To me, this is an interesting statement because it highlights the difference between true and useful.
For several years, since I read the book Willpower (an intro piece to ego depletion), I've meditated on the idea. I've decided that even if it's not scientifically true, it can be useful to me.
Some may see it as self-help tripe ("Eat your frogs in the morning!"), but it's a useful mental model for me to push myself to get stuff done sooner, rather than later, because I imagine myself not having the willpower later.
Your choice of word -- real -- was probably casual, but I think a better term would be "scientifically valid". There are many things that aren't replicable that have use to many humans.
I personally believe that a lot of religion falls onto the "useful" side of this divide. Which is why I have no reason to go out of my way to tell people that I think their religion is not literally true. If it works for them, great.
I think this also applies to beliefs like the 10,000 hour hypothesis. I strongly doubt it is true, but some people really like it as a motivational tool. I have no reason to burst their bubble.
The only time I am bothered is if people argue in favor of unverified beliefs to people who are seeking real truth, or especially if people try to legislate such beliefs.
I find it much more useful to break the world down into functions. Then we can simply ask in what contexts are these functions useful.
We can model religions as perceptual sets & then find their uses. I'm designing a religion of absurdity as a cultural experiment in teaching the models I'm developing and can testify to the usefulness of being able to find absurdity in everything. It also helps to not judge things beyond "Does this sustainably contribute to life or not?" I'm still trying to nail down the definitions, but the point is it doesn't matter what we believe, but what we do with those beliefs.
I started using animism yesterday to motivate me to do the dishes, viewing them as the physical embodiment of souls that I, their god, allowed to get moldy/rusty through neglect.
I think when we introduce choice/attention into the theory that we construct reality out of beliefs, emotions, culture (thought/behavior patterns), and intentions, it's possible to find all kinds of useful frameworks.
Maybe the idea of "scientific validity" needs to be adapted for subjective experiences constructed by us.
You win a prize for the most bizarre story I'll read today.
That said, I think one thing you indicate here is helpful - life is a personal experience, and while some people may experience motivation from the exercise of willpower, others may feel they have their willpower 'broken down' over time.
I think the specific context of the experiment really does impact the results.
It is never as simple as:
WILLPOWER
[<3 <3 <3 </]
HP
[<3 <3 <3 <3]
How do you think we could adapt that concept to subjective experiences? As I've gotten older (and learned to manage my mental state better), I've found great benefit from separating "scientifically true" and "useful to lead a good life".
I suppose that makes me a hypocrite in the same way that devoutly religious scientists are. But it makes my life more fulfilled, I experience less anxiety, etc.
Mainstream approaches to science are obsessively objective, denying the fact that everything we do is a subject experience. So many people learn the idea that things can only be true or false, as opposed to things being dependent on the lens through which they're viewed. We see the same sort of separation in our politics.
I think we need a framework for self-observation. Granted, we have systems in place designed to punish us for being ourselves, so that'll have to change, too.
If you want to learn how to work in a field dedicated to observing & documenting something, then first or concurrently learn to responsibly observe & document yourself. The goal is to maximize self-awareness, which I think everyone can benefit from in some way.
I agree about the usefulness of such a framework. Subjective experiences draw optimizations (self-improvement), so by observing, we naturally are changed. This does not assume improvement; for that, we have to combine change with a fitness function.
Just because the effect isn't real doesn't mean the system can't be beneficial. There's hundreds of millions of people all over the world who benefit from a Abrahamic worldview.
The word superstition has negative connotations, but perhaps wrongly so.
Also, some aspects of ego depletion are grounded in science. Just because this particular model isn't valid, doesn't mean there's no valid model for ego depletion.
The question remains, then. Why is it that the same individual may perform (or not perform) an action while alert, but fail to their desired behavior when more tired, or hungry, or are otherwise distracted with effort toward maintaining another action state?
In other words, if someone is trying to stop eating candy, why do they draw from the candy bowl in some cases but not others?
For several years, since I read the book Willpower (an intro piece to ego depletion), I've meditated on the idea. I've decided that even if it's not scientifically true, it can be useful to me.
Some may see it as self-help tripe ("Eat your frogs in the morning!"), but it's a useful mental model for me to push myself to get stuff done sooner, rather than later, because I imagine myself not having the willpower later.
Your choice of word -- real -- was probably casual, but I think a better term would be "scientifically valid". There are many things that aren't replicable that have use to many humans.