I went over your articles and they don't make a particularly strong case against crunch time. The first one tries to use construction work and other physically

I went over your articles and they don't make a particularly strong case against crunch time. The first one tries to use construction work and other physically demanding jobs as a proxy for productivity. I think it's fair that working construction or manufacturing jobs for 60 hours a week for an extended period of time will result in lower productivity. It would be nice if the article had something more specific to software development or some other form of creative or technical endeavor. That said, it also says that crunch time for short periods of time on the order of two to three months does result in increased productivity. The article relating loss of sleep to loss of productivity is fair and robust, it's worth taking seriously. The article relating suicidal ideation with work hours is devastating, but it's hard to see how it relates to your point since the highest percentage of suicidal ideation is among those working less than 40 hours (17.2% suicidal ideation). The study itself is in Korean so I am not able to dig too deep into it but there is a table on p342 which I think is pretty revealing. Basically what it shows is that suicidal ideation is highly correlated to one's level of education; people who have little to no education showing the greatest level of suicidal ideation whereas those with a college education have very little suicidal ideation. My suspicion is that those with little education either work very long hours, or work very few hours which is why suicidal ideation is bimodal. Those with a college education are most likely to work within the 40-60 hours a week which had the lowest suicidal ideation. The research linked to jstor.org is behind a pay wall, but I managed to find another source for it at [1] and it contradicts your point. It specifically states that no difference was found among those working an 84 hour work schedule compared to those working a 40 hour work schedule, and I quote right from the study which I link to below: "In conclusion, working of one's own free will on an 84-hour workweek schedule with physically and mentally demanding job assignments does not necessarily induce greater physiological strain than working with similar tasks on an ordinary 40-hour workweek schedule." It appears the problem with working long hours is not the duration of time, but rather the manner in which those hours are scheduled. The article points out that when people are able to schedule their own extended hours, they perform as well as those who work a given 40 hour schedule, at least as far as their physiology is concerned. All told, the arguments you presented should not be quickly dismissed and need to be respected, but they are not as strong you made them seem and certainly do not establish my point as being patently absurd. On the contrary one of your sources says that crunch time over short periods of time from 2-3 months can produce an increase in productivity, and another one of your sources says that working long hours is fine so long as one is in control of their schedule. It is somewhat strange that you'd present said sources while also claiming that I'm being absurd. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17091202/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17091202/