We all know one of those people who is seemingly perfect, filled with immeasurable “togetherness.” This person appears immune to procrastination of any sort, be it for school work, a job or just daily errands. Yet this person also knows how to have a good time. Everyone loves this person. We all want to be this person. Hate this godly creature yet? Well, this person’s also got a winning personality, and will probably rule the world one day. Rather than let our visceral antagonistic nature consume us, we should seek the ambrosia of this individual’s glorious existence. Surprisingly, this Holy Grail can be encapsulated into one word: willpower.
Hundreds of books, articles and websites have explored the topic in recent years. But “3 Steps to a Better You”-type self-help only addresses surface issues by suggesting that external changes are the key to better self control. Any internal edits are all presented as relative to externalities. Think, “Eating that chocolate cake will make me fat, and then I will be sad.” The thought process is a self-defeating one. Clearly, these attempts have not been effective, when New Year’s resolutions seem to be the same every Jan. 1. According to a 2007 survey of over 3,000 people, conducted by British psychologist Richard Wiseman, 88 percent of all resolutions end in failure. Depressing, yes, but the outlook need not be so grim. Understanding the fundamental basis of willpower, which ultimately resides in none other than the brain, and learning how to apply this understanding will ameliorate this crisis of conviction.
The most recent neuroscience research suggests that willpower works like a muscle. Muscle cells utilize energy to function, and neurons are no different. As any basic biology textbook will tell you, in humans, this energy derives from food. Overexertion of a muscle results in fatigue or simply loss of function. The pioneering work of Florida State University psychologist Roy Baumeister and his team found that self-control, unlike other lower-level brain functions (e.g. movement control and appetite), is highly susceptible to any fluctuations in blood glucose (i.e. food) level. Glucose levels dropped after study subjects (male and female undergraduates) performed self-control acts (e.g. restraint from reading words in a corner of a screen and suppression of negative perceptions in interracial interactions). Work by Stanford University neuroeconomist Baba Shiv also supported the idea that cognitive overload tasks reduce self-control. In other words, the brain becomes exhausted without sufficient glucose. To add to the brain’s complexities, neurons can only get energy from glucose, making simple sugars all the more essential.
Science writer and author Jonah Lehrer aptly described his solution to counter this endless biological battle in a 2009 Wall Street Journal article. Lehrer posits that by breaking down broad, large goals into smaller, more manageable tasks, one would exhibit better self-control. Excess junk food consumption after a demanding week of midterm exams can feel natural — the brain must replenish its supply of glucose. This theory explains why simply starving oneself under the foil of dieting is ineffective. It also describes why consuming exorbitant amounts of alcohol, which reduces blood glucose levels, substantially reduces self-regulation (especially after that long week of work) and general neuronal function.
Lehrer also mentions the notion of self-awareness as helpful in improving willpower. I would go far as to say it is absolutely essential. While Lehrer’s divide-and-conquer strategy would definitely better one’s willpower, combining it with metacognitive control would be even more powerful. Metacognition, otherwise known as “thinking about thinking,” would serve as an even higher level of regulation.
Virtually all willpower research has looked at the brain region immediately behind the forehead, the pre-frontal cortex. Indeed, this small portion of the brain controls much of higher level thought and processing. Yet cutting-edge electrophysiological work led by Caltech’s Costas Anastassiou suggests that weak electrical fields throughout the brain are a form of cellular communication — in addition to that between individual neurons — that acts as a sort of overarching feedback system on existing signals. In self-awareness and metacognitive thought, one might possibly engage this electricity to further hone one’s decision-making. Rather than merely think in terms of cause and effect — “If I eat the cake, I will get fat” — one should strive to think about the motivation behind the correlative thought: “Why do I think I will get fat if I eat the cake?” and “Why would I want/not want to eat the cake?”
It is also important to remember that willpower is a relative term. Societal standards define “good,” “bad,” “more,” and “less” self-control. Biologically speaking — unless in cases of neural deformity or injury — everyone has the same capacity for willpower. This capacity, as defined by human evolution, is limited to a mere three pounds of tissue inside the head — the brain. That creature of perfect willpower, that Holy Grail, is just as constrained as the rest of us. His or her self-control also inevitably lapses in some way. Luckily for this individual, we rarely see the indulgence.
Caitlin Gilbert is a sophomore in the College. She can be reached at [email protected]. THE CORTEXT appears every other Tuesday.
To send a letter to the editor on a recent campus issue or Hoya story or a viewpoint on any topic, contact [email protected]. Letters should not exceed 300 words, and viewpoints should be between 600 to 800 words.
