Every Wednesday is Tip Day or Quiz Day. Quiz: Are You a Moderator or an Abstainer?
Often, we know we'd have more long-term happiness if we gave up something that gives us a rush of satisfaction in the short-term. That morning doughnut, that impulse purchase, staying up too late watching TV.
A piece of advice I often see is, "Be moderate. Don't have ice cream every night, but if you try to deny yourself altogether, you'll fall off the wagon. Allow yourself to have the occasional treat, it will help you stick to your plan."
I've come to believe that this is good advice for some people: the "moderators." They do better when they try to make moderate changes, when they avoid absolutes and bright lines.
For a long time, I kept trying this strategy of moderation -- and failing. Then I read a line from Samuel Johnson: "Abstinence is as easy to me as temperance would be difficult." Like Dr. Johnson, I'm an "abstainer."
I find it far easier to give something up altogether than to indulge moderately. When I admitted to myself that I was eating my favorite frozen "fake food" treat, Tasti D-Lite, two and even three times a day, I gave it up cold turkey. That was far easier for me to do than to eat Tasti D-Lite twice a week. If I try to be moderate, I exhaust myself debating, "Today, tomorrow?" "Does this time 'count?'" etc. If I never do something, it requires no self-control for me; if I do something sometimes, it requires enormous self-control.
There's no right way or wrong way -- it's just a matter of knowing which strategy works better for you. If moderators try to abstain, they feel trapped and rebellious. If abstainers try to be moderate, they spend a lot of time justifying why they should go ahead and indulge.
People can be surprisingly judgmental about which approach you take. As an abstainer, I often get disapproving comments like, "It's not healthy to take such a severe approach" or "It would be better to learn how to manage yourself" or "Can't you let yourself have a little fun?" On the other hand, I hear fellow abstainer-types saying to moderators, "You can't keep cheating and expect to make progress" or "Why don't you just go cold turkey?" But different approaches work for different people. (Exception: with an actual addiction, like alcohol or cigarettes, people generally accept that abstaining is the only solution.)
You're a moderator if you...
-- find that occasional indulgence heightens your pleasure -- and strengthens your resolve
-- get panicky at the thought of "never" getting or doing something
You're an abstainer if you...
-- have trouble stopping something once you've started
-- aren't tempted by things that you've decided are off-limits
Now, sometimes instead of trying to give something up, we're trying to push ourselves to embrace something. Go to the gym, eat vegetables, work on a disagreeable project.
Perhaps this is the flip side of being an abstainer, but I've found that if I'm trying to make myself do something, I do better if I do that thing every day. When people ask me advice about keeping a blog, one of my recommendations is, "Post every day, or six days a week." Weirdly, it's easier to write a blog every day than it is to write it three or four times a week. I don't know how moderators feel about this. Moderators -- what do you think? Is it easier to go for a half-hour walk every day, or four times a week, for you?
*
Mike Vardy of the blog Effing the Dog was nice enough to do an interview with me. I don't think I kept up my end of the comedy, but it was fun to do.
*
Interested in starting your own happiness project? If you'd like to take a look at my personal Resolutions Chart, for inspiration, just email me at grubin, then the "at" sign, then gretchenrubin dot com. (Sorry about writing it in that roundabout way; I'm trying to thwart spammers.) Just write "Resolutions Chart" in the subject line.
Follow Gretchen Rubin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/gretchenrubin
Arghh! Worst of both worlds. I think I need to abstain in order to be healthy. Even a little bit leads me to go crazy. This goes for unhealthy food and caffeine etc. It's just torture facing the idea of giving them up, though.
I guess that's why it's one day at a time.
Moderation comes easiest for me only with things I don't feel particularly attached to but can be nice once in a while (though I can't think of one right now).
I have friends and family in AA and borrow some of their phrases. If I can say "I am powerless over X and my life has become unmanageable " I know I need to abstain from that. The phrase "One is too many and a thousand is never enough" pretty much sums up my relationship with cookies.
As far as getting a chocolate fix, I've found I can be moderate by savoring a tiny bite or two of 88% cocoa bars (Endangered Species.) But if I eat milk chocolate, an entire bag of Kisses just makes me want more!
It's true, but it's not yet an accepted, mainstream concept like alcoholism or drug addiction, and therefore most people aren't offered real help for their so-called "habit." They are just considered weak.
I think the blogging-every-day concept works because writing only three or four times a week would present a dangerous temptation for a procrastinator.
I think procrastinators may have something in common with addicts and abstainers and nothing in common with moderators. Just a guess!
And yes, unfortunately, I speak from experience.
What an interesting post! I had not thought about the distinction between moderator and abstainer. I am a moderator in some things - drinking wine - and an abstainer in others - watching mindless tv.
This kind of self- awareness I think is very valuable because it gives me choices. Very powerful.
I appreciate what you are offering here. Thank you!
Anne
I'm an extremist, or as you say, an abstainer. I don't run a little, I run miles. I don't diet a little, I go all the way. Or ... I do the opposite.
Same way I work, pretty much.
I had to stop drinking alcohol altogether for a couple of years because I would have one drink and would be drunk every day for a few months before stopping for a few months, getting my life together before repeating it all again. I got kicked out of two colleges for not turning up and lost several jobs for my constant absence, I was always in the pub.
Now I rarely drink, once every 3-6 months, might have one or two. Have no inclination for it at all now to be honest.
So, i guess what I am saying is that maybe for some people, both strategies work, depending on the subject matter.
For example, chocolate. I can't just have one square, so it's either I'm gonna have some, or none.
I disagree with Gretchen about quitting an addiction, though. When I've quit coffee, I had to gradually dial it down over a few weeks before going cold turkey. I was drinking two huge mugs each day, and I knew that if went cold turkey I'd have wicked headaches, so I went down to one big one (and only in the morning), then a smaller mug, then one cup for a week or so, before finally stopping.
Same with cigarettes. I believe there's a psychological habit that's actually stronger than any physical addiction. For a smoker there are key times of the day to light up: after a meal, after or with coffee, after work, in the car, etc. But often, the after meal cigarette is actually several cigarettes. So, first, I weaned down to just one cigarette at each key time. After a while I got used to less smoking, so when the day came to finally attempt to quit, it wasn't nearly as drastic. (And, as is usual when quitting something, there were a few relapses, but I just went back to only having one at each time of the day. Finally, I quit for good.)
I guess what I'm saying is that sometimes both approaches can be used in succession, for habits that are deeply ingrained.
Thanks!