Stochastic Override Therapy

by

Stochastic Override Therapy (SOT): A Novel Intervention Framework for Correcting Consistently Biased Decision-Making Through Randomisation

Author: Beach (with the intellectual assistance of MuseByte, LLM)

Abstract

This paper proposes a novel behavioral intervention called Stochastic Override Therapy (SOT). It is designed to assist individuals who consistently make poor, biased, or self-destructive decisions by offloading moment-by-moment agency to a simple, randomising mechanism (e.g., a coin flip). The hypothesis is that for individuals whose decision-making track record is reliably below the threshold of random chance (e.g., making incorrect or harmful choices 60-70% of the time), introducing an unbiased 50/50 decision mechanism will statistically improve their outcome trajectory. This method draws parallels with existing public health strategies, but represents a unique, low-friction, accessible behavioral tool not yet formally recognised.

1. Introduction

While much of human behavioral therapy aims to strengthen decision-making skills, there are instances where an individual’s internal judgment process is so compromised—through addiction, emotional bias, impulse, or habit—that continued reliance on their own faculties results in reliably poor outcomes.

This paper proposes the creation of a simple but effective external override mechanism: a physical token (such as a coin marked YES/NO), used to resolve certain decisions in place of the individual’s compromised willpower or flawed cognitive algorithm. If obeyed consistently, such randomisation has the potential to dramatically reduce poor outcomes and improve life trajectories.

We call this process Stochastic Override Therapy.

2. Foundational Premise

Let us assume an individual (hereafter referred to as the “subject”) makes the wrong choice 70% of the time in a given behavioral domain (e.g., diet, substance use, procrastination).

Let us further assume the following:

  • They know the healthier or more rational option in many cases.
  • They frequently override this knowledge due to impulse, addiction, or cognitive bias.
  • They are willing to allow a third-party mechanism to help them make decisions.

In this model, a 50/50 random device, such as a coin, becomes statistically superior to their internal decision engine. If they agree to abide by the result (YES = proceed, NO = abstain), then they will, on average, make fewer bad choices.

Example:

If a subject chooses wrongly 70% of the time, replacing their choice with a random 50% mechanism reduces bad outcomes by 28.6%:

Alternatively, if only 30% of their choices are currently good:

3. Use Cases

  • Addictive Behaviors: Eating, smoking, drinking, pornography, gambling.
  • Compulsive Decision-Making: Impulse buying, doom-scrolling, unnecessary risk-taking.
  • Emotionally Driven Avoidance: Failing to attend social events, procrastination, cancelling plans.
  • Habitual Self-Sabotage: Rejecting opportunities, giving in to inner critic voices.

In all such cases, the subject is not ignorant of the better path—they are simply overwhelmed by the machinery of habit, emotion, or impulse.

4. Psychological Principles Engaged

  • Decision Fatigue Reduction: Outsourcing momentary choices can reduce willpower depletion.
  • Commitment Device: Obeying the coin becomes a low-friction Ulysses contract.
  • Higher Power Substitution: Similar in function to AA’s “surrender” doctrine, the coin acts as an impersonal, non-judging guide.
  • Bias Interrupt: Randomisation halts the cognitive loop before it completes its destructive circuit.

5. Method of Application

  1. The subject identifies areas of habitual failure or poor judgment.
  2. The subject agrees to allow a coin (or another binary randomising tool) to make decisions in those specific contexts.
  3. The subject consistently obeys the outcome, regardless of preference.

Example:

Faced with the urge to eat a second dessert, the subject flips the coin. “NO” result = do not eat it. Obey the result regardless of craving.

6. Limitations and Ethical Considerations

  • Scope: Not appropriate for life-or-death decisions or legal matters.
  • Compliance: Success depends on faithful adherence to the mechanism.
  • Autonomy: Some subjects may resist external delegation of will.
  • Addiction Severity: In extreme cases (e.g., late-stage alcoholism), even 50% inhibition may be insufficient.

Nonetheless, as a self-managed, low-cost tool for interrupting biased internal processes, SOT could be profoundly impactful.

7. Public Health Potential

SOT is not yet recognised or deployed in public health frameworks. However, it is aligned with existing strategies such as:

  • Nudge Theory
  • Commitment Devices
  • Implementation Intentions
  • CBT-Based Habit Interruptions

It adds something novel: random delegation of agency when personal judgment is pathologically unreliable.

8. Conclusion

Stochastic Override Therapy may be unorthodox, but it is statistically sound, philosophically resonant, and psychologically plausible. By simply recognising when our decision engine is broken—and allowing a fair coin to decide for us—we may steer life away from disaster with startling regularity.

This is not an abdication of responsibility. It is a conscious tool for reclaiming it.

9. Suggested Further Exploration

  • Pilot studies in self-reported impulse control.
  • App-based tools that randomise and log decisions.
  • Integration into CBT or addiction programs.
  • Philosophical implications: agency vs. chance in therapeutic settings.

End of Document

***

Beach Thorncombe / C. A. Goodland 20/05/2025