@article{ref1,
title="Why has evolution not selected for perfect self-control?",
journal="Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences",
year="2019",
author="Hayden, Benjamin Y.",
volume="374",
number="1766",
pages="e20180139-e20180139",
abstract="Self-control refers to the ability to deliberately reject tempting options and instead select ones that produce greater long-term benefits. Although some apparent failures of self-control are, on closer inspection, reward maximizing, at least some self-control failures are clearly disadvantageous and non-strategic. The existence of poor self-control presents an important evolutionary puzzle because there is no obvious reason why good self-control should be more costly than poor self-control. After all, a rock is infinitely patient. I propose that self-control failures result from cases in which well-learned (and thus routinized) decision-making strategies yield suboptimal choices. These mappings persist in the decision-makers' repertoire because they result from learning processes that are adaptive in the broader context, either on the timescale of learning or of evolution. Self-control, then, is a form of cognitive control and the subjective feeling of effort likely reflects the true costs of cognitive control. Poor self-control, in this view, is ultimately a result of bounded optimality. This article is part of the theme issue 'Risk taking and impulsive behaviour: fundamental discoveries, theoretical perspectives and clinical implications.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="0962-8436",
doi="10.1098/rstb.2018.0139",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0139"
}