Hey look, it's an interview with philosopher Galen Strawson on the subject of free will in noted magazine, Believer! And look, it's an exceedingly weird turn of phrase found therein!
BLVR: But then where did that desire come from—the desire to acquire the love of exercise...or olives?
GS: Right—now the deeper point cuts in. For suppose you do want to acquire a want you haven't got. The question is, where did the first want—the want for a want—come from? It seems it was just there, just a given, not something you chose or engineered. It was just there, like most of your preferences in food, music, footwear, sex, interior lighting and so on.
One wants to ask: who the fuck says "a want for a want"? What in the world does that mean? I think it can only mean one thing. I could say, for example, something like this: "I don't want to watch The Conversation, but I want to want to watch it". But I think that could only be explained by reference to some other want I have, of a very particular form: say, the want to be a cultured kind of guy, coupled with the belief that cultured kinds of guys and gals will want to watch movies like The Conversation. That is, I want to be a certain type of person, and certain kinds of desires are characteristic of that type. I don't actually want to change myself such that I would want to watch TC, I want already to be someone who would want to. Note that in the original sentence no reference is made to the type to which I am implicitly referring, though. One could say "I don't want to exercise, but I want to want to exercise", meaning that he wanted to be the kind of diligent person who takes care of his body, but not, I think, "I want to be the kind of person who &c, and therefore I want to want to exercise" (and saying "I want to be thin, and therefore I want to want to exercise" is right out —"being thin" is not a role one can inhabit in that way).
But that's clearly not what Strawson is talking about in the essay. He's talking more along the lines of "I want to exercise, and therefore I must, at some level, want to want to exercise" (or at best, "I want to be thin, so I want to exercise, so I want to want to be thin"). That makes no sense. How is that statement to be understood? I do not know.
In conclusion, I'm not even going to bother mentioning the actual substance of his argument as developed in that interview because it'll just make me pissed off.