In chemistry, activation energy is a term introduced in 1889 by the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius, that is defined as the energy that must be overcome in order for a chemical reaction to occur.
In this article, I propose that:
After proposing that, I'd like to explore:
Every action a person takes has an activation cost. The activation cost of a consistent, deeply embedded habit is zero. It happens almost automatically. The activation cost for most people in the United States to exercising is fairly high, and most people are inconsistent about exercising. However, there are people who - every single day - begin by putting their running shoes on and running. Their activation cost to running is effectively zero.
These costs vary from person to person. In the daily running example above, the activation cost to the runner is low. The runner simply starts running in the morning. For most people, it's higher for a variety of reasons we'll get to in a moment. The running example is fairly obvious, but you'll also see phenomenon like a neat person saying to a sloppy one, "Why don't you clean your desk? ... just f'ing do it, man." Assuming the messy person indeed wants to have a clean desk, then it's likely the messy person has a higher activation cost to cleaning his desk. (He could also have less energy/willpower)
These costs can change over time. If the every-morning-runner suffers from a prolonged illness or injury and ceases to run, restarting the program might have a much higher activation cost for a variety of reasons we'll cover in a moment.
Finally, I'd like to propose that activation costs explain a lot of akrasia and procrastination. Akrasia is defined as "acting against one's better judgment." I think it's possible that an action a person wishes to take has higher activation costs than they have available energy for activation at the moment. There is emerging literature on limited willpower and "ego depletion," here's Wikipedia on the topic:
Ego depletion refers to the idea that self-control or willpower is an exhaustible resource that can be used up. When that energy is low (rather than high), mental activity that requires self-control is impaired. In other words, using one's self-control impairs the ability to control one's self later on. In this sense, the idea of (limited) willpower is correct.
While this is anecdotal, I believe that starting a desired action is frequently the hardest part, and usually the part that requires the most ego/will/energy. Thus, the activation cost. Continuing in motion is not as difficult as starting - as activating.
This implies that there would be two effective ways to beat akrasia-based procrastination. The first would be to lower the activation cost; the second would be to increase energy/willpower/ego available for activation.
Both are valid approaches, but I think lowering activation costs is more sustainable. I think there's local maximums of energy that can be achieved, and it's likely that even the most successful and industrious people will go through low energy periods. Obviously, by lowering an activation cost to zero or near zero, it becomes trivial to do the action as much as is desired.
Some people have a zero activation cost to go running, and do it every day for the benefit of their health. Some people have zero activation cost to cleaning their desk, and do it whenever they realize its messy. Some people have a zero activation cost to self-promote/self-market, and thus they're frequently talking themselves up, promoting, and otherwise trying to get people to pay attention to their work. Most of us have higher activation costs to go running, clean a desk, or to market/promote something. Thus, it burns a lot more energy and is actually effectively impossible to complete the action sometimes.
The following factors seem to increase activation cost (not a complete list):
The following factors seem to decrease activation cost (not a complete list):
Additionally, another way to go anti-akrasia is to increase energy levels through good diet, exercise, mental health, breathing, collaboration, good work environment, nature, adequate rest and relaxation. Some of these might additionally lower activation costs in addition to increasing energy.
I believe the most effective way to do activities you want to do is to decrease their activation cost to as close to zero as possible. This implies you should defeat ugh fields, reduce trivial inconveniences and barriers, de-compartmentalize (and get something to protect), untangle your identity from the action you're taking, and find as clear instructions as possible. Also, deadlines, constraints, momentum, grouping and batching tasks, structured procrastination, clear instructions, establishing habits, setting up helpful cached-self effects and reducing negative ones, and treating activities to be done as a game all seem to be of value.
I would be excited for more discussion on this topic. I believe activation costs are a large part of what causes procrastination akrasia, and reducing activation costs will help us get what we want.
Discussion is also available at LessWrong
Fixing the broken links: replace the `sebastianmarshall.com/lesswrong.com/` section with a proper lesswrong URL (lesswrong.com/lw/).
An example - Ugh Fields -
Excellent post Sebastian! Thank you. This idea has an instant home in my thinking.
Speaking of Great Minds Think Alike, I've been thinking a lot about the same subject. I've been coming at it from the angle of willpower, but as defined by Steve Pavlina in his article on the subject. He says that willpower is a one shot deal... for Star Trek fans, think of Jean Luc telling his crew to "Engage!" and having them all simultaneously and unfailingly listen.
A trick I'm experimenting with, is to use this kind of trigger word to control and train my willpower, and the main challenge is overcoming this activation energy that you're talking about.
I have a post planned on the subject, but to give you and your readers the inside track, try this:
Pick a word. Something that has some meaning to you around the subject. Maybe "win" or "engage" or "will". Once a day, when you find yourself confronted with a task that you just don't really want to do, say the word out loud. Then do the task.
Start with a small task. Your dishes, laundry, writing a letter or blog post you've been meaning to write. The point is not that you couldn't do it without saying the word out loud. It's forming the association. Does Jean Luc really need to say engage for his crew to know when to act? Couldn't he just say, Geordi, whenever you're ready, take us into warp. Sure.
But having the commander signal that moment when the time for planning is over and the time for action has begun is a very powerful thing, and building that association during easy times means that it will be there in hard times when you need it.
The key is saying it out loud. Maybe you also add a physical gesture, whether it's a fist pump or a gun firing or a stomp of your heel. The mind of a strategist is constantly awash with a million factors, and it can be hard to pinpoint a decisive moment just in your mind. Make it real. The time for action begins now.
I just posted a new article at Less Wrong - "Steps to Achievement: The Pitfalls, Costs, Requirements, and Timelines." This is a little bit longer and more dry than I write for my blog, but I think there's some very important things in here.
If you're interested in goals and achievement, there's quite a lot of meat here. I'm putting the full version up here and please feel very welcome to comment here on this topic, but also consider heading over to Less Wrong, grab a free account, and start participating there. As I described in "You Should Probably Study Rationality," it's a wonderful community.
Reply to: Humans Are Not Automatically Strategic
In "Humans Are Not Automatically Strategic," Anna Salamon outlined some ways that people could take action to be more successful and achieve goals, but do not:
A critical part of the mastery process is internalization.
There's a point that's reached where you'll perform an action. Outwardly, it looks the same. But on the inside is where the immense difference is, and the distinctive factor between two people of different skill level.
To use a physical example, take tennis. Any number of people might approach a standard forehand stroke and have it look exactly the same, but the point may have a totally different outcome.
One person is thinking: Okay, forehand stroke! Move, feet, shuffle, backswing, keep hand on throat, drop racquet, swing up and through, finish, and recover!
And that person will have a good stroke. At the same time, a second person could execute the exact same action and look the exact same, but the thoughts running through their head will be on a higher level.