This comment welcomes Ainslie's distinction between three phenomena, what he calls “suppression,” “resolve,” and “habit.” He tries to provide a framework, namely, the term “willpower,” to unite the three. However, “willpower” turns out to be a non-scientific concept. For a concept to be scientific, it must denote a form or an entity that has some internal coherence. Terms such as “storm,” “organism,” “organ,” “firm,” and “market” are scientific concepts insofar as the denoted forms or entities have internal coherence. There is no such internal coherence between “suppression,” “resolve,” and “habit” to the extent that warrants a common term, namely, “willpower,” which can represent their presumed coherence.

Ainslie proposes “willpower” as a scientific concept on the supposition of a common function underpinning the three phenomena. The presumed willpower (1) maintains the suppression of impulses, temptations, and other distractions; (2) sustains the courage to be resolute in the face of adversary, failure, and other challenges; and (3) regulates behavior into effective habits. This comment shall argue that the proposed “willpower” differs systematically in at least the “suppression” and “resolve” functions and, hence, the term is rather a catch-all phrase, that is, one denoting a different phenomenon. This comment does not discuss “habit” because it is not even close to the other two phenomena.

Ainslie makes his case by distinguishing between small/soon (SS) rewards as opposed to large/later (LL). He finds that the SS/LL distinction unifies the “suppression” and “resolve” phenomena. When the decision maker (DM) suppresses behavior in response to a temptation, the DM is choosing LL over SS rewards. Similarly, when the DM faces difficulties with courage and resolve, the DM seems to also be choosing LL over SS rewards. But such similarities are rather superficial, as this comment shall establish. On the contrary, Ainslie finds that what distinguishes “resolve” from “suppression” is a minor issue, namely, the role of effort. Although effort is not involved in “resolve,” it is involved in “suppression.” To be resolute in facing difficulties is not expensive in terms of pecuniary effort, although to adopt rules or commitments to stave off temptations is expensive in terms of pecuniary effort.

Let us agree with Ainslie that effort in the pecuniary sense is involved in “suppression,” but not in “resolve.” It is a welcome step in distinguishing cases of temptation from cases of tenacity and resolution that are needed in the fight against addiction. These two phenomena are often conflated (e.g., Khalil, Reference Khalil2008; Redish, Jensen, & Johnson, Reference Redish, Jensen and Johnson2008).

However, if the two phenomena differ, namely, if pecuniary effort is not pertinent for “resolve” as in the case of “suppression,” the machinery of SS/LL pecuniary rewards is not relevant for the analysis of “resolve.” Indeed, the concepts of SS and LL rewards in the pecuniary sense do not enter into consideration in the first place – although they are relevant in “suppression.” To see why, let us examine “resolve” closely. Resolve is the resilient attitude in the face of pandemics, natural disasters, poor reception of one's novel, negative reviewers' responses to one's scientific paper, career failures, addiction to drugs/sex/videogames, and so on. As such, “resolve” cannot be an optimal decision in the standard rational choice sense – as the case when one adopts second-best optimal rules or commitments in “suppression” in the face of temptations (Khalil, Reference Khalil2015, Reference Khalil and Altman2017). In the case of “resolve,” staying the course and tenacity, as opposed to giving up in the face of difficulties, is not a rational act in the standard sense. There is no well-defined bundle of pecuniary rewards that the DM has to maximize in the first place. Either the DM has stamina, faith, or the belief in one's destiny – or not. And such a decision is rather existential and even transcendental. It is outside the realm of rational choice insofar as such a choice is between pecuniary rewards (see Khalil, Reference Khalil1997).

But if “resolve” involves concepts outside the halls of pecuniary SS and LL rewards, tenacity and steadfastness in the face of difficulties cannot be grounded on the SS/LL pecuniary rewards – that is, the pecuniary rewards that inform the adoption of the rules and commitments in “suppression” in the face of temptations. It is misleading to analyze “suppression” and “resolve” with the same conceptual tools, namely, pecuniary SS/LL rewards. It is erroneous to suppose the same “willpower” that informs the DM in staving off temptations in “suppression” is the same operative that infuses the DM to persist in the pursuit of an acting career, an academic profession, or any goal of distinction.

The term “willpower” might be a convenient shorthand that one may use occasionally to characterize “suppression” and “resolve.” But the term “willpower” cannot be a scientific concept, that is, a concept that captures the different inner coherence of “resolve” and “suppression.”

The distinction between “resolve” and “suppression” is pivotal for many other studies and investigations. To mention one, “resolve” is infused with aspiration for a career path or a desire for distinction in one's profession, whereas such aspiration or desire might be a critical pillar of happiness (Khalil, Reference Khalil2019, Reference Khalil2020). It might be the case that the machinery of the SS/LL pecuniary rewards is limited; it cannot explore the nuanced nexus between pecuniary wellbeing, on one hand, and aspiration that infuses “resolve” that is critical for happiness, on the other.