I'm going to put on my Boomer pull-yourselves-up-by-the-bootstraps hat, but are you concerned about the loss of grit resulting from changing your behaviors without the drug?
I'm going to put on my Boomer pull-yourselves-up-by-the-bootstraps hat, but are you concerned about the loss of grit resulting from changing your behaviors without the drug?
Definitely not GP, but I think it’s pretty clear that whatever grit there was to have, GP did not have it. “Die an early death due to being overweight or build the grit” is strictly worse than “lose the weight without building the grit, or build the grit”, and it’s even more so when you realize that “or build the grit” was never in the cards. Because then the choice becomes “die an early death or don’t“. Building the grit can be done on other, hopefully less lethal, projects.
Preface: I'm going to sound quite harsh by changing scales, so put your tough skin on before continuing.
This is certainly worse for the individual, but at society scale, the cost being the obvious devaluation of willpower is way too high. Way too high because everything good in that society was built almost exclusively by driven and strong-willed individuals.
I'll give a reply a go - of course we want strong people. That said, we've introduced incredible amounts of weird new things to the world. Advertising, shit food, tech, and a litany of responsibilities. Some of these are very bad and we all paying heavy prices for it.
I don't think we need to treat every bad thing society does as only needing a "toughen up" solution, instead we should fix the root cause.
An extreme example would be if the government poisons your water, maybe some medicine is ok. We should un-poison the water too, but I'm ok with medicine in the meantime.
Then we should start selecting strong willed individuals who do not fit into the “normie” path as those we uphold and show to be role models and examples.
Instead we collectively shit on them and force them into the most useless lifestyles ever devised - effectively pushing paper on rigid schedules or they don’t get to eat.
I’ve thought about this one quite a bit. The world has narrowed a whole lot to define acceptable behavior and who is allowed a seat at the table.
Almost all those “strong willed” individuals of the past who actually built things had lifestyles that would have gotten them entirely shunned from society today.
It’s not impossible but even compared to 30 years ago it’s an entirely different world for such folks. The way I “came up” in life would not be possible today due to the gatekeepers of “respectable society”.
Needing drugs to fit into that incredibly narrow and basic framework of a life should be of no surprise to anyone. Only a few of incredible luck and willpower and probably even naivety will survive that filter.
This whole topic is the epitome of “show me the incentives and I’ll show you the outcome” - entirely predictable, and it’s what society seems to want.
Expanding on what a sibling comment said, we live in an adversarial environment. A successful food product is one you want to eat, whether you need it or not.
Willpower is important, I agree. Almost everyone needing willpower to not eat, though, is a fairly new phenomenon. If anything, the new drugs restore the balance that existed before —and if willpower is a limited resource, actively help society by returning to us what is taken by the relentless grind of profit maximization.
For a bit. The grind will not sit still.
Willpower to not eat really isn't the same as willpower to eat reasonably (in quantity and quality), though. There's even exercise to offset the effects of suboptimal alimentation.
Either willpower is fungible, in which case it doesn’t matter what you use it on because you’re using it up no matter what, or it isn’t, in which case the original point about losing willpower due to leaning on GPL-1 inhibitors for weight loss is mostly invalid, since it wouldn’t affect the willpower to do other things.
Maybe if moral virtues can be purchased they were never moral virtues to begin with?
Many moral vices naturally decline with age as physical senses and hormones dull and life loses novelty. It may be a comforting fantasy that we can somehow link our inevitable physical decline to a story of moral progress and assume that our accumulated wisdom would protect us from the folly of youth if we were somehow thrust again into our younger bodies.
But what if instead moral progress is about finding the right way of living? About spending more time with your kid than with a screen.
Maybe the virtue wasn’t in getting over the wall but finding yourself on the other side and choosing it because it is better? Society puts up walls all the time to prevent people from finding themselves on the wrong side of the wall. Nobody ever talks about the “grit” of the addict persistently dodging law enforcement to score their next fix.
Maybe the problem is society putting walls in the wrong place. If that’s true, does it really matter how you get over the wall?
What do you mean "grit"? Does doing something more efficiently mean you lose it? What's the difference, say, between someone using an LLM to help them code and someone else using a drug to help them diet? Is the coder using an LLM losing their "grit"? Do you walk to work in 30 inches of snow, uphill both ways, in the rain? Are you concerned about your loss of "grit" by not doing so? This argument continues to baffle me.
I didn't take the GLP to help me with addictive behavior traits beyond my diet, but I observed tertiary benefits of the drug.
As I've titrated my dose down to zero, I've retained those habits and my weight. I'm in the best shape of my life and mentally healthier than I've been in over a decade.
I think the comparison to LLM use is a bad idea, because LLM use has pretty clear adverse effects on your capacity to program unassisted, and almost certainly long term limits your potential growth as a programmer, in ways that the LLM can't compensate (at least, not with current tech). Basically using LLMs extensively as a junior may well make you a better junior, but guarantee you'll never be a senior.
My understanding is that that GLP1 drugs don't actually have this effect, as much as we know so far.
Good god no.
If I can change my behaviour and achieve good health outcomes, relatively painlessly, why on earth would I not?
This comes across to me like people who won't use painkillers - I should feel the pain, masking it is fake, there is virtue in suffering etc. Turns out those people often end up with secondary complications to (for example) muscle damage, because they've adapted their movements so much to avoid using the painful muscle that now everything else is tense, strained and locked up.
Better living through chemistry, 100%.
Not the GP, but do you think Serena Williams - world number 1 womens tennis player for 319 weeks, who trained for 5 hours per day at her peak - has insufficient grit?
Because she went on GLP-1 to lose weight.
Grit, or willpower, or whatever you want to name it isn't a unique, constant value. There are plenty of athletes who could spent hours training every day but are overcome by addictions. People who grind at work but cannot fill paperwork to save their life. That will diligently do something for months then stops after an unexpected interruption.
There's probably generally a bit of correlation. But just because someone can be very focused and go to extreme lengths in one aspect of their life doesn't mean they can consistently do it in every aspect of their life.
My last comment was flagged, but the fact remains that Serena Williams is a paid spokesperson for Ro.
https://ro.co/weight-loss/serena/
Her use is an advertisement, it's marketing. Her story as to why she's using it is a fiction, a fabrication.
[flagged]
Maybe "grit", like phlogiston, isn't real, and neurotransmitters are?
This would be my suspicion as well. Once upon a time, diseases like scurvy, leprosy and cholera were described as caused by insufficient moral fibre of the patient. Maybe this sort of moralizing is the best indicator that the underlying cause of the disease is, in fact, unknown yet.
The current scare mongering over an "increase" in Autism rates is entirely driven by the fact that we stopped diagnosing autistic people as having other intellectual disabilities
Done by the same people who demonstrably treat ADHD as just "laziness"
What if it were possible to get grit from a pill? People who have taken it and come off of it are saying that they haven't reverted. You get good at what you practice, which is as true for grit as it is of anything else. If some people need assistance in getting that practice, this can probably help them. I've taken ritalin for ADHD for a long time, and if I don't take my treatment, I'm still far more focused and productive than I ever was before treatment, because I developed habits through the medication that stuck. I wouldn't be surprised if something similar were at work here.
Turns out that this attitude was bullgrit all along.
I think this is a valid point, and the reason I haven’t tried these drugs and don’t plan to. There are huge benefits to developing the mental strength and discipline to lean into discomfort consistently and just do what needs to be done- and all types of addiction provide one of the hardest, and therefore most valuable and useful obstacles here. As Marcus Aurelius said “The impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way.”
I’ve found that the general act of leaning into challenges and mild physical discomfort has a ripple effect on my mind, and all types of addiction and dopamine seeking behaviors become automatically less interesting- almost exactly like what people report on these drugs. If I take a cold shower or work out every morning even when I don’t feel like it- pretty soon I’m eating healthier and limiting my alcohol, caffeine, and screen time without even really trying to.
That said, it only works if you manage to actually do it. It’s much better to get over addiction with a drug than to continue suffering from the addiction, and be unable to escape, especially something that causes as much damage as alcohol can.
One idea I had was to set a deadline for overcoming an addiction, and to just use the drug if you reach the deadline and the mental approach is still unsuccessful.
I wonder if you have more ”grit” than Sugar Ray Leonard, one of the greatest boxers of all time. His fight with Roberto Duran are legendary.
As so many boxers (and many athletes for that matter) he was addicted to drugs and alcohol for many years. Probably sexual abuse he suffered as a kid had something to do with it. He was able to quit, but I think cold shower and a run in the morning was not quite enough to do it.
Nobody just starts abusing their body with chemicals. It is not difficult to quit, you can stay off your Jones for months, but if you do nothing to the demons that made you enter the 36th chamber in the first place, you are going to slip sooner or later. It takes more than a splash of cold water on the face.
Marcus Aurelius was literally a god and the emperor of the world. He prob had little bit more resources to help gim other than stoism. Similarly if you have loving family and friends, a good therapist and some sort of medication,you canmaybe wim the fight with the devil that gets you to use. Training and getting used to being uncomfortable surely helps, but you won’t kick anything for long only with them.
Therefore these drugs won’t be a solution either. Are you going to use them rest of your life? Whatever it is that makes you want to drink, smoke, shoot, gamble or whatever is still going to be there. Bit used together with therapy and loving environment might help. Of course, most addicts have no access to any of these resources.
I agree with all of what you said, and I'd argue that the stoics including Aurelius probably would have as well. Leaning into discomfort is just a step that can help you actually do things like get therapy and be present and engaged in a loving environment. At least for me that's the case- I have seemed to need all of those things together as a system to really thrive in life, not just one or the other.
CBT and ACT are modern therapy methods based on stoic methods, very widely used, and very effective for regular people that aren't emperors.
They are most often effective if you can afford them was my point. I have ADHD as well and boxing (waking up before work to run in cold November morning, 9 rounds with a heavyweight who had nobody his size to spar, thousand ab movements afterwords and hey it’s only Tuesday) helped me tremendously with focus, staying of the booze and so on, but if I had not done years of therapy and had meds as well as found more varing environment, I prob would no be hete. And I was lucky to have a god job to pay for all that.
I do think you need tremendous mental effort, or grit, even to fight serious addiction. But it is only a start.
CBT effectiveness is highly overstated, from anecdotal experience and talking with psychiatrists in a social setting.
It works for a subset of the population that doesn’t question stuff too much and is more or less ok with gaslighting themselves. There is evidence that it loses effectiveness the higher up the IQ scale you go.
The vast majority of mental health issues are a “not treating the root causes” problem. People stuck in a life they despise for various reasons and have no realistic way of changing those root causes. This ranges everywhere from the single mom with 3 kids and an eviction notice all the way to the high powered corporate executive stuck in an empty do-nothing career path.
Not everyone is wired the same but we’ve created a society that you must conform to extremely rigid norms or be at risk of destitution.
If you're wired like Marcus Aurelius, maybe it'll work out ok.
Peoples' neurochemistry differs enormously. One person's positive reinforcing experience is another's nociceptive hell. (source: Ph.D. neurophysiologist here)
Arguments like yours presuppose humans have free will, that it's widely distributed, and if $whoever would just get on it, they'd progress.
More and more, it appears what we have is the perception of free will, not the real thing - whatever that actually might be.
Not doubting your expertise, but I am skeptical of the idea that this method of intentionally leaning into discomfort only works for some minuscule abnormal subset of people that are just wired differently. Instead, I suspect it's tapping into something deeper about how our reward system is structured, something extremely related to how these GLP-1 agonists work, which explains why they are both effective against a shockingly wide array of seemingly different situations.
The basic idea seems to be at the core of both a lot of modern self help gurus advice that seems to actually work for a huge fraction of the people that really commit to them (David Goggins, Wim Hof, etc.) as well as modern psychotherapy systems like CBT and ACT that are proven clinically effective.
How many people are really trying this approach, and it not working for them? More often, I see people saying it sounds like it royally sucks (which is true and basically the entire point), and never trying it- which is valid, but doesn't really demonstrate that it wouldn't work for them.
It absolutely is a "nociceptive hell" at first for everyone that tries it, but when you connect that with intention, purpose, and meaning it eventually transforms into something almost enjoyable. Becoming strong enough to meet discomfort or pain feels amazing, especially for someone that usually experiences the opposite of that.
I also have ADHD, which is explained in part as a developmental disability of executive control, but I find this approach to be extremely effective for regaining executive control, even to levels that people without ADHD lack. Basically, I suspect ADHD isn't a loss of executive control at all, but the executive control is being blocked by something like the feeling of pain or drug withdrawal, and that once you are okay with just having that bad feeling all of the time, you get your executive control back. I'm curious if GLP-1 drugs also help with ADHD? My prediction is that they would.
Nothing they wrote implied minuscule or abnormal.
Can you define huge fraction and really commit? And cite evidence?
I disagree the basic idea of CBT or ACT is leaning into discomfort. In the senses articles suggest David Goggins and Wim Hof advise even less.
CBT and ACT work for many patients and don't work for many patients.
Some people liked intense exercise their whole lives. Some people hated it when they started but liked it eventually. Some people exercised daily since decades and hated every minute. Do you not believe the 1st and 3rd groups?
Pushing through bad feelings is a form of executive control. And ADHD impairments are not limited to impulse control. People who have ADHD who do not take medication have significantly higher rates of driving accidents than people who do not have ADHD or take ADHD medication. Proprioception, internal time perception, and working memory impairments are common.
> I disagree the basic idea of CBT or ACT is leaning into discomfort. In the senses articles suggest David Goggins and Wim Hof advise even less.
I am somewhat baffled by your statement, as I feel it is largely self evident being familiar with, and having tried both therapy methods with professional therapists, and both Goggins and Hof's advice for years. I think a simple wikipedia level explanation of what those things actually are would suffice to answer your question, so I have nothing major to add, unless I am misunderstanding you. Goggins whole shtick in particular is just this one basic point, make yourself as mentally tough as possible by intentionally always doing whatever is difficult. Hof is also just literally getting into very cold water consistently, which is really not easy- and he has no real philosophy or theory, he just has you do it and see what happens.
Perhaps the therapy methods are less clear, but reframing things or deciding on clear values and purpose, are in my view, psychological tools to make the difficult endurable, or in some cases even enjoyable. This makes more sense if you're seeing the methods in the context of how the ancient stoics used the same techniques that inspired those therapies- especially Epictetus.
> Can you define huge fraction and really commit? And cite evidence?
Not really, it's just firsthand experience from doing them, and having widely sought out and read the experiences of others that did online.
In other words, gathering your own anecdote, compounding that with other anecdotes through biased sampling (which kind of person will feel more motivated to share their anecdote on it? And which and anecdotes do you reject because they just didn't try hard enough?) and then projecting that onto every other human being and assuming they must experience the same thing you do.
I never claimed it works for everyone, I am doubting that it is a provable fact that it works for only a minuscule fraction of people- I am not sure exactly what fraction of people this would potentially work for.
You are effectively implying that firsthand experience and expertise are completely worthless, and people can only learn information from large scientific studies, which is nonsense- it would invalidate virtually everything humans know that allows them to effectively navigate the world. I'm a working academic scientist that often designs and executes large studies, and I only ever see these arguments and line of thinking from non-scientists that don't actually understand the limitations of scientific methods, but have turned it into some sort of pseudo-religion.
These are effectively yoga/meditation like techniques that are taught in communities I am part of, and that I have taught to friends and family. I'm not under some delusion that there isn't bias there, I have seen it not work for people, and account for that in my thinking about it. It's been life changing for me, and so I am happy to share info about it in case it might be for others, but I'm not under some delusion that it is the solution to everything.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that your comment isn't really about what I am actually saying, but a general anger towards anything that looks like "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps"- an anger you can see in other comments in this thread as well. This toxic line of thinking comes from an old fashioned moral argument, that basically derives ones moral standing and worth as a person from the state of being helpless and persecuted, which requires one to actively fight against anything that might be an effective tool to overcome adversity.
I don't agree that using techniques that can help people overcome adversity in any way diminishes the challenges people face, or diminishes things like systematic injustice and addiction that certainly can be due to factors outside of one's control, and hard or impossible to overcome.
Having tools and methods that can, even sometimes, empower people to overcome, survive, and thrive, even if they don't work every time doesn't invalidate those problems, it is just one way to fight them.
“I am skeptical of the idea that this method of intentionally leaning into discomfort only works for some minuscule abnormal subset of people that are just wired differently”
That may be the aspect of this line of thinking that’s not clear then: it doesn’t work for anyone. At least, in so far as the free will is illusory, it is a hallucination that such people have that they made such decisions, and stuck to them. It’s the demon hand syndrome, the person hallucinating a rationale for its motion.
The free will question seems to be a red herring- philosophers and physicists can argue all they want about if something like free will is physically possible or not, but for all intents and purposes, even without free will, the path of someone overcoming, e.g. alcoholism after using these methods requires using them in a way that is challenging, and if you decide on the nihilistic stance that there is no free will so there is no point in ever trying to do anything, then you are guaranteed an undesirable outcome.
Perhaps beforehand it was somehow "pre-determined" which of these attitudes and paths you would take, but that is completely irrelevant for the individual just living life, they have no way to know that one way or another, or any reason to actually care, as they still need to act exactly like they have free will and made the right choice to actually play out a future as the type of person pre-determined to have a desirable outcome.
It doesn't actually feel any easier or less painful to accomplish something difficult, even if free will is some sort of illusion when looked at from the outside perspective. You still experience, e.g. trying and failing over and over and never giving up until you succeed.
I can buy that, for example perhaps there is something outside our control that decides if you are capable of never giving up, but you still cannot know until you decide to never give up and try it- so it literally does not matter except as a philosophical curiosity.
I think a more interesting biological (and philosophical) question is why and how exactly do these GLP-1 drugs work, and why exactly are they so shockingly effective? Maybe they do somehow act on the brain to offer exactly the same psychological benefits as the stoic approach I am talking about, by the same or related underlying mechanism, and they're essentially interchangeable but work more often?
This topic is a great example of how results from down-in-the-weeds biochemistry immediately raise questions at the top levels of consciousness and existence.
“Leaning into discomfort” for personal change may well work for much more than a miniscule fraction of people. It may be that such success is made more likely by some structural predisposition – an attenuated neuronal response to negative reinforcement, or some other precondition that allows its “carrier” to keep plugging to a successful outcome.
But clearly, there’s also a more than miniscule fraction of people for whom that doesn’t work. Their preconditions may deflect them from even trying that particular path, or cause them to give up along the way. I really don’t know, but that fraction seems at least as significant as the fraction for whom uncomfortable personal development paths lead to success.
Early in my career, I strongly believed in free will. I mean, I had it, right? And I didn’t regard my consciousness as all that different from my fellow hominids, so they’re probably all similarly endowed, right? Except...
Over time, research with small molecules like epinephrine and the psychedelics showed that perception/decisions/will could be profoundly influenced by neurochemistry. Ditto for various neuronal illnesses that are associated with profound personality changes.
I regard the GLP-1 results as a further demonstration that “free will”, whatever that is, is fundamentally mechanistic. There are few, maybe no, organismic drives stronger than hunger. A weekly injection of a GLP-1 agonist turns that drive way, way down in most of those who try it. This commonly exhibits itself in profound behavioral modification: if you were an inveterate snacker, suddenly you’re not interested in snacks. You pass them by in your pantry and at the grocery store. Your cognition around snacking changes, to the extent that not only aren’t you snacking, but you might find yourself setting a reminder that it’s time to have lunch. Given the strength of the hunger drive, that’s a very big deal, and revelatory about how we work.
I used to think I understood “free will”. Lately, I find it increasingly hard to define. I’m moving more in the direction of Robert Sapolsky as more research results come in. It feels to me a bit like the “God of the gaps” phenomenon, in which the space available for faith in the supernatural grows smaller with every scientific discovery.
It’s a remarkable time to be alive and have the luxury of considering these questions.
Ah, you might have seen my reply to someone else addressing the free will question from a philosophical angle, but despite also being in the life sciences, I never expected you were thinking about it biochemically.
I think it's obvious that we don't have "free will" in that sense, it had never really occurred to me to consider otherwise- people are definitely quite driven by instincts, neurochemicals, etc. they they can't consciously choose.
However, I think my comment in the other thread still applies- that for an individual, it doesn't really matter one way or another- your firsthand experience is still going to be one of exercising your will to increase the odds of getting outcomes you want in life, or choosing not to, and definitely not getting them.
But there is some biological clue here about who we are, and how our brains work that is fascinating, when you consider the breadth of human health problems and challenges that these GLP-1 agonists influence. I can't wait to see what more is learned about this in the future.
Having "grit" is more likely a symptom of coming from privilege. The marshmallow experiment comes to mind. Some kids were able to resist the urge to not eat the marshmallow for the promise of getting two if they waited. Others could not. The kids that could defer reward ended up having better life outcomes. In retrospect it was a test for privilege. Kids from poorer backgrounds tended to go for the immediate reward of the marshmallow. The test really showed that privileged kids have better life outcomes than kids that don't have privilege. Not really a surprising outcome.
FYI here is the follow on study that controls for socioeconomic factors: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6050075/
Anecdotally I've experienced something similar.
After I started committing, really committing to consistently working out, a lot of other things fell into place more or less automatically. I stopped drinking, started eating very cleanly (I became ravenously hungry; junk food and sweets aren't appealing anymore), and stopped spending as much time on gaming. I know your broader point is about leaning into discomfort, but specifically leaning into exercise seems to bring extra benefits. Exercise is medicine, as they say.
I think for this to work psychologically, it just needs to be something difficult or uncomfortable that you can do an awful lot of in a way that is sustainable, and doesn't actively harm you... all the better if you actually benefit directly from it, like with exercising, but cold showers work just as well, simply because they're uncomfortable and take much less time than working out- I personally do both.
The issue with addiction is, it’s very often a symptom of other underlying issues. Relapse are common because too often the underlying problem isn’t treated. Overcoming the addiction is hard because it means facing the thing the addiction allows you to avoid.
Addiction is also common(ism) amongst those who suffer from NDP. In this case, is it truly addiction, or simply another tool in their NPD cache of weapons.
I don’t disagree with you. But it’s also important to be aware of some of the nuances and finer points. I also recommend reading “The Courage to be Disliked”. Not that it / Adler speak to addiction but it’s a thought provoking alternative to the Freudian paradigm.
Getting rid of an addiction also counts as strengthening your mind in itself. A healthier mind will be in a better position to strengthen and fortify itself.
> There are huge benefits to developing the mental strength and discipline to lean into discomfort consistently and just do what needs to be done
Don't fall into 'I can do it, therefore everyone should be able to do it' trap.
Why would you say I am falling into that trap? My comment specifically addressed the issue that it might not work, and included a specific strategy for how to not get stuck too long on the idea of working if it does not.
The idea that some people are overweight simply because they don't have grit, determination and self-discipline is asinine.
If people want to believe in "grit", they at the very least have to also believe in Undset's dictum: the hearts of men do not change, not in any age.
If it's an inherent quality, then there's no reason we should have any less of it than "the greatest generation", or whoever we should want to idolize. The difference has to be external, not internal.
Let's work on what we can change, the external. What you are might change, but you can't change it - that's the core realization behind both European pagan obsession with fate, and Christian obsession with sin.
[flagged]
You haven't understood what I'm saying. Call it grit, call it character, whatever: it can maybe be developed or change, but not on its own.
Circumstance, including other people, can change it for better or worse, but you can't change it on your own. You are exactly what you are. Without input from outside, you'll never turn into anything that isn't already implicitly there.
To explain it in computer science terms, since this is HN: suppose you have a method which takes no input. Even if it's self-modifying code, can it change into something else? Can it "improve"? No. Whatever it will turn into after overwriting its own code is essentially already there.
You have all the "character", "grit", whatever, that you started off with. If you get some or lose some throughout your life, it's from outside yourself: it can go either way, and you can't take credit for it anyway. This is something that all sorts of pagans, and Christians, have understood for thousands of years, but the modern Horatio Alger "conservative" doesn't understand it.
You appear to be saying that we have no free will because our choices are decided by us and we are the result of our environments. Your self-modifying code argument is that the result is already essentially there from the beginning because that's what the code says to do.
That is not a Christian view as I understand their philosophy. I am not one myself.
I think a better analogy would be self-modifying non-deterministic code. You cannot say in advance what the result will be. The state before execution is not equivalent to the eventual result, because different results are not equivalent to each other and equivalence is transitive. So it can indeed improve. Or get worse.
If the source of that non-determinism (or at least some of it) is our choices then yes of course those choices are constrained or sometimes determined by circumstances or our current past-determined states but that does not mean we do not have the ability to influence our future states.
We have the power to better ourselves even if we don't have the power to directly determine our internal states.
No, free will is really quite beside the point. You can believe the choice is real, whatever you put in that, but the choice will still be based on what you are, and you can't change it, other than based on either 1. what you already are, in which case it isn't really a change, or 2. Something outside of you, input.
Nondeterminism changes nothing for the argument, in fact I mentioned it explicitly already.
You didn't mention it explicitly or otherwise. Why lie? That's such a weird thing to do. I can read your comment and catch you in the lie so easily.
Free will is the entire point. You are saying "the choice will [be] based on what you are, and you can't change it". That is precisely an argument that our choices are determined, not free.
>other than based on either 1. what you already are, in which case it isn't really a change, or 2. Something outside of you, input.
You have just ignored what I said. You cannot say that you haven't changed your character because the change was brought about by your own choice, for the reason I already gave: you have free will, so your choices are not determined, so the results can vary.
You cannot say that A and B are equivalent states because B is reachable from A, when C which is clearly distinct from B is also reachable from A, and the choice between B and C is nondeterministic (free).
To make it more concrete, you have free will. You choose to challenge yourself or not by doing something difficult. That choice is free. It is chosen from among constrained options but it is still a choice. We make constrained choices all the time. They're still choices.
Some people can't afford to buy musical instruments. Of those that can, some choose to buy one and some do not. Of those who do buy one, some choose to practice and some do not. You cannot expect anyone to believe that that choice is free but also that the person that chooses to learn an instrument and practice and develop is identical in character to the same person if they had exercised their choice differently and instead sat on the couch and watched TV.
People make choices. Free choices. Those choices result in the development of their personalities, the development of skills, etc. Those choices are not predetermined by their existing character. There is no external input necessary for your character to change and yet clearly, logically, their character also was not already there. The potential for it may have been there, latently, but so what? Everyone has the potential to have good character. Everyone could be a better person than he is.
_some_ of the overweight people? most certainly! Most of them? I don’t think so.
Life is more complicated than that. We all know that.
[flagged]
I'm overweight for those reasons.
[flagged]
[flagged]