Tool 15 · Develop yourself
Not a test of your willpower. The difference between something you choose repeatedly and something you repeatedly find yourself obeying.
A guided 20 to 30 minute conversation using ChatGPT. Free, no account, nothing to sign up to.
01
Copy
Take the TAIU prompt.
02
Paste
Open ChatGPT.
03
Talk
One question at a time.
Copies the TAIU prompt. Paste it into ChatGPT.
You don't need ChatGPT Plus. The free version is fine.
Control becomes interesting when choice starts becoming negotiation.
Doing something often is not the same as being governed by it. Nothing needs changing is a legitimate result here.
What you'll explore
A note from Mark
I am not very interested in whether somebody has a bad habit. Almost everybody does, and most of them are survivable.
What I am interested in is the moment where choosing turns into negotiating. You decide you are not going to do something, and then you find yourself making a case for why today is the exception. That argument is the useful evidence, because you only have it about things that have acquired a vote.
The other thing worth saying is that a lot of what people call control is not a psychological problem at all. It is a real obligation, or a job that expects something unreasonable, or a debt with a date on it. Telling somebody with a genuine constraint that they lack discipline is both wrong and cruel.
And frequency proves very little. I know people who do something every single day and are entirely in charge of it, and people who do something once a month that has quietly organised their year.
Sometimes the conclusion is that you like it, it costs you nothing much, and the only thing wrong was the guilt.
What you'll get
01
What actually has influence
02
Choice or obedience
03
What it costs you
04
What, if anything, to change
+
Your TAIU handover — a portable summary of everything the conversation established.
What now?
01 · Save it
The behaviour described concretely rather than as a category.
02 · Test it
Change one condition rather than the behaviour, for a week, and see what happens. Move the thing, change the hour, or take a different route home.
If this turned out to be bigger than an exercise
There is a point at which reflection is the wrong instrument. If the honest finding is that you have stopped being able to choose, or that somebody else is controlling your money, movement or contact with other people, the useful next step is a person rather than a page.
That is not a failure of the exercise. Knowing which kind of problem you have is most of the work.
What I would do
Start with a specific occasion rather than a category. Categories produce confession, and occasions produce evidence.
Separate frequency from influence. A lot of something you have chosen is not the same as a little of something you cannot stop.
Look hard at the hour before, because that is usually where the decision was actually made.
Check whether the constraint is external before concluding anything about your character. Quite often the honest finding is that a real obligation is doing the work.
Ask what removing it would expose. If the answer is nothing, this may be smaller than you think.
Test it
Decide in advance what tomorrow looks like without it, and notice whether you spend the day negotiating.
Ask what you would do with the time, money or attention if it disappeared. A blank answer is worth more attention than a guilty one.
Name the last occasion it cost you something specific. If you cannot, the case for control is weaker than it felt.
The alternative
The obvious conclusion is that you have a willpower problem and should cut down. It is usually wrong twice over. The first correction is that a great deal of what looks like control is a real constraint wearing a psychological costume: an employer who expects availability, a debt with a date on it, a family that needs something from you. The second is that the conditions do far more work than the character. Change what precedes a behaviour and the behaviour often moves without any struggle at all. And sometimes the finding is simply that you enjoy something, it costs you nothing you mind paying, and the only problem was that you had been told to feel bad about it.
Think about this
Take this to Ask Mark
Interpretation, not another copy-and-paste exercise.
Take this to Ask Mark →Finished the exercise?
Tell us whether it helped and what you discovered. It takes less than a minute.
Next tool
If the finding was about conditions rather than character
Further thinking
Good Habits, Bad Habits
Wendy Wood
Wanting is not liking
Kent Berridge and Terry Robinson
Generalized Expectancies for Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement
Julian B. Rotter
Book
Wendy Wood
Wood spent three decades measuring what people actually do rather than what they intend, and her finding is uncomfortable: roughly forty three per cent of daily behaviour is repeated in the same context with almost no decision involved. That reframes the question. Something with a hold on you is usually not a failure of character, it is a piece of your environment doing reliable work.
Article
Kent Berridge and Terry Robinson
Berridge separated two systems that everyday language treats as one. Wanting, the pull towards something, and liking, the pleasure of having it, run on different machinery and can come apart completely. It is the cleanest explanation of a very common report: I do not even enjoy it any more, and I still do it. Useful precisely because it does not require the word addiction.
Article
Julian B. Rotter
Rotter's monograph is where the internal and external control idea comes from, and it is more careful than the pop version. An internal orientation predicts persistence and initiative, but it also carries a cost when someone applies it to outcomes nobody could have controlled, which is where responsibility turns into self blame.
Article
James Clear
A short piece with one idea in it: every action is a small vote for the kind of person you believe you are, and the tally is more honest than the label. It is the clearest statement of the assumption this exercise runs on, which is that what you did tells you more than what you would say.
Book
Edward L. Deci with Richard Flaste
The readable account of self-determination theory, written by the man who spent forty years testing it. The finding that matters here is that rewards and approval reliably change why people do things, and that behaviour which survives without either is telling you something the rest is not. It gives you a usable test rather than a feeling.