That's an extreme watering down of a complex topic. Essentially the study you link is saying that PIC (Positive, Immediate, Certain) outcomes are stronger than PDU (Positive, Delayed, Uncertain) outcomes.
Well, of course. Taking the inverse - a NIC (Negative, Immediate, Certain) outcome of putting your hand on a hot stove will quickly teach you to not put your hand on the stove. Compare this to cheating a bit on your taxes where the consequence is NDU (Negative, Delayed, Uncertain).
Beyond that, I disagree with your premise that something must be immediately fun for it to get done. There is a lot of literature on this - I recommend highly, "Solving the Procrastination Puzzle".
> MARIA, A WORKING MOTHER of three young children, reaches the end of her day with lots left to do. […] She plans carefully, but kids’ illness, changes at the day care, and both her and her husband’s travel for work always seem to necessitate change in her plans and delays on some tasks.
> These examples in Maria’s life should not be seen as procrastination
Then 3 pages later
> Everyone procrastinates. I believe this, and research has documented this in a number of different ways. In fact, I think that people who say that they have never procrastinated might also say that they have never told a lie or been rude to someone.
hhmm…So, where does poor Maria fall into this ? And should the real lesson be, that the ultimate solution to procrastination is to become a working parent of 3 children ?
I still skimmed most of the book, and it feels like it’s pointed at people that either aren’t actually convinced they should be doing some tasks, and/or can actually get by not doing them for a very long time without much actual consequences (there’s a passage about participants waiting for a week to do a report. If they have such leeway, I’m not sure why it matters they do it earlier than later…)
> That's an extreme watering down of a complex topic.
Fair point.
A person can force themselves... until they break.
So in that sense it needn't be fun as long as you can finish the task before the breaking point.
But there's a threshold beyond which the person cannot sustain the behavior.
Because it's a form of consistent lying to oneself.
A person's brain, on a moment-to-moment basis is trying to pick the 'optimal' choice. The 'optimal' is: most pleasure, least pain.
If the most pleasure, least pain option is beneficial to you in the long-run, the "game" that we play of trying to convince ourselves to do something else disappears.
Which diet will win in the long run:
1. One that tastes better than all available options (including any takeout, or delivery, ice cream, or restaurant you know of)
2. One that tastes worse
My critique is with this flawed concept of "discipline" which to my mind translates to "forcing yourself" aka "lying to yourself for as long as possible"
I understand what you are saying and acknowledge there is a lot of truth in it. I think though that your binary selection is too limiting that I'll describe with an example.
In 2013 I had my routine annual physical and discovered that my triglycerides were about 250. Not crazy high but it made me concerned enough to do something about it. I stopped eating obvious refined sugar completely. I say that very specifically - for example, if there was refined sugar in bread I didn't care about it. But I stopped my once-per-day soda habit, stopped eating dessert, candy, etc.
One year later my triglycerides were 113. Ten years later, I have not had a single soda. So I think at least one option you may have not considered is what I refer to as the "change your mindset" option. Consider an oversimplified list of options before us on the topic of dietary choices:
1. I will indulge my sweet tooth
2. I will deprive myself of sweets
3. I will change my mindset about sweets to "I don't eat that stuff."
#1 is unhealthy. #2 (and I think this is your point) is not sustainable. #3 is healthy and positively changed my life. I'm not on a diet. I don't need to exercise that willpower muscle for the next two weeks and then it's scarf city. I just don't eat that stuff.
And do you know what happened? I had two weeks of terrible cravings for soda and candy. It felt like a mild form of withdrawal. Then I just stopped caring about it. And fruit tasted sweeter. Everything tasted better - it was almost like a taste bud reset.
I've experienced similar things with non-diet things as well.
That's an extreme watering down of a complex topic. Essentially the study you link is saying that PIC (Positive, Immediate, Certain) outcomes are stronger than PDU (Positive, Delayed, Uncertain) outcomes.
Well, of course. Taking the inverse - a NIC (Negative, Immediate, Certain) outcome of putting your hand on a hot stove will quickly teach you to not put your hand on the stove. Compare this to cheating a bit on your taxes where the consequence is NDU (Negative, Delayed, Uncertain).
Beyond that, I disagree with your premise that something must be immediately fun for it to get done. There is a lot of literature on this - I recommend highly, "Solving the Procrastination Puzzle".