3 ms·
From the article: "If hunger had an effect on our mental resources of this magnitude, our society would fall into minor chaos every day at 11:45 a.m." This loo
by exclusiv 9y ago
From the article: "If hunger had an effect on our mental resources of this magnitude, our society would fall into minor chaos every day at 11:45 a.m."
This looks compelling at first but how many people are really making any considerable decisions on an empty stomach before lunch? Everyone at my company sets up meetings earlier (9 or 10am) or after lunch because they know how they are when they are hungry and/or thinking about their lunch break. How many people are actually subject to this effect on a given day and how many are making important decisions at that time?
There are a lot of aspects to our daily life that could be under this effect without us observing them individually or as a whole as "minor chaos".
Automobile drivers could be more aggressive and dangerous when hungry. "the highest percentage of them (crashes) occurring between 6-9pm -- evening rush hour. Commuters rush home daily to eat, spend time with their families, watch television and/or get to work on a second job." [1] and "Nationwide, 49% of fatal crashes happen at night, with a fatality rate per mile of travel about three times as high as daytime hours." [2]
Perhaps this effect is causing more automobile crashes but as individuals we chalk it up to people just wanting to get home under their own free will (because we all want to get home after work for a variety of reasons). Or we've just become accustomed to how evening rush hour is and we don't observe it as a more chaotic event affected by psychology.
Separately, why is "minor chaos" necessary to prove the data? This is just the author's parameters. Even though what the judges do is messed up in the hungry situation, it doesn't cause minor chaos and they're making substantial decisions. And the aggregation of this effect could be minor chaos but still not readily observable as the author suggests.
So to the author's key argument about minor chaos - if this effect has always been around then what we know about our daily life might not have attributable and observable chaos even though it does. Or the chaos might not even exist because the number of people truly affected is very small on a daily basis.
[1] https://coverhound.com/blog/post/what-time-of-day-do-most-accidents-occur https://coverhound.com/blog/post/what-time-of-day-do-most-ac...
[2] https://www.forbes.com/2009/01/21/car-accident-times-forbeslife-cx_he_0121driving.html https://www.forbes.com/2009/01/21/car-accident-times-forbesl...
- cakedoggie 9y ago> How many people are actually subject to this effect on a given day and how many are making important decisions at that time? That is the point, this effect is so remarkable, that even a small number of people making a small number of decisions over a long period of time is going to add up to a huge effect.
- BearGoesChirp 9y agoMaybe it does. How many 2pm meetings are had to correct for 11am meetings? The thing is, most systems have a lot of checks and balances built even. Even if a decision is made, it is quite easy to revisit it hours later. Even days after it is often pretty easy to revise a decision. It would be better to look in areas where decisions are irreversible and consequences are immediate instead of society in general.
- exclusiv 9y ago> a small number of people making a small number of decisions over a long period of time is going to add up to a huge effect That hasn't been shown but I agree it's possible. As I mentioned, if it's true and there is a huge effect as you suggest or minor chaos as the author argues but it's not observable, then the effect is still real. The key argument from the author against this effect being true is that minor chaos would manifest because it's remarkable in the judges. But we had to do a study to find this in judges... And judges are in a unique and powerful position.