Self-control signals and affords power
Psychology research suggesting that people who display self-control are perceived as more powerful has prompted debate over what “self-control” really signals and how it operates in workplaces and society. Commenters connect the findings to corporate use of “stretch goals,” performance reviews, dieting, body weight, and Stoic-style self-discipline, arguing that self-control can both enable genuine agency and serve as a language for exploiting conscientious people. Others question the study’s methods and note that perceived power often diverges from actual capability, especially when charisma, luck, structural inequality, or deception play a larger role.
Corporate stretch goals and workplace control
- Several comments link “stretch goals” and unattainable review scores to subtle control mechanisms.
- Missing ambitious targets can be used selectively: acceptable when management likes you, weaponized when they don’t.
- Perpetual “you’re never perfect” framing is said to demotivate high performers and drive them away.
- Coaching practices that always pair praise with criticism are seen as harmful in low-trust environments.
Perceived self-control vs real power
- Many agree that observable self-control signals reliability, especially for leadership or critical tasks.
- Some note the research is partly tautological: self‑control is “power over oneself,” so it naturally reads as power.
- Others highlight that perceived power in real life often depends on incomplete information, politics, and observers’ own goals.
Charismatic, impulsive leaders as counterexamples
- Discussion around figures like Trump and Musk: some see them as impulsive yet powerful, challenging the article’s framing.
- Others argue they actually have strong self‑control and persistence, just channeled into selective outlets and high‑risk goals.
- Debate on the roles of luck, persistence, ambition, and lying in gaining and keeping power and wealth.
Self-discipline, stoicism, and personal transformation
- One long comment describes rebuilding life through daily discipline and stoic practice, claiming greater agency and resistance to manipulation.
- Replies split: some find this inspiring; others criticize it as self‑help marketing or note that the language (“triggered,” “making excuses”) feels moralizing.
- A counterpoint warns that heavy indoctrination in “responsibility” and “self-control” can make people easier to exploit.
Goal-setting: ambitious vs attainable
- The finding that failing at a stretch goal looks worse than surpassing an easy goal resonates with many.
- Several advocate “under‑promise, over‑deliver” and aligning goals with the “zone of proximal development” to avoid burnout and preserve perceived competence.
Health, weight, and perceived discipline
- Some argue that not being overweight confers social and professional advantages because it is read as evidence of self‑control.
- Others push back, calling this fat‑discrimination and emphasizing genetic, metabolic, and socioeconomic factors.
- A detailed anecdote describes how medication changing appetite revealed that “willpower” alone had been an unrealistic expectation.
Methodological and conceptual skepticism
- Multiple commenters criticize the studies as simplistic thought experiments that don’t model real organizational power.
- Concerns include: reliance on self‑reports and vignettes, lack of behavioral outcomes, and conflating self‑control with realism in goal‑setting.
- Some note prior research showing weak links between self‑reported self‑control and actual performance, suggesting many “high self‑control” people simply feel less temptation.