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Maybe you should Occupy Bloggingheads. Prepare to be pepper-sprayed in the face.

Ha! have you ever been pepper-sprayed in the face before? I have, and it hurts...really bad.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

This all rings very true. Both for myself, and many musicians I know. Some of the guys I play with go from total ADD in one area to tunnel-vision focus in a heartbeat.

I guess the big challenge is: how does one take the natural capacity for laser-focus and use it in areas that are not as attractive?

Mindfulness.

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by Cincinnatus

And saying "You're hot" is more along the lines of slang for "you're attractive".

OK I always thought they were more synonymous. Helpful clarification in any case.

My larger point is that it seems ok to make fun of someone's appearance (which is to say they aren't attractive), but not ok to say they are attractive. Whether you choose to say, "you look nice today", "I like what you've done with your hair", or "nice shoes", you're making a value judgment on their physical appeal to you. To say, "dude, lame glasses", or "dude, lame hair" is also a value judgment on that person's appeal to your aesthetic values.

I think it is more polite to comment ( positively or negatively ) on things people can change as opposed to something they can't. Commenting on a dress or hat is one thing, commenting on someone's port wine stain on their face, for instance, is another. Someone with more knowledge on manners can enlighten me if I'm wrong.

I don't have an apples to apples comparison; we rarely do in life. Again, I can only point to aesthetic judgments made by others. Your speculation is duly noted, but I still want a clarification of the rules by bloggingheads, so as to prevent any future confusion.

Like apples to apples comparisons rarely in life to we get clarifications of the rules by bloggingheads.

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by Cincinnatus

Grieder is hot not only because she looks good, but also because of her cogent political and economic commentary. I'm sure she knows this, and I doubt she would take offense to being reminded. I mean, c'mon, everyone loves a compliment.

Your definition of HOT contains multitudes that weren't apparent in the context of your first post on the subject

Howsabout saying; "Erica has an interesting monochromatic backdrop that framed her well during the diavlog and her point about how evangelicals wrap their religion around their personal narratives and how this could distinguish their response between Bush and Perry is a cogent one. [insert evocative statement of hotness here]"

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by thouartgob

Like apples to apples comparisons rarely in life to we get clarifications of the rules by bloggingheads.

Ironically, it was apple who was banned for making a comment about one of the male diavloggers. his comment was relatively mild, noting that said diavlogger was fat. Someone else made what seemed to me to be a much more negative comment about a couple of female science saturdayers- something about women with no lips.

Then we have our resident hater, who feels the need to say something unkind but technically within bounds about any female diavlogger she feels is smarter than her.

[uncle ebeneezer]

Nice (and true.)

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by miceelf

Ironically, it was apple who was banned for making a comment about one of the male diavloggers. his comment was relatively mild, noting that said diavlogger was fat. Someone else made what seemed to me to be a much more negative comment about a couple of female science saturdayers- something about women with no lips.

Irony or a sign, some sort of synchronicity that will create a lasting impression on apple that his chosen path of discourse might be problematic ... NAH

How little self-reflection goes on in the minds of guys that say crap about women's appearance when of course it's projection of their own anxieties as men or just a minor form of psychopathy ... a diagnosis more fitting my expertise ... they're just assholes. Wonder who they will be voting for if at all in 2012

Then we have our resident hater, who feels the need to say something unkind but technically within bounds about any female diavlogger she feels is smarter than her.

Ah maybe Cincinnatus will take up that double standard in the gender politics of the comment section

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by Cincinnatus

Overtly sexual? Hardly. I stand by my claim that there is a sort of gender bias at play here. It's ok to make demeaning aesthetic judgments about men, but not ok to remark, even positively, about women.

I think thouart is right about this: Saying "Erica is hot" doesn't really read (whatever your intention) like a comment about Erica as much as a comment about your own lust. I'm sure this is how many attractive women interpret remarks like that -- even if it's not how you meant it. It basically looks like your sexual fantasies are just barely below the surface.

The comment about Julian's dapper appearance isn't comparable because it sounds like it really is about him, and not about you own attraction to and desire for him.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by Cincinnatus

I'll take your word for it. This inconsistency is the reason I call for official clarification.

The other thing is that BhTV doesn't really rigorously monitor the comments. They will respond to complaints, which can sometimes give the appearance of inconsistent enforcement, but they don't read everything that is posted.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by Cincinnatus

I think she would have appreciated it also, although it's hard to know these days. Complimenting someone on their looks is regarded by some as tantamount to sexual harassment. I know, I know...it's a sad state of affairs.

First of all, don't let yourself be led astray by the execrable badhat. She defines herself strictly in terms of her hatred for liberals. If she has the idea put into her head by talk radio that "feminists" want to "punish men for being men" ("men being men" is a euphemism for sexual harassment or cat-calling), she will instantly define herself in opposition to feminists, and defend those behaviors. So: She's only saying Erica wants to have men openly express their lust in the forum because she thinks it makes her different from liberals. (And she's right!)

Second of all: It's interesting that you think your comment could be interpreted as tantamount to sexual harassment, but you said it anyway.

Normally I would think that someone would refrain from saying something to a woman that she might construe as sexual harassment.

[Cincinnatus]

Originally Posted by thouartgob

OK I always thought they were more synonymous. Helpful clarification in any case.

I think it is more polite to comment ( positively or negatively ) on things people can change as opposed to something they can't.

Fair enough. Though, I won't hesitate to tell a gal she has pretty eyes.

[Cincinnatus]

Originally Posted by thouartgob

Your definition of HOT contains multitudes that weren't apparent in the context of your first post on the subject

Howsabout saying; "Erica has an interesting monochromatic backdrop that framed her well during the diavlog and her point about how evangelicals wrap their religion around their personal narratives and how this could distinguish their response between Bush and Perry is a cogent one. [insert evocative statement of hotness here]"

Too wordy.

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by Cincinnatus

Fair enough. Though, I won't hesitate to tell a gal she has pretty eyes.

Agreed. At least she knows you are looking at her eyes as opposed to other places

[Cincinnatus]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

She's only saying Erica wants to have men openly express their lust in the forum ...

You're waaay overblowing the casual "he/she's hot" comment. It's nothing as evocative as a sexual expression, and it's certainly not an expression of lust. It's very simply just a casual observation of a person's aesthetic appeal. Nothing more.

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

Second of all: It's interesting that you think your comment could be interpreted as tantamount to sexual harassment, but you said it anyway. Normally I would think that someone would refrain from saying something to a woman that she might construe as sexual harassment.

It's only interesting because it's absolutely absurd, and if complimenting women on their looks is wrong, I don't want to be right.

[Cincinnatus]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

First of all, don't let yourself be led astray by the execrable badhat. She defines herself strictly in terms of her hatred for liberals.

For the record, so do I.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Cincinnatus

I think she would have appreciated it also, although it's hard to know these days. Complimenting someone on their looks is regarded by some as tantamount to sexual harassment. I know, I know...it's a sad state of affairs.

Women, love to be admired for their looks. Now they may blush or act scandalized but inside they're smiling. As for the term 'hot', I think it has become so commonplace as to be pretty innocuous. But when I first heard my daughter say it, I thought it was pretty crude. Maybe that's because she was about thirteen and was saying it about a boy.

And all these ninnies around here who say that their main concern is for women to be protected from crass references to their looks because it insults their intelligence are just trying to be proper feminists (which is, by my reckoning, whatever Amanda Marcotte says it is. How confusing!). Sure women want to be respected for their intelligence but they also like to be thought of as good looking.

As far as the bloggingheads policy...it's, shall we say, fluid.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

Second of all: It's interesting that you think your comment could be interpreted as tantamount to sexual harassment, but you said it anyway.

Normally I would think that someone would refrain from saying something to a woman that she might construe as sexual harassment.

Normally people just do stuff. Normal people don't worry that their actions may be seen in some crazy way by some crazy person. That is, of course, unless they have had prolonged exposure to people like you.

[thouartgob]

The idea that will power is a muscle and it has the property of being tired but can increase in strength over time if it is used is an interesting one that seems to have some instinctive resonance, for me at least.

When he lays out the explanation Roy refers to the "energy" of will power and I was curious as to people idea on what that is. I would think that will power is located ( if it can have a definite location ) in the pre-frontal lobes. So is there some structure that run out of energy ( glucose ? ) and takes time to recharge or is it some sort of deficit in a hormone or neurotransmitter that takes time to regain some balance ?

[Starwatcher162536]

Originally Posted by thouartgob

...I would think that will power is located ( if it can have a definite location ) in the pre-frontal lobes. So is there some structure that run out of energy ( glucose ? ) and takes time to recharge or is it some sort of deficit in a hormone or neurotransmitter that takes time to regain some balance ?

What?1? How reductionist of you. None of that crap matters. We have free will!
Huh, free from what you say? Umm... free will! It's magic man.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by thouartgob

The idea that will power is a muscle and it has the property of being tired but can increase in strength over time if it is used is an interesting one that seems to have some instinctive resonance, for me at least.

When he lays out the explanation Roy refers to the "energy" of will power and I was curious as to people idea on what that is. I would think that will power is located ( if it can have a definite location ) in the pre-frontal lobes. So is there some structure that run out of energy ( glucose ? ) and takes time to recharge or is it some sort of deficit in a hormone or neurotransmitter that takes time to regain some balance ?

There are at least two possible processes. One is the neurotranmitter possibility, in which certain neurotransmitters get used up by the effort and then there's a period of relative latency while your neurons make more neurotransmitter available.

The other possible mechanism is that byproducts of the intense metabolism in that area accumulate and they interfere with sustained effort. It's similar to adenosine and sleep.