This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This is like saying "If 'just stop doing drugs' were useful advice, there would be no drug addicts." Just stop doing drugs is the correct answer. That doesn't mean it's easy, or that a drug addict can "just" choose to do that without great effort and support.
It's 100% true that "Just exercise (and improve your diet)" is the correct answer. It's also 100% true that this is actually very hard and most people don't do it, because exercise is uncomfortable and boring and we live in a world of superstimuli and abundant high-calorie, low quality foods.
No, it's not as simple as "fat people lack willpower." Just like it's not as simple as "alcoholics lack willpower." This is literally true, but most people lack the willpower to overcome something like an addiction or the incredible pull of comfortable, sedentary living and infinite snacks over deprivation and effort.
Maybe we might find something biological that makes some people more successful at dieting and exercise than others, and maybe some people do have metabolic conditions that make them more prone to obesity. But ultimately, the answer is that what they need to do is actually very simple but very difficult, hence most people don't.
This is the view that I disagree with. It strikes me as a just so story. If you succeed in exercising, you were able to do the very hard thing because of your implied moral superiority; if you weren’t, you had to try harder, but you could have. The problem with this kind of thinking is manifold. Trump and Elon Musk are extremely goal-driven people (I am choosing them because they are household names). Why are they both fat? Marines went through boot camp. Why can’t they exercise for something more valuable than that? Normally people want to impress others and secure mates and enjoy life. So why can’t they exercise when this enables that? A 30yo fat person may see their obese parents die a slow agonizing death. What human would experience that and not be motivated to avert that state?
It’s very easy to just morally impugn fat people — it’s hard, it’s uncomfortable, you could do it but you don’t want to. The problem is that there is no evidence for this assumed phenomenon. Where is the study showing that fat people don’t wish to be healthier more than those who do exercise? Fat people probably want to exercise even more than those who do exercise. But clearly there is something in the way: more pain when exercising (?); a microbiome which especially wants to be sedentary (?); an extreme deficit in willpower as it relates to physical exertion which requires a dedicated program…
But maybe I’m misunderstanding what you are saying. “ultimately, the answer is that what they need to do is actually very simple but very difficult, hence most people don't”, this to me implies a universality in how difficult exercise is, but I seriously doubt that’s the case.
Look at Bezos, Thiel, Zuck, Durov if you want extremely goal-driven people that care about their weight and body composition. Neither Trump nor Musk are debilitatingly fat, so my guess is they simply prioritize other goals of theirs. As soon as Musk suffers some health crisis and is told by his doctor that he'll never live to see a space trip to Mars, let alone become the Elon of the Red Planet, I guarantee you he'll hyperfixate on preventing senescence and will quickly adjust his BMI and fat percentage to the values that promise the longest life according to the most recent research.
More options
Context Copy link
When talking about the concept of "difficulty" perception is absolutely reality. In fact, in lifting, there's literally the term "RPE" for "Rate of Perceived Exertion"
I don't think fat people are morally inferior, but I do think they lack habituation in exerting effort in a physical sense. I have known a former water polo player who let himself go absolutely transform in about six months because he knew how to (and could endure) 2 hours a day in the gym. On the other hand, I have seen an otherwise focused and driven career type (master degrees, high powered consulting job) fail to make any detectable weight loss progress. I wasn't their personal trainer so I can't evaluate details, but that's besides the point - they obviously had the character traits required to commit to something difficult.
Or did they? Physical exertion is different than mental / emotional exertion. Plenty of very smart people who can pull all-nighters on cognitively demanding tasks, perform in professionally high pressure situations (think arguing in court or giving some large format public address) will fold nearly instantly when something physical confronts them. It's strange and hard to describe, but I've seen it throughout my life. There are simply some otherwise exceptional people who can be defeated with two flights of stairs or a ten block walk.
This is why I feel the elimination of meaningful PE classes in primary schools was such a tragedy. It's some level of habituation to doing stuff with your body (side culture war note: I also think bullying is important. It teaches you that assholes exist and how to deal with them).
More options
Context Copy link
Poor impulse control and desire for immediate results. Of course, this has served both men well in a number of ways, but neither is known for their inclination towards gradual, incremental efforts that only yield results when done consistently for long periods of time.
? This describes exactly both Trump's patient efforts in politics (themselves likely stemming in their modern form from Obama humiliating him in 2012, years prior to his 2016 run, and that's not even getting into that it's something he's been thinking about since at least 2000 since he also ran then) and Musk's investments in SpaceX and Tesla.
An intemperate public persona isn't the same as having no patience. Both Trump and Musk have demonstrated incredible patience with their life paths. Even Trump wanting to run again for president this year shows immense patience.
Patience, or obstinacy? The fact that you're willing to keep trying to do something for 20 years doesn't necessarily show patience and the ability to plan and bide your time. What exactly did Trump do to work on his next bid after his joke 2000 run? Was The Apprentice a genius move to make him a celebrity so he'd have a better shot in 2012? I don't think so - I think it's true Trump has always wanted to be president and that ambition never went away, but I also think he flits from project to project and does whatever he wants to at any given time, with very little forethought. I see no evidence that he's a careful, patient planner.
Musk, I am less sure about. He's certainly smart but the jury is still out on whether all his SpaceX and Twitter and Tesla bets will turn out to be genius or hubris.
You're confusing patience with higher-level executive planning. Totally different.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Fundamentally it comes down to agency. Exercising, getting off drugs, and doing other rewarding but """hard""" things is all agency. I don't really believe in morality, but agency is a personal trait just as much as beauty or strength. Right or wrong, people have little patience for low agency.
You can train up your will power. Do a little of the hard thing at first. Get into the gym at least once in the week. Drink less for one night. I guess you could say this a chicken and egg problem, invest willpower into developing your will power. You gotta bootstrap from somewhere. If you're unable or unwilling to do this... Isn't that definitionally a personal failing?
More options
Context Copy link
All else aside, this is just not true. If you go to a running club or a Crossfit gym, you will meet people that absolutely love exercising. Whatever the obese individual says about how much he'd like to exercise, he obviously doesn't want to do it more than the people that actual make time to do it.
It’s different, though. I don’t even disagree with you, I enjoy the gym, but I enjoy it because I enjoy the results of it. The whole mindset is altered. The act of exercising, especially as a very fat person, just isn’t enjoyable, I’ve seen it. It’s sweaty, painful, it hurts the joints, it chafes, it is the definition of an unpleasant experience.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The wrinkle here is that every person who exercises has the experience of using their willpower to overcome the impulse to be sedentary. I get what you're saying, but when I look back on me thinking to myself "it seems like a lot nicer to just sit on the couch than go to the gym, but i gotta go" or "yeah i'm exhausted, but I'm going to do one more set" what I see is me making the hard decision to overcome those sedentary instincts. In every way, it looks like I used to my willpower to dictate my own behavior, and every time I fail at doing so, it looks like a failure of will to me. I personally don't see any reason to think it isn't exactly as it appears to me.
It reminds a lot of CICO discussions: it is obviously true that if you eat less calories than you burn, you will lose weight. There are all kinds of additional layers of complication and justification and difficulty and most of all copes on top of that, but the fundamental facts are simple.
It's the same with willpower and exercise: it is obviously true that whether or not you exercise depends on whether or not you do it (tautological, obviously), and doing it is a matter of applied will against pressures to the contrary. Whether or not you overcome those pressures by force of will does, in fact, determine whether or not you exercise. So while yes, there are lots of different complications and justifications and difficulties and most of all copes on top of that, they're all really just inputs to the equation [willpower]-[forces against]=[do you work out].
When you say that there isn't a universality in how difficult exercise is, what you're saying is that [forces against] has a different value for different people. Obviously that is true. Some people find exercise easy, some people find it difficult, some people have physical ailments that make it painful to exercise, etc etc. It is obviously also true that some people have significantly greater willpower than others. But that doesn't change the fundamental question, which is "is [willpower]>[forces against]".
And in the end, what the inputs are to the equation doesn't matter, what matters is whether or not you can get over the threshold and exercise. Does this have lots of potentially nasty implications about some people getting a shit deal in life because they're mentally weak, or physically afflicted, or even just born lazy? Yep. Not only are there health implications, but like you said, there are massive moral implications to whether or not you are able to overcome your own weakness and destructive instincts. Nobody's burden is the same, life's not fair, sucks to suck.
Do they, though?
My husband and daughter are fidgeters. If they eat more than they need, they will find some way to move more, subconsciously. They will pace, walk around naked in the snow, run around in circles, then jump up and down, then run and jump until everyone else is upset about it (OK, that's just my daughter, but her father also probably did it as a child). They have been known to run slight fevers for no apparent reason sometimes, or take cold showers in winter to get their bodies to produce more heat.
The other daughter and I are nothing like this, at all.
Yeah, I mean, I guess it's true that at least once in my life I've "used my willpower to overcome the impulse to be sedentary", but the occasions when I've had to use my willpower to bag it when I was having an unproductive session (or not head out in the first place when I was sick, e.g.) are quite a bit more salient.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes.
My friends and I joke that a friend of mine, if we tied him to a chair, would then proceed to vibrate the chair apart.
And given everything I know the man does and has on his plate, it's only half of a joke.
And even he admits there are times he just wants to laze about rather than do what's necessary. It's something everyone goes through. It may not be common or regular, but it still happens.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It does in the sense that I am alleging “forces against” are of exclusive importance and “willpower” is of negligible importance (on a population scale). We can measure the former but I don’t know any attempt to measure the latter. Do we see that fat people with similar intelligences and backgrounds perform worse on typical willpower tasks? I don’t recall reading this. It would be a big finding if so.
If willpower can be summed up as anything which is in our control, frankly it’s the felt salience of death and the patient hope in deliverance from that death. That’s the experience of the morbidly obese, though. Every trip to doctor is memento mori along with a hopeful plan and a page about resources to help them. So… what exactly are we talking about when we talk about willpower, if it doesn’t spring out of such experiences? At this point we are now talking about such an internal source of willpower that the most serious real life experiences don’t result in it, I do feel we are just impugning the souls of these people at this point. Like: no brush with death can save them, no hopeful lecture can save them, no inspiring figure can save tnem — they are damned. I am not comfortable saying that. Are we saying that these morbidly obese people have never cried tears of desire for salvation and at the worst case scenario attempted to kill themselves out of shame? How is that not a “highly motivated” state of willpower?
Meanwhile in my own personal experiences, here I am with the willpower of a sloth, but I have never been overweight — my body wants to fidget and pace frequently. It is non-volitional. After making my parent comment I went and got a burger and fries after fasting in the morning because I wasn’t hungry. Willpower doesn’t factor in at all here, just “forces out of my control”. What caused my body to like movement and not like eating frequently? An early life experience, something in my microbiome, genes? It’s definitely not willpower.
Tritely: that doesn't make it untrue.
I don't need a scientific study to prove that fat people tend to perform worse on typical willpower tasks like "don't eat a second piece of pie, even though you want to and you know it will be bad for you."
The reason that advice at a population scale tends to be different from personal advice is that the majority of people are, as you put it, damned. "No brush with death can save them, no hopeful lecture can save them, no inspiring figure can save them." When you give advice to an individual, you give them the benefit of the doubt that they don't suck. When you deal with populations, the unavoidable fact is that enough people obviously suck enough that you can't give them the benefit of the doubt (plus there's no politeness or interpersonal charity to consider). The stats don't lie. They are weak, they are lazy, they have high time preference, they are stupid, and they are never not going to be any of those things. I think this is a major failure point of most high functioning people: they don't grok how low-functioning most people are.
It is probably simply true that there is a ceiling for [willpower] for many people that is less than [forces against]. Just like how someone might be condemned by being 80 IQ to a life of poverty, never working anything but the most menial and low paying jobs, one might be condemned to a life of fatness, never being able to control their own eating due to a weak will. To quote George Carlin: "The mayfly only lives one day, and some days it rains." Most people get dealt a bad hand, and as I said before, it sucks to suck.
That being said, I think there is some hope, and that hope is (ironically?) shame. "the felt salience of death and the patient hope in deliverance from that death" are clearly insufficient motivating factors to get people to not be fat. I respond to that by pointing out the truism that many people fear public speaking more than death. I believe that people (at a population level, ha) tend to respond to their incentives. Clearly death and disfigurement and the quiet shame of fatness is an insufficient incentive. However, I notice that countries that have a strong culture of overt shame around fatness like China or Japan tend to be significantly less overweight statistically than countries that don't, like the US. I think that for most, the incentive of overt social shaming is actually a stronger incentive than death, and that therefore perhaps the best way to incentivize people to be a healthy weight is to shame them for being fat.
Both you and /u/Gaashk brought up in your replies the example of people who are just "naturally" skinny without any willpower. I don't think that invalidates my model, I think those people, including yourself, just happened to be born with/live with factors that lead to an extremely low value of [forces against] or a very high level of [willpower] such that it doesn't feel like willpower. That could be because of a low lipostat "body set weight", or natural hyperactivity, or a default low level of hunger, or any number of factors. Your coefficients are different, but that doesn't change the equation.
Of course, it's then very possible that their failure is wanting it more, not resisting it less.
More options
Context Copy link
If someone has capable willpower in many areas of life but still finds himself fat then we should consider whether being fat is mostly unrelated to willpower. They have excellent willpower in many domains but not in this one. So either we are now alleging domain-specific willpower, or the concept of willpower is nonsensical altogether. If there is domain-specific willpower regarding exercise, why are former military service members fat? If there is domain-specific willpower regarding dieting, then why is it that the 30-day yearly Ramadan fast does not result in sustained weight loss?
So neither intensive physical regimens nor intensive fasting regimens affect weight loss in large scale populations. We are left with motivation, but as I’ve written, it doesn’t appear that there is any experience an obese human can have that will reliably result in weight loss, given just how many bad experiences they have. Now you note —
but fat people are already shamed explicitly and implicitly. They are shamed more today implicitly than in the past, with social media giving them a peer ranking of their popularity and male interest where it is plainly obvious that their weight is a deciding factor. If you are fat in school you will get comments. Re: China, China’s obesity is increasing. But Chinese Americans also have genetically lower obesity rates.
Well it’s very important to determine whether obesity is a generally volitional health state before we launch our campaign to shame half the population. That’s why this topic is important actually. If the willpower theory is unevidenced then we want to focus our efforts somewhere else — not on hating fat people but perhaps hating the ultrawealthy who sell poison in stores. Perhaps it is the department of education for making schools too sedentary. Perhaps it is neighborhood designers. Perhaps it is feminism. Perhaps these are damned and the fats are the victims?
Apart from microbiome, some other hypotheses I wonder about are —
Poor or insufficient breastfeeding, already associated with obesity
accidentally reinforcement of food at an early age through conversation, snacking, social / comfort associations
the de-reinforcement of physical activity due to a loss in communal dancing, physical play in kids, and destinations which can only be reached by long walks
A divine curse placed on our stock because of the way we treat livestock, taking the form of metabolic and DNA changes we aren’t familiar with yet
Are you alleging that sustained work on any goal is equally easy as any other goal for every single person?
Based on my experience I am much better at being focused on some tasks, much worse on some other and my willpower as far as not eating myself to death seems to be a bit above average.
There is also no experience that will reliably make people honest, reliable, punctual, less rude, not wasting their life on computer games etc.
Nevertheless, keeping asshole tendencies in church and not being habitually late is partially function of willpower.
Keeping yourself away from drugs and slot machines is also function of willpower, complete destruction of regulation here for some people does not change it is function of willpower.
People are complicated, influencing them reliably is hard. It is hardly novel.
And yes, consistently eating less will make you less fat.
If willpower as a behavioral control mechanism can apply to very sophisticated longterm social goals (like running Amazon, being George Foreman) then we should expect that it would be applied where the costs and benefits are especially salient, your weight. Their ability to control their will should apply to food, even if that is a “skill” that must be practiced. Musk and Foreman are good at practicing skills, right? And common sense tells us they have noticed their obesity. Or how about the recent photo of Bronze Age Pervert, the one who praises self control and a beautiful body? Yet all these people are fat. This needs to be explained and not “it’s Just So stories all the way down”ed.
I disagree with that. I think social environment and social learning can improve upon that
Sure. We should also imprison for life the satanists who make money off of online phone-based gambling. Then send their children and grandchildren to a remote island. Where they can —
And therein lies the 250kcal BBQ dry rub. Yes, they eat. Why are they compelled to eat more than their expenditure when others are not?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think that generally speaking, this person does not exist. Everyone I know who is fat is also weak-willed in other domains of their life.
Incentives are certainly an input to [willpower], hence the section about shaming as societal intervention. The veteran was skinny in the military because there are strong incentives that helped increase his [willpower], the muslim is able to abstain from eating during ramadan for the same reason. You might think of it as [incentives]+[mental strength]=[willpower]. As circumstances change and they leave the military, or ramadan ends, or society starts shaming them less for being fat, the magnitude [incentive] reduces enough that they can't make it over the threshold and overcome [forces against].
No, there are plenty of obese people who become fit. I think if you ask them, they will pretty much universally describe it as requiring an intense exertion of willpower to achieve. And I would be willing to bet that very many obese people would be able to lose weight if they were given sufficient incentive. Take an extreme example: if every time they ate a meal greater than 500 calories they were shocked with a cattle prod, it seems obvious that most people would choose eating smaller meals and being hungry over being zapped and they would lose weight.
it does not seem to me to be a coincidence that the reduction in explicit shaming has coincided with an increase in BMIs. Clearly implicit shaming results in a lower [incentive] than explicit shaming. Hence my argument that we re-implement more explicit shaming. I do want to note that you don't have to hate someone to shame them for something, and that shame can be a strong pro-social force (that's why it exists). "Love the sinner, hate the sin" and all that.
To put it plainly, it is incredibly obviously a volitional health state. It's obviously a choice whether or not to go back for a second portion, it's obviously a choice to exercise or not. The only out here is some form of argument against free will, but people who argue the choice to eat the whole pie isn't actually a choice never live the rest of their lives like they don't have free will. It's pure cope.
I'd personally bite that bullet and say that libertarian free will does not exist. I'm not sure what you think I should do differently, or in my framing must do differently, given that belief.
Do you treat yourself and other people as being responsible for their actions? Say someone rear ends you at a stoplight because they were looking at their cellphone while driving. Do you think they are to blame? Do you get angry at them? Do you pursue an insurance claim against them?
Treating people as agentic is a fundamental basis of more or less all human interactions. Perhaps there are some ascetic monks up in the mountains somewhere who have really internalized that free will doesn't exist to the point that they actually behave as such. But in my experience nobody who says they don't believe in free will really acts like it (I'm including myself here, intellectually I think that it is clear that the universe is fully deterministic, but I don't live my life as if it were so).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How not believing in free will should change your day to day life? I don't see it.
See my reply here: https://www.themotte.org/post/1070/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/228825?context=8#context
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why? Some people want some things more than they want other things.
Because temporarily restricting your caloric intake does not permanently change your weight. This is well known. Everyone knows a fat person who dieted for a month and lost 20 pounds. What happens when they go back to eating the way they were before? They regain the weight. Permanent weight loss requires permanently changing your CICO equation.
Believing that people have agency and that losing weight is mostly a matter of finding the will to do it does not require hating fat people. Sure, a lot of people do hate fat people, and justify it with variations on "They could just put the fork down," but you can recognize that losing weight is very hard without either shaming those who fail or inventing ways in which fat manifests out of the aether.
The bulk of fat people do not want to be fat. Being fat is a #1 deterrent in a relationship, it reduces respect between peers, it harms health and reduces activity levels. And this is well-known. So the willpower theory doesn’t make sense in light of just how many fat people there are who otherwise practice willpower throughout their life.
Implying willpower, it would. It’s a 30-day intensive practice of delaying gratification according to an external timeline with serious feedback. That’s practice. So we can deduct another point off the scale of willpower theory. At a population level, a month of serious willpower practice every year does not affect weight. But we should expect it would, given that most fat people do want to lose weight, and they just practiced that skill for a month.
Fat people are aware that they need to eat less to lose weight. This cannot be accomplished for the reason we are trying to determine.
I agree.
But I don't think the bulk of fat people actually want to lose weight. To be a little more charitable and specific; they don't want to do what is required to lose the weight. That's because what is required is a radical and permanent change to dietary habits and exercise patterns. You don't go on a diet to get off a diet you change how you eat forever. You don't start an exercise regimen to stop it you make daily or near daily exercise a non-negotiable part of your existence. And this is all very not easy to do. Is it asking too much? I'd say it's relevant to what you actually want (see my first sentence here). Where are your relative values and how strong are they in their ranked order?
Most people (myself definitely included) prioritize stability, loss aversion, and generalized "comfort" in life. If you're not yet fat / obese you can have those things (and stay in ok shape for at least a while) by simply watching what you eat and staying generally active. If you're already fat/obese - you have to actively chose to value a difficult to achieve future state over immediate comfort, stability, familiarity. Wha'ts more, getting to that future state requires and incredible amount of intermediate DIScomfort. So you're not only changing your relative value preferences (which is in itself difficult) you're also committing to objective ow this hurts pain for at least some amount of time. That's quite a bit to ask (side note: this is, I think, the same mechanism by which people stay in jobs they don't like even though it's often fairly easy to move to a better job if you aren't time pressured).
But this doesn't mean fat people are ethically lazy or something. Not at all. I view it as self-knowledge problem. If you love basketball, but are 5'3", you're never going to the NBA no matter how hard you practice. If you have a certain genetic profile, you need to be aware that should you cross that threshold into actually fat/obese you might be there forever unless you make some pretty herculean life alterations. Prevention is key and, even then, not perfect.
As I write this, I realize it would be easy to take my argument all the way to "fat acceptance" which I am utterly opposed to for a whole host of reasons. Yet, here I am. Huh. I'll have to keep thinking on that.
More options
Context Copy link
Your arguments are completely irrational.
People make poor, counterproductive decisions they know will hurt them all the time. People stay in bad situations they know they should leave despite ongoing misery and self awareness. That fat people don't want to be fat and yet it's not enough to get them to sufficiently change their lifestyle is entirely explainable by human failings that affect all other areas of life.
As for fasting, most people can fast for a limited time. They can also do a vigorous exercise program for a limited time (the "New Year's resolution" phenomenon). Usually they'll lose weight. The weight doesn't stay off because the lifestyle changes don't stick.
Yes, fat people are aware they need to eat less and exercise more to lose weight. The problem is twofold: (1) They don't. (2) If they do, they become discouraged when they realize they have to keep doing it, and they stop.
More options
Context Copy link
Is this the equivalent of a pride of lions, a murder of crows, etc.?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I agree with your "[willpower]>[forces against]" framing. Two things I want to add to that. First, you can modify both ends of the equation. Using your willpower makes it stronger. You can modify your situation to remove forces against. Second, I think there's a fuzzy split between willpower and what I'm going to tentatively call agency. Willpower seems like actively resisting or continuing: Keeping up a run or powering through the last set. Agency is more like starting in the first place from inactivity. Calling up someone to be a gym buddy, or getting off the couch. I think we have more of a crisis of agency than of willpower.
your description of agency vs willpower seems to be a distinction without a difference to me; I don't see any reason to differentiate between the mental process that has you starting a thing against resistance vs continuing a thing against resistance except for magnitudes, similar to increasing the velocity of an object from 0 to 1 vs increasing it from 1 to 2; it's all just force applied. Perhaps the magnitude of willpower required to start exercising can be greater than the magnitude required to keep exercising when you already are, but it seems to be the same process to me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In the past richer people were also fatter, so fat was an indicator of higher social status. This has changed recently, but the rapid rise of prevalence of obesity meant that the inversion of this preference can't be that strong, as it would entail stigmatization of a large majority.
In the past the rich paid for being more able to endulge in the all-present sin of gluttony by worse health outcomes. Today medicine has come far, and both Musk and Trump have sufficent resources to purchase many QALY for themselves.
In the case of executives, I think the explanation is generally that time opportunity cost of exercise is not worth the benefit, and I would guess that social and stress eating is a factor.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I do not assert moral superiority and I do not think people who muster the will to exercise and lose weight are morally superior to those who don't. That's all projection on your part.
Willpower is probably another nature/nurture combination, and the will to lose weight specifically probably comes from a combination of inherent ability to stick to a goal, and the level of your motivation to accomplish that goal. I am not morally impugning fat people (though I admit feeling a great deal of disdain for the "fat acceptance" movement and HAES, which I think is 90% cope). I am saying that the solution is the obvious one, we understand the science pretty well, and just so stories like Set Point Theory and "microbiomes that make you want to be more sedentary" are not well-supported scientifically.
Of course exercise is more difficult for some people than for others. People's bodies undoubtedly affect how enjoyable exercise is and how much aptitude they have for it. People have different metabolisms. And people enjoy different things. There are people who genuinely enjoy exercise; most don't. For fat people in particular, exercise is particularly grueling because they get tired more easily and they probably do experience more pain. Most people who are out of shape find exercising painful (because your body will protest when forced to do things it isn't accustomed to doing) and fat adds extra weight and fatigue to that. All of this is true, and none of this contradicts what I'm saying.
I used to be obese. Now I am slightly overweight (according to my BMI) though I don't look particularly overweight. I took it off with diet and exercise. I don't think I'm a paragon of virtue or willpower; I just reached a point where being fat sucked more than exercise did. Now my weight has remained steady for years (goes up a bit when I get lazy and snack more, goes down a bit when I am more disciplined). Those aren't moral judgments; they are just facts. I exercise regularly despite not particularly enjoying it, because I enjoy the feeling of having exercised, and the fact that I know I feel much better when I exercise regularly than when I don't. (I also do mostly weights and not enough cardio, even though I know I should do more cardio, because I don't like cardio. So obviously, my willpower and ability to do what I know I should be doing is not perfect.) I had back pain and shortness of breath that disappeared after I lost the weight. I am in better health than people much younger than me, just because I'm not fat. This all speaks to my motivation; I could very easily have taken another path (to just accepting that I'm going to be fat, and eating whatever I want) and I very nearly did. I can't tell you why I chose A over B, but I don't think it's because my Willpower stat is inherently higher. I do think my experience is (broadly but not universally) generalizeable; people can choose to do the thing. I don't particularly judge people who don't, because I know it's hard and not fun. But I also know it is a choice.
I'll bite the bullet and be the strawman here - yes, all else equal, people that are fit and maintain their weight are morally superior to those that don't. You can explain to me the complex biological underpinnings of why some people have a harder time doing that and I will still think they are morally inferior to people that do it. I grasp that compulsive liars and addicts may lack the same full capacity for agency as others, but I still think they're morally inferior to people that are honest and temperate. Ultimately, I judge someone's moral positioning by their actions and the traits exemplified by sloth and gluttony are poor ones.
Does this come off as smug, self-satisfied, and self-serving? I'm sure it does, but I'm not inclined to pretend people that ruin their bodies through a lack of agency aren't demonstrating a condemnable moral failing.
I guess, "all else equal," but that's a caveat that pretty much makes the generalization useless. Do you think a skinny smoker is morally superior to a fat non-smoker? Is a very fit guy who cheats on his wife morally superior to a fat guy who's a great husband?
Sure, I understand what you're saying here, and those who maintain (or lose) weight have something that makes them "better" in some sense than those who don't, but I think it's way too easy to get judgmental about such a common human failing. I reserve my scorn for those who make excuses or deny agency.
I suppose you can run those hypotheticals with any traits, but if you're thinking about whether a given trait is an indicator of morality, you pretty much have to consider it in a vacuum unless there's a clear interplay between the two. To my knowledge, fit men are not particularly prone to cheating on their wives. All else equal, men that cheat on their wives are immoral compared to men who are faithful. I'm sure that the cheaters, on average, have more opportunities and stronger sex drives - I don't care, the faithful men are still better men.
In real life, I'm unsurprisingly much less likely to have cause to be strident about the matter, it's not like I'm running up on random fat people to lecture them about their moral inferiority. As your hypotheticals illustrate, many of them will be wonderful people when considered across the totality of their person rather than just through the one lens. But yeah, at the end of the day, I think fitness is an important part of character and tends to build other important parts of character.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Way too many successful fat people IMO. Elon, Trump…
Right, but why do you contend that fat people lack motivation to not be fat, when it’s one of the most salient and omnipresent features of their life? There is nothing that should be more clearly motivating than being fit, which hints to a problem beyond motivation and willpower.
But this can be survivorship bias. What do you believe is special about your case that could have been utilized by the average fat American but wasn’t? We have studies on fat people and dieting / exercise regimens that show poor longterm retention.
Okay, but why were you more motivated than the average fat 40 year old who has seen relatives die, or who has received dire prognoses from their doctor? This is why motivation is a “just so” story. There’s no way to empirically validate that those who ameliorate or cure their obesity are, indeed, more motivated. And if could just as easily be something that boils down to (1) exercising is less painful, due to something related to health or microbiome, (2) food is less desirable, due to same reason.
Being able to stick to one goal doesn't necessarily apply to everything. Lots of very successful and driven people become alcoholics or addicts, can't stop smoking, seem unable to resist engaging in trivially discoverable infidelity or corruption, etc. You keep trying to make universal generalizations about the world that don't fit.
I didn't say fat people categorically lack the motivation to not be fat. Most fat people would like to not be fat. Some of them make an effort to lose weight, some don't, and some who make the effort succeed and some don't.
If you put a plate of cookies in front of me, I know I should only eat one and I definitely should not eat half a dozen. I can tell you from experience that sometimes I resist the temptation and sometimes I don't.
There is nothing special about me. The average fat American can do the same thing I did.
Yes, because controlling your diet and exercising for the rest of your life requires effort. The stat that fat activists often throw around ("90% of diets fail") besides not actually being born out in studies, also has a simple explanation: most people who go on a diet do it until they lose some amount of weight. Then they stop the diet, and gain the weight back. Obviously, temporarily decreasing your caloric intake will not be successful long-term.
I doubt I was more motivated. Sometimes people attempt to do things and they either succeed or fail, and their success or failure is a combination of numerous factors, some of them random. I don't think I have some special gene or metabolism that makes me able to do what other people cannot.
I don't think they are more motivated.
I suppose it could be, but this sounds very unscientific (and probably would have been discovered by now, since we can measure how much pain and desire people feel).
More options
Context Copy link
Why? There are plenty of things I’m vastly more motivated to do than keeping myself fit, so at least in my case, that statement is clearly inaccurate. I imagine the same holds true for most fat people as well.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link