Science explains whywe miss objectives
Starting the new year with noble intentions? Then the latest research has bad and good news for you, writes Hannah Devlin.
Here’s a question: Would you be up, this Sunday afternoon, for a run in your local park? Think of the breeze in your face and the exhilaration of bounding through the rain. ‘‘ Yes!’’ you may think. But when the time comes, venturing out may seem less welcome. You may decide to sink into the sofa armed with some salted cashews and a glass of red to watch TV.
This, in essence, sums up why we make new year’s resolutions and why we are prone to failure. We have an exquisite ability to imagine a fitter, smarter, more virtuous version of ourselves and can see the path we ought to take to become that person. But we struggle with the execution.
German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche said that the human being is a ‘‘ dark veiled thing’’ – we fail because we are eternally ignorant of ourselves. But modern neuroscience is getting closer to explaining our simultaneous desire to be good and our trouble sticking to it.
Daniel Kahneman, who won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2002 for his work on why humans make the ‘‘ wrong’’ decisions, distils the problem down to the ‘‘ dual- process’’ model of the brain. We have two fundamentally different modes of thought, he argues, fast thinking and slow thinking.
Slow thinking is the conscious, deliberate process that resolves to do more exercise. Fast thinking is the impulse that undoes our plans as it sends our hand reaching for the cashews.
Increasingly, research shows that slow thinking, which exerts selfcontrol, requires effort and attention and is tiring. Experiments show that you are more likely to make impulsive decisions about what to eat while solving a difficult arithmetic problem or in a situation where you feel socially excluded or stressed. The implication is that after a hard day at work, you are less likely to go to the gym, not only because you are physically tired, but because your limited reservoir of selfcontrol has been exhausted. As one leading neuroscientist told me: ‘‘ It’s why so many successful businessmen are fat’’.
Kahneman has pioneered the view that while fast thinking is high- speed and intuitive, it operates through a thick fog of irrational biases. Be warned. Some of these unhelpful foibles may play a role in trampling on your 2014 objectives.
Perhaps you have vowed that this will be a year of intellectual betterment, when you finally finish Wolf Hall and dust down A Brief History of Time.
If so, you may suffer from ‘‘ diversification bias’’, the unrealistic view of how varied and highbrow our tastes are.
Daniel Read, of the University of Warwick in Britain, has led a series of experiments showing that when people select products to consume immediately they gravitate towards favourites. But when choosing items to be used
If your 2014 resolution is to lose weight, the odds may be stacked against you. over a longer period, whether food, films or books, they falsely assume they will appreciate a more challenging selection.
‘‘ In a two- for- three offer we buy two mysteries and one literary novel, read the mysteries and the literary novel sits on the shelf,’’ he observes.
We are also afflicted by ‘‘ temporal discounting’’, the tendency to give greater value to immediate rewards than future ones.
Chimps go for a sip of rather than a large swig juice later. now One study, by University of Cambridge scientists, asked 100 men to lie in an MRI scanner and choose between looking at a ‘‘ mildly enjoyable’’ erotic image immediately or an ‘‘ extremely enjoyable’’ image several seconds later.
Even after declaring that they would definitely hold out for the more attractive snap, they often changed their mind when given the option of instant nudity.
There is now compelling evidence that weight has a strong genetic component, linked not only to metabolism ( or big bones) but also to the urge to eat. A Danish study of more than 1000 pigs revealed ‘‘ genetic barcodes’’ that predict whether they are likely to eat compulsively or be more attracted to fatty foods. About 15 per cent of the animals’ eating behaviour was explained by genes alone and there is no reason why the same would not be true for humans.
Unfortunately, this means that if you are overweight and resolve to change it, the odds may be stacked against you. Those with the strongest reason to diet may also find it harder to do so.
If this sounds dreadfully bleak, science can offer some strategies for controlling our impulsive side. Most promising is ‘‘ precommitment’’, where we give our future self no wriggle room.
In a second part of the erotic image study, men were given the option to preblock the less raunchy photographs, sacrificing any future choice. Most did so and were happier with the outcome. The study also revealed that we use a recently evolved part of the brain to make the decision to precommit – evidence that we can successfully rise above our short- term instincts.
Precommitment is by no means infallible. The classic example is signing up for an expensive gym membership in the belief that it will somehow oblige you to exercise. But it is better than most methods. If you’re trying to cut down internet use, install software that blocks social media when you’re trying to work; to give up smoking, avoid driving past the dairy and to lose weight don’t buy treats and expect to ration them sensibly.
Ulysses was on to something. When he sailed past the Sirens, he didn’t rely on willpower alone to resist their alluring but deadly call.