/lit/ - Literature

A momentous, live decision arises when the “would” and “should” come into conflict. When what one desires conflicts with one’s better interests rational incentive must prevail over compulsive impulse.

When this conflict occurs and the “would” and the “should” are not the same, it means what is wanted shouldn’t be done and vice versa.

There are grades of want. Someone who wants to go on a diet, does not want cheeseburgers any less. The struggle of self-control involves inhibiting immediate, short-term appetitive impulses in favor of complex, long term goals. Though we say this person both wants to lose weight and wants the cheeseburger what we are really doing is talking about a split self. One brain center involves the overpowering urges of the appetitive drives, while the other brain center must struggle against it to accomplish the somewhat unnatural goal of dieting (not something most people have had to do throughout history)

We call people “well adjusted” who find themselves not having to struggle between this imbalance of priorities. Is it simply that they have more “willpower”—an vague, folk psychological concept— or are they just lucky? Perhaps they were raised with better habits, or their constitution is healthier and more energetic, or they were never given the chance to be corrupted . They simply carry out good habits without having to wage an inner battle.

The whole idea of a unified single decision-making self is unscientific and not backed by the neuroscience. This explains a lot why we don’t always “choose” to do what’s in our best interests.

Sticks and stones can break my bones, but shitposting will never hurt me. But it can elevate cortisol levels, and that's not good. Get out of this trap and read a book. Your brain will thank you.