It’s always struck me as fascinating the way people make “rational” decisions, especially the way the weights of pros and cons shift over time.
Paul Bloom writes in The Atlantic about the multiple personalities that share space in our minds and how their collective and often conflicted reasoning can explain why we do what we do. (An important distinction, however, is made between normal, integrated multiplicity and the dramatic internal schisms of dissociative-identity disorder.)
There is an intutive appeal to this theory. As an example, Bloom offers the difference between his nighttime self and his morning self:
Late at night, when deciding not to bother setting up the coffee machine for the next morning, I sometimes think of the man who will wake up as a different person, and wonder, What did he ever do for me? When I get up and there’s no coffee ready, I curse the lazy bastard who shirked his duties the night before.
I’m sure everyone has had similar moments of “What was I thinking?” surprise. At night, it seems reasonable to sacrifice a half-hour of sleep to watch The Daily Show, but in the morning those lost minutes seem precious. My morning self thinks my nighttime self was a selfish jerk to steal his sleep. (I had to edit that last bit from “my sleep” to “his sleep” – I guess my morning self is writing this.)
Bloom thinks libertarian paternalism might be a good way to reconcile our notions of free will and rational decision making with the reality of how we actually operate. It’s not cool to restrict freedoms but it’s OK to shape the structure in which we make incentives toward a preferred conclusion. This strikes me as paying lip service to actual liberty and most libertarians probably couldn’t swallow that pill, but libertarians are mostly selfish douchebags anyway.
Libertarian paternalism, by another name, is already part of how we deal with health behaviours. For example, it’s not enough to educate people about the health effects of smoking; we have to make smoking difficult and socially unacceptable. We weaken the impulsive, addictive personalities to the benefit of our deliberative, thoughtful personalities.
Changing gears, slightly: I wonder if there is a relationship between the manifestation of these personalities and tendencies towards introversion and extroversion. Where extroverts seek dialogue with others, do introverts satisfy that need for dialogue within themselves? Just a thought.
UPDATE – 7:50 pm
An application of game theory to multiple personalities (or I suppose I should be saying “multiple selves”) and waking up earlier.
Your predicament is a contest between two competitors, Evening Ruth and Morning Ruth. Evening Ruth has fine ideas about an early start, but her late nights impose costs on Morning Ruth, who then stays in bed.
One option is to tie Morning Ruth’s hands, just as Odysseus ordered his sailors to tie him to the mast. Evening Ruth might buy one of those motorised alarm clocks that falls off the dresser and scuttles under the bed, beeping loudly.
An alternative is to recruit a third player. The British government handed over control of interest rates to the Bank of England. Similarly, ask an early-bird friend to call every morning.
Odder still, Evening Ruth could enlist Bad Cop Ruth to punish Morning Ruth for lie-ins by, say, denying her(self) television privileges. Bizarre as it may seem to turn one person’s decision into a three-way inner struggle, Schelling avers that this technique works.
One final point. Your letter was evidently composed by Evening Ruth. Are you sure that Morning Ruth’s preferences are so mistaken?