Podcast appearances and mentions of Michael Inzlicht

The Israeli/American War against Iran continues. On today's panel we wrestle with the question of the war’s legality. In doing so, we reject US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s assertion that the US will fight this war with “no stupid rules of engagement,,” and his assertion that there will be “no politically correct wars,” and “no nation-building quagmire.” While he dismisses the importance of international laws on war, we do not. So, we ask, is this war legal? Are the tactics of Israeli and American militaries legal? Is Iran's response aligned with international law? [ dur: 40 mins. ] Gabor Rona is Professor of Practice at Cardozo Law School. He is the author of Venezuelan Boat Attacks: Utterly Unprecedented and Patently Predictable ,Is There a Way Out of the Non-International Armed Conflict Detention Dilemma? and State Responsibility to Respect, Protect and Fulfill Human Rights Obligations in Cyberspace . Jennifer Trahan is a Clinical Professor and Director of the Concentration in International Law and Human Rights at NYU's Center for Global Affairs. She is also Convenor of the Global Institute for the Prevention of Aggression, and is the author of Existing Legal Limits to the Use of the Veto in the Face of Atrocity Crimes. Her book forthcoming this spring is entitled: The Crime of Aggression and Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine Studies show that powerful people feel less empathy. What does that mean for societies? [ dur: 18mins. ] Michael Inzlicht is Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto. He is co-author of Stereotype Threat: Theory, Process, and Application and co-author of the article Power Changes How the Brain Responds to Others. This program is produced by Doug Becker, Ankine Aghassian, Maria Armoudian, Anna Lapin and Sudd Dongre. Politics and Activism, War / Weapons, Middle East, Iran, Israel, humanity

The best decision-makers aren't better at deciding. They're better at controlling when, where, and how they decide. It took me twenty years to figure that out. Most people spend that time trying harder: more discipline, more willpower, more resolve to think clearly under pressure. It doesn't work. That's when mindjacking wins. Not through force. Through the door you left unguarded. The answer isn't trying harder. It's building systems that protect your thinking before the pressure hits. By the end of this episode, you'll have four concrete strategies for doing exactly that, and a one-page system you'll build before we're done. And I have something else to share at the end. Something I've been working toward for twenty years. Let's get into it. Why Willpower Fails and Design Works Ulysses knew his ship would pass the island of the Sirens. He also knew the song was irresistible. Sailors who heard it became incapacitated and drove straight into the rocks. He didn't try to be stronger than it. He had his crew fill their ears with wax and tie him to the mast, with strict orders not to release him, no matter what he said when the music reached him. His calm self setting rules for his compromised self. That's the core of everything in this episode. These are called commitment devices. The decision gets made early, when your thinking is clear, before you're tempted to take the wrong path. Studies tracking self-imposed contracts found that when people added meaningful stakes to their commitments, their follow-through nearly doubled. Not because they became more virtuous, but because they'd taken the choice off the table at the moment they were most likely to get it wrong. Stop asking "How do I resist?" Start asking, "What can I decide now, so I don't have to decide under pressure?" Before you can build the right commitments, you need to know exactly where your thinking breaks down. Not decision-making in general. Yours. Finding Your Personal Vulnerability Think back across the last few months. Where did your thinking most clearly cost you? Some people stall. They keep researching past the point of useful information, using "I need more data" as cover for avoiding a commitment they know they need to make. Others make their worst calls at the end of long days. Saying yes when they mean no, because no requires energy they've already spent. Some get caught by urgency. A deadline appears, the pressure closes off their thinking, and they move fast. Only later do they discover the deadline was manufactured to do exactly that. Others walk into a room with a clear position and walk out agreeing with the loudest voice, unable to explain exactly when they shifted. And some defend decisions past the point where the evidence says stop, because stopping would mean admitting something about themselves they're not ready to face. Identify yours. Write it down before we go further. Your primary vulnerability is a design target, not a character flaw. You can't build around something you haven't named. Four Strategies for Protecting Your Judgment Strategy 1: Control When You Decide Every morning I put on the same thing: a black golf shirt, blue jeans, and cowboy boots. Same brands, same routine, no decisions. My wife tolerates it. I've stopped apologizing for it. It's not a fashion choice. It's a cognitive load choice. Your brain has a finite amount of decision-making capacity each day. Every trivial choice draws from the same reserve you need for the decisions that actually matter. What to wear, what to eat, which route to take. Eliminating those choices doesn't just save time. It protects the mental fuel you'll need later. Decision-making capacity isn't flat across the day. It peaks early, when you're rested and fresh. It degrades, measurably, as conditions erode. The same call made at 8 a.m. and at the end of your seventh consecutive meeting aren't equivalent. Same person, different machine. Pull up your calendar from the last two weeks. Look at when your biggest decisions actually happened. For most people, it's not in a calm moment with a clear head. It's in the hallway, on a rushed call, in the last fifteen minutes of a meeting that ran over. That's not bad luck. That's the default you haven't changed yet. Write a standing rule: no significant, hard-to-reverse commitments after a certain hour or after a certain number of back-to-back meetings without a mandatory pause. Hold it like a policy, not a preference. Because preferences are exactly what disappear under the conditions where you need them most. Strategy 2: Build Your Kitchen Cabinet One of the things I credit most for whatever success I've had in my career isn't a framework or a methodology. It's four people. I call them my kitchen cabinet. They've seen my best decisions and my worst ones. They know when I'm rationalizing. They know when I'm avoiding. And they are not afraid to call me out when I'm off the tracks. Here's what surprises people when I describe them. They're not senior executives. They're not peers from inside my industry. They don't work in any organization I've ever worked for. They're a deliberate mix: different backgrounds, different areas of expertise, different ways of seeing the world. One of them has been in my cabinet for nearly thirty years. I trust them completely, and everything we discuss stays between us. That independence is the whole point. The people inside your organization have something at stake in your decisions. Your peers have their own agendas, even when they don't mean to. Your boss has a preferred outcome. None of that makes them bad advisors. It just means they can't give you the one thing you need most when a decision gets hard: a perspective with no skin in the game. Your kitchen cabinet can. Because they have nothing to gain or lose from what you decide, they can ask the question everyone else in the room is avoiding. They can tell you what you don't want to hear. And they'll do it before you've committed, when it still matters, not after the fact, when all they can do is watch. Build yours deliberately. Four to six people is enough. Prioritize independence over seniority. Look for people who will push back, not people who will reassure. And make the relationship reciprocal. You show up for their decisions too. The cabinet only works if the trust runs both ways and the conversations stay private. You don't need them for every decision. You need them for the ones where you're most at risk of fooling yourself. Strategy 3: Write Your Position Before the Room Fills Up I've sat in enough rooms where I walked in with a clear position and walked out having said almost none of it. Not because I was wrong. Because by the time the senior voice spoke and the heads started nodding, my own analysis felt less certain than it did twenty minutes earlier. The brain doesn't just nudge your answer when social pressure arrives. It rewrites your perception. What you saw before entering the room changes to match what the room already believes, before you've consciously registered the pressure. Before any consequential group decision, write down where you stand. Three sentences. What you believe. What evidence supports it. What would genuinely change your mind. A note on your phone is enough. It doesn't need to be formal. It needs to be external, because your memory will quietly revise itself once the social pressure arrives. Those three sentences are a record of what you actually concluded before the room had a chance to work on you. When the discussion moves toward a position, you can then distinguish between "I'm updating because I heard something new" and "I'm caving because the silence is uncomfortable." Without that record, those two experiences feel identical in the moment, and one of them will reliably win. Strategy 4: Assume the Failure Before You Commit In August 2016, Delta Air Lines ran a routine scheduled test of the backup generator at their Atlanta data center. A transformer caught fire. Three hundred of Delta's 7,000 servers, improperly connected to a single power source, went dark. They couldn't fail over to backups. The servers that stayed online couldn't communicate with the ones that hadn't. The entire system collapsed: passenger check-in, baggage, websites, kiosks, and airport displays. Gone. Delta cancelled 2,100 flights over three days. $150 million in losses. Thousands of passengers slept on airport floors. The system had redundancy designed in. The backup had been tested. The specific failure mode, servers with no alternate power connection, was a known vulnerability that nobody had ever stopped to question. A year before the fire, cognitive psychologist Gary Klein, the researcher who developed the pre-mortem, had written a thought experiment describing almost this exact scenario. Imagine, he wrote, that an airline CEO gathered top management and asked: "Every one of our flights around the world has been cancelled for two straight days. Why?" People would think terrorism first. The real progress, Klein said, would come from mundane answers: a reservation system down, a backup that didn't activate, a cascade nobody had traced in advance. Delta built what Klein described. Without running the question that would have found it. The pre-mortem is that question. Before you commit to a significant decision, assume it's six months later, and the decision failed. Not possibly, but definitely. Then ask: What went wrong? What did you know but not say? What did someone sense but find too awkward to raise in the room? "What could go wrong?" produces hedged answers. People soften concerns to preserve harmony. "It failed. What happened?" changes the psychology entirely. You're not being negative. You're being forensic. The things that surface, the concerns that felt impolitic, the risks that seemed too small to mention, are frequently the ones that end up mattering most. Each of these four strategies is a designed defense against the same thing: the systematic capture of your judgment before you notice it happening. That's mindjacking. And now you have four ways to make it harder. But strategies only work if you remember to use them. And you won't remember. Not when you're depleted at 7pm, not when the room is staring at you, not when your identity is on the line. That's not a character flaw. That's just how it works. So we're going to take everything you just learned and put it on one page. A page you'll sign. A page you'll keep somewhere you'll actually see it. Your calm self, right now, is building the system your future self will thank you for. The people who shape outcomes consistently aren't necessarily the sharpest thinkers in the room. They're the ones whose judgment is still intact when everyone else's has degraded. That's a practice, not a talent. The full video and written deep-dive on mindjacking are linked below at philmckinney.com/mindjacking. Your Decision Constitution Remember the Ulysses insight from the beginning of this episode. Your calm self setting rules for your compromised self. That's exactly what this is. A Decision Constitution is one page. Five commitments. Written when your thinking is clear, so the version of you under pressure has something to stand on. Not a to-do list. Not a productivity hack. A contract with yourself. Here's what goes in it. Your Timing Rule. You already know that your judgment degrades as the day runs long. So name it. What are the specific conditions (time of day, number of back-to-back meetings, hours of sleep) that disqualify you from making a high-stakes, hard-to-reverse call without a mandatory pause first? Write that line. Hold it like a policy. Your Pre-Decision List. Think of the situations where you consistently make choices you later regret. The late-day request you said yes to when you meant no. The urgency that overrode your better judgment. Pick three. Write a standing rule for each, specific enough that you can invoke it without having to think. "I don't make new commitments without sleeping on it." That's a rule. "I'll try to be more careful" is not. Your Pre-Meeting Anchor. Before any meeting where a significant decision will be made, you write down where you stand. Three sentences. What you believe, what evidence supports it, and what would genuinely change your mind. Not in the car on the way. Before. That record is what protects your thinking from the room. Your Pre-Mortem Trigger. Name the threshold that makes a decision significant enough to require a pre-mortem. A dollar amount. An impact on more than a certain number of people. A commitment lasting longer than six months. Whatever your threshold is, write it down. Once a decision crosses it, the pre-mortem is non-negotiable. Your Kitchen Cabinet Trigger. Your cabinet is only useful if you engage them before you've decided, not after. So name the conditions that require you to bring a decision to them first. A decision that's hard to reverse. A situation where you have significant personal stakes in the outcome. A moment where you notice everyone around you wants you to decide a certain way. A decision you find yourself avoiding thinking about clearly. Any one of those is enough. Two or more is non-negotiable. Now print out your decision constitution. Sign it. Put it somewhere you'll actually see it before the moments that count. This is your Ulysses contract. Your clear-headed self, right now, is setting the terms your compromised self will have to honor when the pressure is real, and the easy path is pointing the wrong way. Closing That's Part 2 of the Thinking 101 series. Fifteen episodes. If you've been here from the beginning, you've built something real. The series has been running for 21 weeks. The show behind it has been running for 20 years. And how we got here traces back to a single conversation. Twenty years ago, a mentor of mine, Bob Davis, gave me a challenge I couldn't shake. I'd asked him how I could ever repay him for what he'd done for my career. He laughed and said I couldn't. The only option, he said, was to pay it forward. That's why this show exists. That's why it has always existed. The show was called Killer Innovations because that's what felt right in 2005. Bold, a little provocative, built for a moment when podcasting was brand new, and nobody knew what it was supposed to be. Tens of millions of downloads later, we're still here. We have regular listeners in more than 50 countries. Some of you are younger than the podcast itself. But somewhere along the way, the show became something more specific. It stopped being about innovation tips and started being about the innovation decisions that actually shape outcomes. About the patterns underneath the decisions. About the skills that matter most when the pressure is real. On March 23rd, the show's 20th anniversary, we're making major changes. The podcast. The YouTube channel. All of it. And if you have thoughts about where we've been or where we're going, I want to hear them. There's a contact form at philmckinney.com. Send me a note. I'll see you on the 23rd.   Endnotes  "their follow-through nearly doubled": Gharad Bryan, Dean S. Karlan, and Scott Nelson, "Commitment Contracts," Yale Economics Department Working Paper No. 73 / Yale University Economic Growth Center Discussion Paper No. 980 (October 23, 2009). https://ssrn.com/abstract=1493378. The research draws on Karlan and co-founders' development of StickK.com, a commitment contract platform launched in 2008 at Yale. Platform data consistently shows that users who add meaningful stakes — financial or reputational — to their commitments achieve their goals at roughly double the rate of those who don't. The underlying mechanism was established in Karlan's earlier field research in the Philippines: Nava Ashraf, Dean Karlan, and Wesley Yin, "Tying Odysseus to the Mast: Evidence From a Commitment Savings Product in the Philippines," Quarterly Journal of Economics 121, no. 2 (May 2006): 635–672. doi:10.1162/qjec.2006.121.2.635. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/121/2/635/1884028. Pre-commitment works not by increasing virtue but by removing the decision from the moment of temptation. For accessible application, see Ian Ayres, Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (New York: Bantam, 2010), ISBN 978-0-553-80763-9. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/6794/carrots-and-sticks-by-ian-ayres/.   "a finite amount of decision-making capacity each day": Roy F. Baumeister, Ellen Bratslavsky, Mark Muraven, and Dianne M. Tice, "Ego Depletion: Is the Active Self a Limited Resource?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74, no. 5 (1998): 1252–1265. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252. https://roybaumeister.com/1998/03/16/ego-depletion-is-the-active-self-a-limited-resource/. Also see Roy F. Baumeister and John Tierney, Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength (New York: Penguin, 2011). Baumeister's strength model of self-control proposes that willpower, decision-making, and self-regulation all draw from a single, depletable resource — what he termed "ego depletion." Subsequent work has debated the precise mechanism, with some researchers arguing the effect is motivational rather than metabolic. The practical implication, however, is consistent across studies: decision quality degrades as the day progresses, and the effect is most pronounced for complex, high-stakes choices. For a summary of the current scientific debate on the mechanism, see Michael Inzlicht and Brandon J. Schmeichel, "What Is Ego Depletion? Toward a Mechanistic Revision of the Resource Model of Self-Control," Perspectives on Psychological Science 7, no. 5 (2012): 450–463. doi:10.1177/1745691612454134. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26168503/.   "It rewrites your perception": Gregory S. Berns, Jonathan Chappelow, Caroline F. Zink, Giuseppe Pagnoni, Megan E. Martin-Skurski, and Jim Richards, "Neurobiological Correlates of Social Conformity and Independence During Mental Rotation," Biological Psychiatry 58, no. 3 (August 1, 2005): 245–253. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.04.012. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15978553/.  This fMRI study at Emory University extended Solomon Asch's classic conformity experiments by imaging participants' brains as they conformed to or resisted incorrect group answers. The key finding: when participants went along with the group, the activity appeared not in the prefrontal cortex — the seat of conscious decision-making — but in the occipital-parietal network responsible for visual and spatial perception. In other words, participants who conformed weren't consciously deciding to lie; the group had altered what they actually perceived. Standing alone, by contrast, activated the amygdala, a region associated with emotional distress — consistent with the experience of social dissent as genuinely uncomfortable rather than merely inconvenient.   "Three hundred of Delta's 7,000 servers": Yevgeniy Sverdlik, "Delta: Data Center Outage Cost Us $150M," Data Center Knowledge, September 8, 2016. https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/outages/delta-data-center-outage-cost-us-150m.  Also see W. H. Highleyman, "Delta Air Lines Cancels 2,100 Flights Due to Power Outage," Availability Digest (September 2016). https://availabilitydigest.com/public_articles/1109/delta.pdf. On the morning of August 8, 2016, a fire triggered during a routine backup generator test at Delta's Atlanta data center caused a transformer failure. Approximately 300 of Delta's 7,000 servers were improperly connected to a single power source with no alternate feed, and when that feed failed, those servers went dark. Because those servers couldn't communicate with the rest of the system, the entire network collapsed. Delta cancelled roughly 2,100 flights over three days, leaving an estimated 250,000 passengers stranded. Total losses reached $150 million.   "cognitive psychologist Gary Klein, the researcher who developed the pre-mortem": Gary Klein, "Performing a Project Premortem," Harvard Business Review 85, no. 9 (September 2007): 18–19. https://hbr.org/2007/09/performing-a-project-premortem.  Klein developed the pre-mortem method over several decades of applied research in naturalistic decision-making. The technique asks teams to assume, before committing to a plan, that the plan has already failed — definitively, not possibly — and then work backward to identify causes. Klein's research found that this reframing dramatically increases the willingness of team members to surface concerns they would otherwise suppress to preserve group harmony. The method has since been endorsed by Nobel laureates Daniel Kahneman and Richard Thaler as a practical tool for reducing overconfidence in planning. For Klein's broader framework of naturalistic decision-making, see Gary Klein, Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998). https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262343251/sources-of-power/. 

Discover all of the podcasts in our network, search for specific episodes, get the Optimal Living Daily workbook, and learn more at: OLDPodcast.com. Episode 3890: Nir Eyal challenges the popular belief that willpower is a limited resource and reveals how this mindset can sabotage our ability to stay disciplined. Backed by research from Carol Dweck and Michael Inzlicht, the article reframes willpower as an emotion that fluctuates and can be managed, not something we "run out" of. Shifting this perspective can help us build resilience, make better decisions, and stop using "lack of willpower" as an excuse to quit. Read along with the original article(s) here: https://www.nirandfar.com/about-willpower/ Quotes to ponder: "Believing we do [run out of willpower] makes us less likely to accomplish our goals, by providing a rationale to quit when we could otherwise persist." "Ego-depletion is essentially caused by self-defeating thoughts and not by any biological limitation." "Rather than telling ourselves we failed because we're somehow deficient, we should offer self-compassion by speaking to ourselves with kindness when we experience setbacks." Episode references: Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs: https://www.jsad.com Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: https://www.pnas.org Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Discover all of the podcasts in our network, search for specific episodes, get the Optimal Living Daily workbook, and learn more at: OLDPodcast.com. Episode 3890: Nir Eyal challenges the popular belief that willpower is a limited resource and reveals how this mindset can sabotage our ability to stay disciplined. Backed by research from Carol Dweck and Michael Inzlicht, the article reframes willpower as an emotion that fluctuates and can be managed, not something we "run out" of. Shifting this perspective can help us build resilience, make better decisions, and stop using "lack of willpower" as an excuse to quit. Read along with the original article(s) here: https://www.nirandfar.com/about-willpower/ Quotes to ponder: "Believing we do [run out of willpower] makes us less likely to accomplish our goals, by providing a rationale to quit when we could otherwise persist." "Ego-depletion is essentially caused by self-defeating thoughts and not by any biological limitation." "Rather than telling ourselves we failed because we're somehow deficient, we should offer self-compassion by speaking to ourselves with kindness when we experience setbacks." Episode references: Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs: https://www.jsad.com Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: https://www.pnas.org Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Discover all of the podcasts in our network, search for specific episodes, get the Optimal Living Daily workbook, and learn more at: OLDPodcast.com. Episode 3890: Nir Eyal challenges the popular belief that willpower is a limited resource and reveals how this mindset can sabotage our ability to stay disciplined. Backed by research from Carol Dweck and Michael Inzlicht, the article reframes willpower as an emotion that fluctuates and can be managed, not something we "run out" of. Shifting this perspective can help us build resilience, make better decisions, and stop using "lack of willpower" as an excuse to quit. Read along with the original article(s) here: https://www.nirandfar.com/about-willpower/ Quotes to ponder: "Believing we do [run out of willpower] makes us less likely to accomplish our goals, by providing a rationale to quit when we could otherwise persist." "Ego-depletion is essentially caused by self-defeating thoughts and not by any biological limitation." "Rather than telling ourselves we failed because we're somehow deficient, we should offer self-compassion by speaking to ourselves with kindness when we experience setbacks." Episode references: Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs: https://www.jsad.com Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: https://www.pnas.org Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Learning to play a musical instrument is hard. So is trying to run a marathon, writing a term paper, and caring for a sick child. These things involve frustration, pain, and disappointment — yet we do them anyway. This week, in part two of our look at the allure of suffering, psychologist Michael Inzlicht explains what we get from doing things that are difficult, and why the things we think will make us happy often do not.Hidden Brain is hitting the road this summer! Join Shankar in a city near you as he shares key insights from the first decade of the show. For more info, and to purchase tickets, go to hiddenbrain.org/tour. 

Empathic Machines with Michael InzlichtIn this episode of the Behavioral Design Podcast, hosts Aline and Samuel are joined by Michael Inzlicht, professor of psychology at the University of Toronto and co-host of the podcast Two Psychologists Four Beers. Together, they explore the surprisingly effortful nature of empathy—and what happens when artificial intelligence starts doing it better than we do.Michael shares insights from his research into empathic AI, including findings that people often rate AI-generated empathy as more thoughtful, emotionally satisfying, and effortful than human responses—yet still prefer to receive empathy from a human. They unpack the paradox behind this preference, what it tells us about trust and connection, and whether relying on AI for emotional support could deskill us over time.This conversation is essential listening for anyone interested in the intersection of psychology, emotion, and emerging AI tools—especially as machines get better at sounding like they care.--Interesting in collaborating with Nuance? If you'd like to become one of our special projects, email us at hello@nuancebehavior.com or book a call directly on our website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠nuancebehavior.com.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Support the podcast by joining ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Habit Weekly Pro⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ 

The paradox of hard work Guest: Dr. Michael Inzlicht, Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Should Canada create a task force to deal with the US? Guest: Vincent Rigby, Former National Security and Intelligence Advisor to the Prime Minister of Canada and Co-Author of the Report The paradox of hard work Guest: Dr. Michael Inzlicht, Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto What's causing the ‘Torpedo Bat' mania? Guest: Olivier Lepine, Co-General Manager of B45 Baseball We finally know how parrots talk Guest: Dr. Michael Long, Professor of Neuroscience and Physiology at New York University's Tandon School of Engineering How will Trump's tariffs impact global trade? Guest: Gary Hufbauer, Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics Deconstructing Trump's case for a trade war with Canada Guest: Dan Ciuriak, Senior Fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What if everything you thought you knew about willpower and self-control was wrong? In this groundbreaking conversation, psychologist Michael Inzlicht challenges the famous "ego depletion" theory and reveals surprising new research on the true nature of self-regulation. Discover why conscientious people may be wired differently, how to leverage motivation for lasting change, and science-backed strategies to amplify your ability to stick to goals - without burning out your willpower. If you want to master self-discipline in a sustainable way, don't miss these fresh insights.You can find Michael at: Website | Speak Now Regret Later Substack | Episode TranscriptIf you LOVED this episode you'll also love the conversations we had with James Clear about atomic habits.Check out our offerings & partners: Join My New Writing Project: Awake at the WheelVisit Our Sponsor Page For Great Resources & Discount Codes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the aftermath of Oct. 7, Canada's broadly left-wing literary community took aim at the Giller Prize, Canada's foremost award for fiction, for its title sponsorship coming from Scotiabank. The financial institution, they have argued, has millions of dollars invested in an Israeli arms dealer—leading to backlash from pro-Palestinian writers who began boycotting the Giller for taking $100,000 as prize money, withdrawing as entrants and judges. The controversy has taken a lengthy, convoluted road since then, involving past winners speaking out critically of the Giller Prize; Elana Rabinovitch—the executive director of the prize and daughter of its founder—taking to traditional and social media to defend her organization's actions; and various half-measures by Scotiabank and Giller that have decreased (but not eliminated) their association with the Middle East conflict. Meanwhile, the competition is still going on, with a winner set to be announced on Nov. 18. With Avi Finegold in Canada this week, he joins his Bonjour Chai co-host, Phoebe Maltz Bovy, in her living room to unpack this mess and discuss whether the criticism is legitimate or yet another example of antisemitism, framing big-money Jews as string-pulling villains. They're joined by Michael Inzlicht, a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto and writer of the newsletter Speak Now Regret Later, who also happens to live in Phoebe's neighbourhood of Roncesvalles. Their community has seen a surge of pro-Palestinian signs in storefront windows over the past year, prompting the question: What do you do when controversial geopolitics come to your local coffee shop? Credits Hosts: Avi Finegold and Phoebe Maltz Bovy (@BovyMaltz) Production team: Michael Fraiman (producer), Zachary Kauffman (editor) Music: Socalled Support The CJN Subscribe to the Bonjour Chai Substack Subscribe to The CJN newsletter Donate to The CJN (+ get a charitable tax receipt) Subscribe to Bonjour Chai (Not sure how? Click here)

Self-control, the ability to resolve a conflict between two competing desires, is frequently touted as the golden key to success. But many of the most popular ideas about self-control are actually at odds with how it really operates.Here to unpack some of the lesser-understood and counterintuitive ideas around discipline and willpower is Michael Inzlicht, a professor of psychology who has studied the nature of self-regulation in depth. In the first part of our conversation, Michael unpacks the popular ego depletion model of willpower and how it hasn't held up to scientific scrutiny. We then turn to the surprising fact that the people who seem to exhibit a lot of self-control don't actually exercise a lot of discipline and restraint in their lives, that the achievement of goals is more a function of having virtuous desires, and what contributes to having those desires.Resources Related to the PodcastRelated studies:Perceived Mental Fatigue and Self-ControlA Multilab Preregistered Replication of the Ego-Depletion EffectEveryday Temptations: An Experience Sampling Study of Desire, Conflict, and Self-ControlNew Zealand Study on Trait Self-ControlThe Moralization of EffortThe Mundanity of ExcellenceThe Identity Model of Self-RegulationThe Effort Paradox: Effort Is Both Costly and ValuedAoM Podcast #961: The Mundanity of ExcellenceAoM Article: Motivation Over DisciplineAoM Article: ¿Tienes Ganas?Sunday Firesides: What Looks Like Grit, Is Often FitAoM Article: What Do You Want to Want?Connect With Michael InzlichtMichael's websiteMichael's faculty pageMichael on X

Mickey joins Yoel for the first new episode in nearly a year. We talk what's been up with the show, plans for the future, and what it feels like to briefly be (almost) internet-famous. In the second half of the show, we talk about expertise and prediction. When social scientists make predictions about the future, should we listen? How much should failures of prediction make us distrust expert advice more generally, and if so, how skeptical should we be?

Playing devil's advocate, Yoel and Mickey mount a criticism against the scientific study of mindfulness. What is mindfulness? Can we measure it? Is mindfulness-based therapy effective? Can mindfulness improve the quality of attention beyond the meditation cushion? Are effects of mindfulness mostly placebo effects produced by motivated practitioners and adherents? Should we be impressed by mindfulness meditation's supposed effects on conceptions of the self? Is mindfulness, in all its complexity, amenable to scientific study? Bonus: Is the value of diversity and inclusivity a core part of open science? This is a re-release of an episode first released on August 7, 2019.

Mickey returns with the hot takes you know and love. He joins Yoel and Alexa to discuss Jonathan Haidt's recent Atlantic article, "Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid." Haidt claims the answer is social media, but the cohosts aren't fully convinced. To shed a bit more light on the matter, they turn to an article by Amy Orben and Andrew Przybylski which provides a rigorous analysis of the relationship between social media use and well-being. In the end, Mickey admits to being a hypocrite, and Alexa makes a plug for Big Potato.

00:30 Tucker Carlson says the Dems hate you 15:00 The Epidemic's Wrongest Man - Alex Berenson, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/pandemics-wrongest-man/618475/ 21:00 The KMG Show EP 494 Monkeypox: AIDS 2?, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQrpXD0hlnQ 28:00 The Guru Playbook, https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/the-guru-playbook/13370440 32:00 Global health talks clouded by conspiracy theories about pandemic treaty, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/05/22/wha-who-pandemic-treaty/ 40:00 Tucker is wrong about WHO conspiracy, https://fortune.com/2022/05/20/world-health-organization-pandemic-treaty-tucker-carlson-tedros-covid-monkeypox-hepatitis-ebola/ 47:00 Biden says USA will go to war for Taiwan, https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/biden-america-will-defend-taiwan/ 1:03:00 Michael Inzlicht on Jordan Peterson, the Replication Crisis, Mindfulness, and Responsible Heterodoy, https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/interview-with-michael-inzlicht-on-the-replication-crisis-mindfulness-and-responsible-heterodoy 1:10:00 Kamala Harris - wine mom 1:14:00 Best rape alarms, https://www.bestreviews.guide/alarm-for-women?loc_redirect=UK 1:19:00 Humour me: why we laugh and what counts as funny, https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/psychology-of-comedy-why-we-laugh-and-what-counts-as-funny/13789304 1:20:00 Incongruity 1:21:00 Using humor to demonstrate our superiority 1:23:00 The Racialization of Transit Police Responses to Fare Evasion, https://www.american.edu/spa/news/spa-professors-examine-racialized-responses-to-metro-fare-evasion.cfm 1:30:30 Metaphysics and Parasociality, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43P0BDYwWoY 1:42:00 Vaccines Are Still Mostly Blocking Severe Disease, https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2022/05/covid-vaccine-effectiveness-severe-disease/629955/ 1:53:00 Meditation shows us our unruly minds 1:58:00 The Ayahausca experience of seeing a jaguar 2:00:00 Mickey Kaus On Replacing Great Replacement Theory, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt7ofT4ExJM 2:05:00 Adult Children of Alcoholics Syndrome: A Step By Step Guide To Discovery And Recovery, https://www.amazon.com/Adult-Children-Alcoholics-Syndrome-Discovery/dp/0553272799 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization%27s_response_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic#Reception https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-taiwan-and-the-who-world-health-assembly-biden-administration-antony-blinken-beijing-11652909009?mod=hp_opin_pos_6 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-world-is-likely-sicker-than-it-has-been-in-100-years-11644057003 Covid deaths WHO: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-61327778 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/21/business/world-economic-forum-davos-accomplish.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/13/business/china-zero-covid-xi.html https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/pandemics-wrongest-man/618475/ https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-world-is-likely-sicker-than-it-has-been-in-100-years-11644057003 https://www.unz.com/isteve/johnny-depp-is-winning-over-his-ex-wife-amber-heard-in-the-court-of-public-opinion-and-thats-just-wrong-because-ms-heard-is-a-woman/ https://fakenous.net/?p=2983

It's been a while but don't worry the DtG elves have been hard at work and a veritable bounty of content is on its way. The long-promised Jaron Lanier decoding is on its way next week, but this week the cross-overs continue as we are joined by Mickey Inzlicht, esteemed Psychologist, Research Excellence Faculty Scholar at the University of Toronto, and long term (retired) co-host of the Two Psychologists, Four Beers podcast. Mickey has now hung up his podcasting headphones but like an old prizefighter, we were able to lure him back into the limelight one last time with promises of unlimited booze and global fame. To keep Mickey from realising we could provide neither, we then subjected him to an unrelenting barrage of questions for almost two hours. Under our relentless questioning, Mickey gave up the goods on some precious long-buried information, including what it's like to work with Jordan Peterson, the details on his campaign to destroy introspection, and what he really thinks of the Gurus. We also manage to discuss some serious stuff like the state of contemporary psychology, the impact of the replication crisis, whether preregistration is always beneficial (it is, don't listen to Matt!), and to resolve the fundamental nature of the Self! Mickey is a wise egg, a funny guy, and a veteran podcaster and we really enjoyed this conversation so we hope you will too! Stick around at the end for some Tamler themed feedback and more pronunciation errors than you can shake a stick at. Back next week with Jaron Lanier! Links http://michaelinzlicht.com/ (Mickey's Homepage) https://www.fourbeers.com/27 (Two Psychologists Four Beers 27: Against Mindfulness) https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html (Bernard Schiff's Article on Jordan Peterson for the Toronto Star: I was Jordan Peterson's strongest supporter. Now I think he's dangerous.) https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/full/10.1027/1864-9335/a000398 (Inzlicht, M., & Friese, M. (2019). The past, present, and future of ego depletion. Social Psychology.) Friese, M., Loschelder, D. D., Gieseler, K., Frankenbach, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2019). Is ego depletion real? An analysis of arguments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(2), 107-131. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/30/facebook-emotion-study-breached-ethical-guidelines-researchers-say (Guardian article about that Facebook Study) https://myresearchspace.uws.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/10993811/2018_12_13_Hoehl_et_al_Over_Imitation.pdf (Hoehl, S., Keupp, S., Schleihauf, H., McGuigan, N., Buttelmann, D., & Whiten, A. (2019). ‘Over-imitation': A review and appraisal of a decade of research. Developmental Review, 51, 90-108.)

Personality psychologist and methodologist Julia Rohrer joins the show to talk about causal claims, strategic ambiguity, and how tough it is to tell what empirical claims many psychology papers are making. To illustrate, we subject Yoel's first paper, "Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals," to some vigorous post-publication peer review. We also discuss what makes Julia most hopeful about psychology, as well as the recent progress in alcohol-free beer. Special Guest: Julia Rohrer.

Michael Inzlicht. Michael is research excellence faculty scholar at the University of Toronto, with appointments in the Department of Psychology and in the Rotman School of Management. He's published more than 100 peer reviewed journal articles and book chapters, and he's edited two books. His work has been featured in media outlets around the world, including The New York Times, The Globe Mail, BBC News Time, The Daily Telegraph and the CBC, among many others. Michael is also co-host of the world famous podcast, Two Psychologists and Four beers.

Paul Bloom joins us to talk about why we want to suffer. Sometimes it's a means to an end, but sometimes we desire it for its own sake. Among other things, we talk about mountain-climbing, whether you'd want to run just the end of the marathon, experience machines, BDSM, and parenting. Plus, a very special extra guest host, kidney donation, pronouns, and trigger warnings. Special Guest: Paul Bloom.

In this episode we learn about self-regulation, willpower and goal pursuit. Michael Inzlicht is a professor of psychology with a specific interest in understanding the underlying mechanisms of self-control. Here he talks about different models to describe the self-regulatory process and we discuss which components makes for a more successful pursuit of goals. Through this episode you can learn ways to reflect on and develop your own process of creating, working on and achieving goals in your life.

Mickey and Yoel welcome repeat guest Ted Slingerland to talk about his new book "Drunk: How We Sipped, Danced, and Stumbled Our Way to Civilization," in which he makes the case for alcohol. Also, why are Yoel's guns out, and what was Mickey's worst trip? Special Guest: Edward (Ted) Slingerland.

Mickey, Alexa, and Yoel break down "Breaking the Social Media Prism," a new book arguing that social media reinforces our pre-existing political beliefs and polarizes us against the other side. Plus, HUGE NEWS about who's hosting the show. Also, Yoel gets a French lesson.

Journalist and podcaster Jesse Singal joins the show to talk about the enduring popularity of social-psychological quick fixes and how they go wrong. Plus: what is wrong with how the media covers science? Special Guest: Jesse Singal.

Neuroscientist and addiction researcher Carl Hart joins the show to talk drug legalization. Why does he think all drugs should be legal? What are some common myths about drug use and addiction? And how has his personal experience as a regular drug user influenced his views? Bonus: What drugs should we try next? Special Guest: Carl Hart.

"You Might Have a Point" is a podcast that features interviews with guests who specialize in one or more of a broad range of subjects, including philosophy, psychology, politics, public policy, journalism, and culture. In this episode, Stephen Dause interviews the hosts of the Two Psychologists, Four Beers (https://www.fourbeers.com/) podcasts, Michael Inzlicht (https://twitter.com/minzlicht) and Yoel Inbar (https://twitter.com/yorl). They discuss their own podcast, the intent behind it, and the reception they've gotten from academics and the public at large. In the second segment, Stephen talks with Michael and Yoel about the social construct theory of emotion, the role that emotion and intuition plays in how we respond to political events, the extent to which the IAT is a valid and reliable psychological measure, and more. All views expressed on this podcast are the opinions of those expressing them and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization. You can reach me on Twitter at @StephenDause (https://twitter.com/StephenDause) or subscribe to notifications about new blog posts and podcast episodes at @have_point (https://twitter.com/have_point). You can also email me at stephen@youmighthaveapoint.com.

Mickey Inzlicht wanted to be a dentist when he grew up. But unfortunately he only made it as far as Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Toronto, with a joint appointment in the Rotman School of Management. He represents one psychologist and two beers worth of the Two Psychologists Four Beers podcast. He's someone who I look up to a whole lot, and there's a lot about what he's been able to do in his career that I'd like to be able to do in my own: successful podcast, professor in social neuroscience (similar topic to the lab I'm doing my PhD in), strong family life, and seems to have a lot of fun doing all that stuff. He's done a lot of excellent work over the course of his career, my favorite of which is the effort paradox which is the idea that the most effort something costs us to pull off the more we value it. The paradox is that we are still for the most part effort averse creatures, try to avoid unnecessary hard work, and are unlikely to begin things that we think we necessitate a ton of it. In this episode we talk about his background in psychology, especially as a first generation college student. Mickey gets into his three top productivity tips that work for him. We also talk shop about pods, how he started his, as well as the podcast ecosystem generally. We wrap up discussing effort, value, meaning, and other topics related to Mickey's research. Mickey's Twitter: @minzlicht Mickey's Pod: https://fourbeers.fireside.fm/ Cody's Twitter: @__cek Cody's Newsletter: https://www.codykommers.com/newsletter

Michael Inzlicht is a Research Excellence Faculty Scholar at the University of Toronto. His primary appointment is as Professor in the Department of Psychology, but he is also cross-appointed as Professor at the Rotman School of Management. Michael conducts research that sits at the boundaries of social psychology, cognitive science, and neuroscience. Although he has published papers on the topics of prejudice, academic performance, and religion, his most recent interests have been in the topics of self-control, where he borrows methods from affective and cognitive neuroscience to understand the underlying nature of self-control, including how it is driven by motivation. Michael completed his B.Sc. in Anatomical Sciences at McGill University in 1994, his Ph.D. in Experimental Psychology at Brown University in 2001, and his postdoctoral fellowship in Applied Psychology at New York University in 2004. He has published more than 100 peer-reviewed and edited two . His work has been featured in around the world, including The New York Times, The Globe and Mail, BBC News, TIME, The Daily Telegraph, and the CBC, among many others. His research and teaching have been recognized with the Wegner Theoretical Innovation Prize, the SPSSI Louise Kidder Early Career Award, the Ontario government's Early Researcher Award, the ISCON Best Social Cognition Paper Award, the Principal's Research Award (University of Toronto Scarborough), and the UofT Scarborough Professor of the Year Award. He is currently an Associate Editor of Psychological Science.

------------------Support the channel------------ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter PayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuy PayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9l PayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpz PayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9m PayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao ------------------Follow me on--------------------- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedissenteryt/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheDissenterYT Anchor (podcast): https://anchor.fm/thedissenter Dr. Michael Inzlicht is a Research Excellence Faculty Scholar at the University of Toronto. His primary appointment is as Professor in the Department of Psychology, but he is also cross-appointed as Professor at the Rotman School of Management. Dr. Inzlicht conducts research that sits at the boundaries of social psychology, cognitive science, and neuroscience. Although he has published papers on the topics of prejudice, academic performance, and religion, his most recent interests have been in the topics of self-control, where he borrows methods from affective and cognitive neuroscience to understand the underlying nature of self-control, including how it is driven by motivation. In this episode, we focus most of our conversation of self-control and things related to it. First, I ask about social neuroscience, and what Dr. Inzlicht thinks are the kinds of insights we can get from neuroscience about social psychology phenomena. We then get into self-control, and talk about what is it, and the concept of self-control strength. We address a paper from 2018 that tried to replicate Walter Mischel's marshmallow test, and the capacity to delay gratification. We also refer to one aspect of the recent APA guidelines for psychological practice with men and boys, namely the repression/suppression of emotions. Still about self-control, we discuss the interplay between emotion and cognition, the life outcomes associated with this ability, and if there are any good interventions proven to improve it. We then tackle aspects of the replication crisis in Psychology, and go through some examples of phenomena that have recently been questioned, like the ego-depletion effect and stereotype threat. -- Follow Dr. Inzlicht's work: Personal website: http://bit.ly/2REaBTV Two Psychologists Four Beers podcast: http://bit.ly/2PAjLy3 -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: KARIN LIETZCKE, ANN BLANCHETTE, PER HELGE LARSEN, LAU GUERREIRO, JERRY MULLER, HANS FREDRIK SUNDE, YEVHEN BODRENKO, AIRES ALMEIDA, BERNARDO SEIXAS, HERBERT GINTIS, RUTGER VOS, RICARDO VLADIMIRO, BO WINEGARD, VEGA GIDEY, CRAIG HEALY, OLAF ALEX, PHILIP KURIAN, JONATHAN VISSER, DAVID DIAS, ANJAN KATTA, JAKOB KLINKBY, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, JOHN CONNORS, PAULINA BARREN, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, DAN DEMETRIOU, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ARTHUR KOH, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, MAX BEILBY, COLIN HOLBROOK, SUSAN PINKER, THOMAS TRUMBLE, PABLO SANTURBANO, AND SIMON COLUMBUS! A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, ROSEY, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, ILEWELLYN OSBORNE, IAN GILLIGAN, SERGIU CODREANU, AND LUIS CAYETANO! AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, MICHAL RUSIECKI!

Intro: Hi, welcome to My Creativity - the podcast about being creative and producing output. I'm your host Surrey I reveal how I work, my projects, my process… well, my creativity. From the planning and goal setting, to how I stay accountable for my output, to the way ideas pop into my head and to the frameworks I use to stimulate my creativity and formalise it.Next weeks goals: exit plan season 3 formatted more website: specifically - add social icons to exit plan episodes - create product pages for shopEnergy Multiple people have at various times asked how it is I can get anything done first thing in the morning or after work. Isn't my mind fried? Well, obviously it isn't. But why? Brendon Burchard, author of High Performance Habits, likes to say a power station doesn't have energy it creates it. Well that's all well and good but I know there was once a time when the thought of doing anything except staring at TV or playing computer games was well beyond me. My mind was fried at the end of the day. I'm a computer programmer, analyst and technical architect during my day job. Suffice to say my main tool of trade is my brain. So it's reasonable that after using it all day to think through IT problems, develop new solutions and understand complex relationships between different pools of data my tank would be dry. But I've since learned a secret that put a stop to that. Want to hear it? It's pretty dumb. Ok, your mental reserves - your strength of willpower - is limited only by your belief that it is limited. What? I know how you feel. That's how I felt when I first heard it. But I found that after reading the research on the topic and practicing mindfulness that it not only started to make sense but started to work.Old school of thought: It was previously thought that willpower was a pool that got depleted during the day. Ego depletion model it is called. But more recent research has failed to duplicate that result. Additionally after some experimentation it was found we have essentially unlimited willpower. In part this comes back to growth mindset versus fixed mindset. If you don't know what I'm talking about then go back and listen to episode 2 where I talk about Carol Dweck's work on mindset. The short version, and there are complications and subtleties involved for sure is: In a study conducted by the Stanford psychologist Carol Dweck and her colleagues, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Dweck concluded that signs of ego depletion were observed only in test subjects who believed willpower was a limited resource. Those participants who did not see willpower as finite did not show signs of ego depletion.Michael Inzlicht, a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto and the principal investigator at the Toronto Laboratory for Social Neuroscience, believes willpower is not a finite resource but instead acts like an emotion. Just as we don’t “run out” of joy or anger, willpower ebbs and flows based on what’s happening to us and how we feel. Viewing willpower through this lens has profound implications.So motivation and willpower is like an emotion. We can't run out of it but it does mean we need to manage our experience of it so it is sustainable. Just like we don't want to stop feeling sadness but rather we want to manage it so it is less likely to become depression. We want to manage our willpower and motivation so it doesn't desert us when we want it and neeed it. So what are some things to keep in mind?The number one thing that keeps our energy levels up is doing something we enjoy and / or find purpose in. Multi-tasking kills motivation and willpower, Lack of sleep prevents us from focussing and stops our bodies from functioning correctly at all, Repeating unhelpful stories about ourselves pushes the fixed mindset.What have I done and what do I do to keep my energy up and keep me motivated? eat well. Forget any special diet. You know how to eat well, you know what you shouldn't eat. The thing that is missing is knowing why you should eat well. We all know our diet should comprise primarily of fruit and vegetables that we prepare ourselves. IE: low processing before we get our hands on them. This is important because the types of processing we can do in our homes is different from the types of processing that can be done industrially and it is the fruit and veg that does us good, not the additives used to ensure shelf life and good appearance. Why eat well? Our bodies and brains have evolved over millions of years to perform their function while consuming fruit, veg and wild caught or grass fed meat and fish. You can forego the meat if you prefer and many cultures do, so obviously that can be done. If we give our bodies what they were built to use they will work the way they are meant to work. That's why we eat right. Personally I use intermittent fasting. I initially tried the 5/2 diet which is 2 days of the week without eating (technically you can have like 500 calories or such, but I found it easier to skip altogether). But I found the 2 days fasting just too tricky to maintain and I'd be starving hungry and not feeling energised at all. Others have great success. I instead to 16/8 ro 18/6 fasting. Which means 16 - 18 hours without calorie intake with just 6 - 8 hours to eat. It sounds tricky but what it really means is I don't eat breakfast until 1pm. So easy to do. I just go to work with my breakfast in a thermos and eat it after I've been for my lunchtime run. I get home at 6:30pm and generally dinner is ready so I eat and stop eating about 7-7:30. It's that easy. I initially would get hungry but now I'm so used to it. I think because it is every day I retain the same routine and that becomes my pattern. But I'm a creature of routine and predictable patterns (that is, the patterns are predictable to me though others may have the illusion that I'm spontaneous. Except my wife. She knows I can't handle sudden course changes and I need warning or my brain goes haywire. So my apparently spontaneous actions are actually planned moments of spontenaity). exercise daily. Again. We all know this. It isn't hidden secret sauce known only to a select few. We all know we should exercise often and regularly. I walk the dog, garden, run, ride and do body weight resistance training. Others might walk, swim and dance. At the least you should walk for half an hour a day. It can be done while doing other stuff like shopping, talking, or listening to podcasts. work on the train in the morning. Watch netflix on the train home. I work on the train in the morning on my scripts, books and other creative stuff. By engaging in something I love first thing I keep my energy high. Netflix on the train home keeps me consuming sci fi and fantasy and allows me to switch mental modes from work to free imagination. I have stopped watching television and reduced game playing to 20-30 minutes maximum once or twice a week. This is because I gain no additional benefit from these activities. TV is just full of ads for things I don't care about or presents news designed to incite fear or anger. I can get all the video entertainment I need on demand without ads and so do it on the train on the way home or in the evening with my family. get to bed at a decent time on the weekend so I'm up at 6:30 - 7am and able to get stuff done before the day starts. By 9am I've usually had a good hour of my work, the chance to sit and enjoy a slow coffee, done the dishes and other bits and pieces. So i can go out with the family or work around the house. Sleep is so important. Forget these people who say you aren't committed unless your up at 4:30am There's nothing magical about that time and it is a false economy as it means you need to be in bed by 8:30pm or you will become chronicaly sleep deprived which is the opposite of being productive. I write my goals down and always, always refer them back to my annual priorities which have been aligned to my mission goals. This way i know i am always moving forwards. With goals that lead toward my mission and my mission derived from my passion I maintain a sense of forward momentum. Every week I report on this podcast the tasks I've completed and goals I've reached. By seeing those goals tick off I retain a sense of purpose to my activities. And one of the biggest things i do is mindful result visualisation. You'll hear similar things from the law of attraction, the secret and others. But it isn't magic or "the universe" sending things to me. It is a way of enjoying the feeling of success before you have it. Sort of the opposite of worry. Worry is disliking the feeling of failure before it happens and for some reason so many people do it. I work hard every day to enjoy ahead of time the feeling of excitement and elation from achievement. It means I make decisions that head toward success rather than steer away from failure. If you can see the difference. mind you, failure is just natures way of teaching you how to succeed so don't be afraid of that in the slightest.So that's energy.next week is an interview I did with Fox Ward.new goals: - exit plan - send out season 3 scripts with a deadline for the lines to return. - Add social links and feed links to my other podcast episode pages. - finish first draft up to chapter 3 of book 2

What exactly is willpower and how do we get more of it? Willpower researcher Michael Inzlicht joins host Keith McArthur to talk about his research into self-control, and why the best way to master willpower might be to avoid having to rely on it. Feedback / Connect: Subscribe to My Instruction Manual on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify and anywhere else great podcast are found Visit MyInstructionManual.com for shownotes, more great content and to sign up the email newsletter Email: keith@myinstructionmanual.com Keith on Twitter: @KeithMcArthur Join our Facebook page and our Self-Help Book Club on Facebook Find us on Pinterest, Instagram and YouTube Download a free copy of 18 Steps to Own Your Life by clicking HERE Purchase Winning Resolutions HERE Episode 59 Show Notes [00:00] Welcome and Intro Keith discusses: Walter Mischel and the Marshmallow test [2:15] Roy Baumeister and Ego Depletion [4:55] [7:40] Featured interview with Michael Inzlicht Michael Inzlicht is a professor of social psychology at the University of Toronto with a focus on the study of self-control. He is co-host of the Two Psychologists, Four Beers podcast. In this conversation, Keith and Michael discuss: How Michael got into researching willpower [8:00] Is glucose the "limited resource" that leads to ego depletion? [12:30] Inzlicht's research into self-control and emotion [18:00] What can we do to boost self-control? [22:00] [31:30] Where to find Michael Twitter: @minzlicht Podcast: Two Psychologists, Four Beers [34:00] Closing words

Today we have Dr. Michael Inzlicht on the podcast. Dr. Inzlicht's  primary appointment at the University of Toronto is as professor in the Department of Psychology, but he is also cross-appointed as Professor at the Roman School of Management, and he is a Research Fellow at the Behavioral Economics in Action group. Michael conducts research that sits at the boundaries of social psychology, cognitive science, and neuroscience. Along with Yoel Inbar, he hosts the podcast “Two Psychologists Four Beers.” In this episode we discuss: How serious is the replication crisis in psychology? Can the human social realm ever be removed from scientific critique? Do psychologists need to grow a thicker skin? Academic bullying vs. respectful critique Is there a gendered element to bullying in science? Is ego depletion real? Methodological issues with the ego depletion paradigm Real world ego depletion vs. laboratory-based ego depletion The lack of correspondence between self-report measures of self-control and performance measures The importance of distinguishing between self-control and self-regulation The paradoxical relationship between trait self-control and state self-control The "law of least work" or why we are so lazy most of the time The psychology of boredom

On this episode we talk to University of Toronto Professor of Psychology Michael Inzlicht about the struggle for self control, as well as touching on some of the issues within science and research. He is also a podcast host, check out Two Psychologists Four Beers at https://fourbeers.fireside.fm/   

  In This Episode:  Definition of Willpower and Willingness will·pow·er ˈwilˌpou(ə)r/ noun 1. control exerted to do something or restrain impulses. 2. “most of our bad habits are due to laziness or lack of willpower will·ing·ness ˈwiliNGnəs/ noun 1. the quality or state of being prepared to do something; readiness. 2. “the ability and willingness of workers to migrate” synonyms: readiness, inclination, will, wish, desire, alacrity “we appreciate your willingness to help”   Willpower vs Willingness: Can you have one without the other? Is there an unlimited amount of willpower? If willpower isn't limited why do we feel depleted and how can we tap into that potential endless supply of energy? Choose your perspective: Research shows you may feel wiped out from a task you perceive as work but if the activity is shifted to a fun activity accomplishing the same goal your energy goes up! Find out what dancing and willpower have in common. Recent studies suggest it may be possible to choose how your willpower works for yourself. It is about shifting your idea around the concept in general. Will I do it?  Or I will do this. Which is your perspective? Learn the key to creating more intrinsic motivation. Setting your mind on a goal may be counterproductive. Instead, think of the future as an open question. An interesting study by Ibrahim Senay of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign lends scientific support to the recovery concepts of surrender and openness. He found that people who kept their minds open (“Will I do this?”) were more goal-directed and more motivated than the people who firmly declared their objective (“I will do this”). Having the freedom of choice seemed to create more intrinsic motivation— Why do you act differently when you believe willpower is unlimited? You procrastinate less and prepare more efficiently. You’re more likely to view solving a challenging problem as a motivating experience, instead of an exhausting one. If a task goes more smoothly because of better preparation, it’s probably easier to keep that good momentum going. Michael Inzlicht, a researcher at the University of Toronto, explains that self-control crises happen when two of your goals conflict. Your emotional response determines your choice. It’s not that you’re completely unable to resist the pint of rocky road ice cream in the freezer. It’s more likely that losing 10 pounds by swimsuit season is a less valuable goal to you than a creamy treat right now.   Traci's Takeaways from this show: Have the willingness to reach out and ask for help when struggling with any addiction. Willpower is not the solution. Resources: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0109950 Infinite willpower? http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797610384745 Choose your own self-control  http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797610384745   Quote: "You must have willingness before you can exert willingness." Produce Your Podcast Here!   

This week we're talking about what bad science looks like, why good scientists with good intentions often use techniques of bad science in their work, and how we may be unintentionally selecting for bad science over good science in our culture. We speak with Michael Inzlicht, Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, about the replication crisis currently underway in the field of social psychology. And we talk with Paul Smaldino, Assistant Professor of Cognitive and Information Sciences at the University of California, Merced, about his recent paper "The Natural Selection of Bad Science" and how the incentives built...

Inzlicht illustrates that stereotypes and the idea of stereotype threat have very real consequences in terms of achievement, behavior, and perhaps even health. He explains studies that both he and other scholars in the field have conducted that show how stereotypes and stereotype threat affect those who experience them, even showing how these experiences can affect a person’s ability to restrain his or her impulses and to exercise self control.

Michael Inzlicht, a psychologist from the University of Toronto, delivers a talk titled “What Does Neuroscience Suggest About Prejudice” as part of Facing History’s Day of Learning “Reimagining Self and Other.” Inzlicht illustrates that stereotypes and the idea of stereotype threat have very real consequences in terms of achievement, behavior, and perhaps even health. He explains studies that both he and other scholars in the field have conducted that show how stereotypes and stereotype threat affect those who experience them, even showing how these experiences can affect a person’s ability to restrain his or her impulses and to exercise self control.