4 ms·

I am missing a rather likely cause in the article: The idea that writers lie about their morning writing because it makes them sound virtuous. (Which also expla

I am missing a rather likely cause in the article: The idea that writers lie about their morning writing because it makes them sound virtuous. (Which also explains why fiction writers prefer morning writing ;) Given that a large part of this article rests on self-reported data from interviews (which are specifically vehicles of self-promotion), and that the more anonymous data seems to contradict the interview data, I'd consider this as a more likely explanation than most.

gwern 6y ago
The problem with that is that it's just as easy to make evening writing sound cool and bohemian - look at the evening writer anecdotes like Hunter Thompson's (https://mentalfloss.com/article/33487/hunter-s-thompsons-daily-routine https://mentalfloss.com/article/33487/hunter-s-thompsons-dai...)! They're all like "after sleeping in to afternoon, I go to cocktail parties exchanging witty banter with New Yorker editors, and then at midnight I settle down in the darkness with my snifter of cognac and fine Cuban cigar and write immortal prose until dawn while the muggles snore away".
- groby_b 6y ago
  You do, however, sound anything but virtuous doing that. Cool and bohemian, sure - but most people strive, ultimately, to be accepted as part of society, not live outside of it. And, tbf, I don't know if my theory is in any way applicable. But it's certainly more plausible than "the liminal space right after sleep" and other quite esoteric models. The article as-is is assuming humans without ulterior motives. That often doesn't hold in practice. (This is in general a problem with studies relying on self-reported data - how much is truth vs. wishful thinking) Ultimately, any decent writer understands that the purpose of an interview is to project an image, not to deliver truthful statements about mundane details. Thompson's image requires him to not be a lark. (It was likely shaped by the fact that he really isn't one, but it's a self-reinforcing cycle) So if you are interested in finding out more, I'd suggest that it pays to focus on writers where their stated behavior contradicts their public image.
  - gwern 6y ago
    The 'liminal space' comes up all the time in self-reports, though, including literally the top comment on this page! There's no social desirability bias I can see there.
stallmanite 6y ago
You may be onto something there. I wonder, has anyone done any real digging on why the heck so many people think being a morning person is morally good? It makes no sense to me.
- groby_b 6y ago
  I suspect it's a combination of facts 1) For most of history, we could only do work during daylight. 2) Agricultural work specifically wants early light - there's a lot of things you can't do in bright sunlight because it stresses plants. It's definitely around for a while - the whole "the early bird" thing dates back to at least the 1600's. Aristotle was mumbling about getting up early as well. ("Rising before daylight is also to be commended; it is a healthy habit, and gives more time for the management of the household as well as for liberal studies."[1]) Personally, I'm more a fan of Diogenes ;) So, likely it's considered good because it maximizes "productive" time. [1] Economics, Book1, section 1345a: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg,0086,029:1:1345a http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg...
- da39a3ee 6y ago
  I think that's obvious isn't it? - One component of the popular concept of "laziness" is staying in bed for much longer than you need for sleep. - It's not symmetric: going to bed early is not popularly associated with laziness because going to bed is an active decision (you have to change your state from up to in bed). In contrast, staying in bed is passive. - "laziness" is considered morally bad - Being a morning person involves waking up early and is therefore thought, rightly or wrongly, to be evidence of "not laziness".

gwern 6y ago

The problem with that is that it's just as easy to make evening writing sound cool and bohemian - look at the evening writer anecdotes like Hunter Thompson's (https://mentalfloss.com/article/33487/hunter-s-thompsons-daily-routine https://mentalfloss.com/article/33487/hunter-s-thompsons-dai...)! They're all like "after sleeping in to afternoon, I go to cocktail parties exchanging witty banter with New Yorker editors, and then at midnight I settle down in the darkness with my snifter of cognac and fine Cuban cigar and write immortal prose until dawn while the muggles snore away".

groby_b 6y ago
You do, however, sound anything but virtuous doing that. Cool and bohemian, sure - but most people strive, ultimately, to be accepted as part of society, not live outside of it. And, tbf, I don't know if my theory is in any way applicable. But it's certainly more plausible than "the liminal space right after sleep" and other quite esoteric models. The article as-is is assuming humans without ulterior motives. That often doesn't hold in practice. (This is in general a problem with studies relying on self-reported data - how much is truth vs. wishful thinking) Ultimately, any decent writer understands that the purpose of an interview is to project an image, not to deliver truthful statements about mundane details. Thompson's image requires him to not be a lark. (It was likely shaped by the fact that he really isn't one, but it's a self-reinforcing cycle) So if you are interested in finding out more, I'd suggest that it pays to focus on writers where their stated behavior contradicts their public image.
- gwern 6y ago
  The 'liminal space' comes up all the time in self-reports, though, including literally the top comment on this page! There's no social desirability bias I can see there.

stallmanite 6y ago

You may be onto something there. I wonder, has anyone done any real digging on why the heck so many people think being a morning person is morally good? It makes no sense to me.

groby_b 6y ago
I suspect it's a combination of facts 1) For most of history, we could only do work during daylight. 2) Agricultural work specifically wants early light - there's a lot of things you can't do in bright sunlight because it stresses plants. It's definitely around for a while - the whole "the early bird" thing dates back to at least the 1600's. Aristotle was mumbling about getting up early as well. ("Rising before daylight is also to be commended; it is a healthy habit, and gives more time for the management of the household as well as for liberal studies."[1]) Personally, I'm more a fan of Diogenes ;) So, likely it's considered good because it maximizes "productive" time. [1] Economics, Book1, section 1345a: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg,0086,029:1:1345a http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg...
da39a3ee 6y ago
I think that's obvious isn't it? - One component of the popular concept of "laziness" is staying in bed for much longer than you need for sleep. - It's not symmetric: going to bed early is not popularly associated with laziness because going to bed is an active decision (you have to change your state from up to in bed). In contrast, staying in bed is passive. - "laziness" is considered morally bad - Being a morning person involves waking up early and is therefore thought, rightly or wrongly, to be evidence of "not laziness".