Skip to main content

mental health mondays :: guess again

you will refrain from eating cookies- for science!
over the last few weeks, while i was busy writing up posts on the issues surrounding post-traumatic stress disorder, something scary happened in the world of psychology. if you follow developments in the field, chances are that you've heard about this already, but if not, let me clue you in: it turns out that one of the foundational studies in behavioural science may well be complete hooey.

the theory, which has been taken as gospel for so long that it forms the basis of later psychological work, stems from an experiment done by two scientists on a group of university students two decades ago [which isn't really that long ago at all, but when you consider the advances made in psychology during that time, it might as well have been in the stone age]. the experiment falls into the "kinda of douche-y but not dangerous" category, so we're not talking about mk-ultra here. you can read about it in the excellent article linked above, or you can read my paltry summation of its findings:

exerting willpower [e.g., forcing oneself to eat radishes rather than freshly baked cookies when presented with both] exhausts one's "supply" of willpower in the same way that exercising a muscle exhausts that muscle.

it's a study that's been cited by thousands of other papers and used as the basis of dozens of other experiments, but a recent analysis suggests that the results of the original study are difficult to reproduce. and by difficult, i mean, they can be reproduced about half the time. another way of putting that would be to say that the experiment has an equal chance of working or not working when it comes to supporting the hypothesis.

there is, of course, a lot more work and research to be done, because the importance of this idea is such that you can't just toss it out at the first major roadblock, but if the theory of "ego depletion" does turn out to be untenable, it may hold a valuable lesson about the dangers of expectations.

the "ego depletion" hypothesis is [or was] appealing, because it seems to confirm long-held western beliefs: our culture, shaped largely by the teachings of the christian church, explicitly validates the idea that character is strengthened through privation, whether it's from cookies, sex, or wealth. we now understand that those teachings were intended largely to keep the great part of the population from resenting those who were wealthy and licentious. "sure, it looks like we're having fun, but you can feel smug because you know you'll be rewarded once you're dead."

even as the importance of religious teaching fades from importance in the lives of most westerners, its tenets are still dug deep in our collective psyche. we may not believe that having numerous sexual partners is sinful, for instance, but there is still a huge segment of the population that, to some extent, views themselves as being "better" for resisting their urges. why better? you can make arguments about the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases, but protection can be used with one partner or a hundred. ultimately, it comes down to our cultural programming: we are stronger, better people when we show that we can deprive ourselves of something innocuous that we want.

we are also taught that the more or longer we are tempted towards sin or cookies, the weaker our resolve becomes and the stronger we must be to withstand it. our culture quite literally programs us, reinforcing the message that as our will is tested, it becomes more and more likely to break under the strain. everything we know, everything that our culture teaches us, would lead us to believe that the results of the willpower study were believable.

to that end, it seems like the great cookie experiment was fated to reach the conclusions it did, because both the scientists and the participants had the same built-in biases i've just described. for the experiment to be a true barometer of human behaviour, eliminating social programming, there would have to be a way of blinding the study so that those biases were blocked from interfering. easy for me to say.

the ultimate fate of the ego depletion thesis rests with those far better educated than i, and we're all better for it. but i would like to put it out there that whenever a "big idea" in psychology or behavioural science [i've used these terms interchangeably in this post, even though they are two different things, so shame on me] confirms our gut feelings, we should immediately look at how our biases were or were not eliminated from the testing process. 

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

dreamspeak

ok, so i've been lax about posting here. i apologise. there are reasons. i don't know if they'ree good reasons, but they include:


i've had a lot of work to do, which is nice because i'm a freelancer and things tend to slow down in the summer, so the more work i get now, the less i have to worry about later [in theory].i started watching the handmaid's tale. i was a little hesitant because i didn't actually like the novel very much; i found it heavy-handed and predictable. the series relies on the novel for about 80% of its first season plot but i nevertheless find it spellbinding. where i felt that the novel beat readers with its politics, the series does a better job of connecting with the humanity in the midst of politics. i'm dithering on starting season two because i am a serial binger and once i know damn well that starting the second season will soon consign me to the horrors of having to wait a week between episodes. i don't know if i can han…

i agree, smedley [or, smokers totally saved our planet in 1983]

so this conversation happened [via text, so i have evidence and possibly so does the canadian government and the nsa].

dom and i were trying to settle our mutual nerves about tomorrow night's conversion screening, remembering that we've made a fine little film that people should see. which is just about exactly what dom had said when i responded thusly:

me :: i agree smedley. [pauses for a moment] did you get that here?

dom :: no?

me :: the aliens who were looking at earth and then decided it wasn't worth bothering with because people smoked even though it was bad for them?
come to think of it, that might mean that smokers prevented an alien invasion in the seventies.

dom :: what ?!?!?

me :: i've had wine and very little food. [pause] but the alien thing was real. [pause.] well, real on tv.

dom :: please eat something.

of course, i was wrong. the ad in question ran in 1983. this is the part where i would triumphantly embed the ad from youtube, except that the governmen…

making faces :: written in the stars [in lipstick]

are themed collections of things you like dangerous to you? once you've started down a rabbit hole, does it become a necessity to complete the set, lest you be left forever feeling like something is missing from your life? are you interested in lipsticks? then stay away from the astrology by bite collection/ series that is rolling out month by month throughout 2018.

the collection is pretty much exactly what you think it is: a lipstick a month inspired by the zodiac sign that begins in that month. a lot of people are interested in getting the one for their own sign. but that's not me. i'm interested in collecting the whole damn thing. it helps that bite's amuse bouche lipstick formula is one of the nicest on the market and that i've been weeding through my collection of lipsticks to find those that have started to "turn" [smell like crayons or grow dry] so that in theory, i have room to add more. [you have enough lipsticks for three people who wear lipsti…