Synthesizing Self-Control: "Does Thinking About God Improve Our Self-Control?" by Jonah Lehrer and "Balancing the Self-Control Seesaw" by David DiSalvo

Though the blogs written by Lehrer and DiSalvo were based on different studies and experiments, many elements were consistent throughout both posts; first and foremost, their audiences. 

I think readers and writers can all agree that we gravitate again and again to favorite authors and genres—that is, we stick to the familiar.  This isn’t to say we only read texts by authors we’ve read before, but rather we feel a certain comfort in opening a book or blog or magazine knowing that it is written by an author with whom we have had a positive experience before.  With that acknowledged, it is fair to assume that both blog posts appeal to a similar audience base: one that is interested in how and why the brain makes the decisions it does—which, after reading James E. Porter, we can call a discourse community.

Does Thinking About God Improve Our Self-Control?  This blog post explains a study that was done in which some subjects were, unknowingly, prompted through exercises to think about God.  Other subjects completed the same exercises without any religious words, symbols, or ideas that may lead to their thinking of God.  Both groups were led to a second round of activities and exercises having to do with self-control.  Lehrer, in his post, shares that the subjects who had God on the brain were more willing and likely to choose patience over haste and suffer for reward—such martyrs!

When Lehrer is not explaining the experiment in full detail, he interacts with his audience and writes directly to his readers about his own experience with religion and self-control.  In doing so, he does not define kosher, but assumes his readers are familiar with the term enough to infer that it has something to do with why he could not eat pepperoni pizza.  DiSalvo’s post, “Balancing the Self-Control Seesaw,” is strictly business.  He shares no insight to his readers and does not offer any of his own experiences.  Instead, he spends the entirety of the post describing and explaining the experiment and its results.  So which technique is more effective?

As a reader, I enjoy getting to know the author and/or narrator.  The fact that Lehrer broke down the fourth wall to talk about his own experience with self-control and religion helped me to understand the basis of the experiment.  It answered the “so what?” question that I initially asked when I read the title of the blog.  Initially, I had absolutely no idea or interest in how religion affected self-control—it was something I’d never considered.  Lehrer’s examples from his personal life put the study into perspective and gave it relevance.

I find it interesting that Lehrer, known for plagiarism, borrowing information, and wrongful citations is the one who spent time talking to the audience about his own personal life while DiSalvo, who as far as I know has no major discretions against him in the blogging world, focused solely on the study.  Could this be Lehrer’s attempt at gaining readers’ affections again?  Re-earning trust by letting us get to know him as a person rather than just a writer?  We are taught to humanize ourselves as an act of self-defense; so perhaps, this was Lehrer’s self-defense act against readers who still view him as untrustworthy.