Use "none" when "some" is harder

A clean zero is often easier to sustain than a tightly rationed "a little."

Why it works

Allowing "some" means re-deciding the amount every single time, and each decision both depletes effort and invites escalation. A categorical "none" removes the quantity question entirely — there is no "how much" to negotiate, only "do I cross the line." For genuinely tempting things, abstinence can paradoxically demand less self-control than moderation.

How to do it

1. For temptations where one leads to more, set the line at zero rather than a small allowance.
2. Notice when "just a little" reliably becomes "a lot" — that is the signal to choose none.
3. Reserve moderation for things you can genuinely stop at a set amount.

Evidence

Consistent with clinical observation in addiction treatment that abstinence can be easier than controlled use for some people, and with the general finding that fewer decisions reduce failure. The "none beats some" claim is person- and substance-dependent, not universal. (clinical)

For some people and behaviors, moderation is both possible and healthier than rigid abstinence; "none" is a tool, not a moral rule.

Common mistake

Applying "none" reflexively to everything, including things you could moderate fine, which creates needless deprivation and rebound.