bah.

and I thought I had something novel.

So like 2 years ago, I dreamed up this so called "activation energy theory" of doing something. in other words - you have to exert a certain amount of energy in order to actually do something like study for a test. Below the "activation energy" threshold, you can't motivate yourself to study. But once you stress yourself up to beyond the "activation energy" threshold, then you actually are motivated enough to drive out other distractions and to then focus on studying for the test.

But really, it's just a re-statement of the Yerkes-Dodson Law. Except this time, it's "arousal" vs "performance", with increased levels of arousal leading to increased levels of performance up to a point.

My graph, though, is no performance for a while, and then a HUGE boost in performance after a certain threshold (kind of like activation energy).

Or is it? I also thought it could be that the "automatization of anything you repeatedly do" - in effect moving tasks of conscious control to the unconscious so that you can focus more on your own specific problems - maybe the "automatization" process also lowers the activation energy you need to get started on a task. After all, if you're "used" to something, you don't need to "motivate" yourself as much as if you're new to that thing.

Hm.

*looks at model from like 8 months ago* OMG it was in December, so 9 months.

My model of activation energy:

WIll invoke a lot of other sources.

Describe the structure of activation energy first, and then include a diagram of the chemistry concept as well [to illustrate the analogy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activated_complex

Why do people write assignemtns

WHen people write papers over and over again, they are effectively decreasing the activation energy that they need in order to write future papers of similar formats. This enables them to actually . On the other hand, this also inculcates the Kuhnian doctrine of "normal science" into their heads. In fact, activation energy towards a certain paradigm may discourage the individual from pursuing methods that . This is perhaps why too much training hurts the individual.

The activation energy can also be similar to the Simonton 1988 model of unconscious => fully conscious => habitual processing. Perhaps more creative individuals need more activation energy in order to bring their awareness of the concepts from one level to another. WHile they have many unconscious associations, they also have comparatively fewer conscious associations, and this in turn makes them susceptible to doing nothing. This may be related to the novelty-seeking gene. I must have to admit that I am often considered to be very inert [only seeking activities that provide immediate boosts to my dopamine levels without requiring much attentiveness, and consequently surf Wikipedia], but once I finally work on a task for a long time, I finally spring into action.

Another question of activation energy concerns the intelligence of people. Perhaps individuals of lower IQ may require more activation energy in order to pursue any intellectually demanding task. But this is continual, throughout the task. Meanwhile, creative individuals may require a large amount of initial activation energy, but then it decreases rapidly after reaching the activation complex. Draw two graphs.

We can also establish that skepticism and self-efficacy may also determine activation energies.
As well as nodes/memes.

Amphetamines probably decrease it for all taks. Amphetamines effectively act as catalysts.

I know that I need a lot of activation energy to e-mail professors. I often think "am I going to make a faux pas"? "is my e-mail proper?" "is the professor going to respond?" Eventually, as I build up a subconscious repetoire of knowledge from my e-mail interactions with professors, I think that I can establish some of the boundaries of it, witness some non-replies to my e-mails, and feel more comfortable taking risks. In effect, I am lowering the amount of activation energy that I need to e-mail a professor.