4 ms·

> Added cognitive load has been shown to result in reduced willpower. Has it, though ? What has been shown is that added cognitive load correlates with reduced

> Added cognitive load has been shown to result in reduced willpower. Has it, though ? What has been shown is that added cognitive load correlates with reduced will power within these experimental conditions.(Edit: Response to comment below, this is wrong) >You're making assumptions here that you have not justified: That it requires willpower to work hard and meet a deadline, as opposed to that it can be a total failure of willpower to allow things to wait that long in the first place and be motivated by stress You are saying that it is possible for someone to do quality work in a fit of anxiety and in the absence of will power. This is unfortunately not obvious to me :(

Dylan16807 13y ago
Correlates? Are you trying to imply that it's not causation? The experiment randomly assigned people to groups and then increased the cognitive load on one group. Then it found a statistically significant difference between groups in a particular measurement. That's the most basic way of showing cause and effect. Go ahead and talk about how it's not that simple in the real world, but don't imply that such a correlation isn't because of causation.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  For what it's worth, I wasn't disputing the results of the experiment, I was disputing the claim about the internal model of the brain. Yes, people chose cake more frequently if they memorized a 7-digit number and there is causation there. This might even happen if the sample represents all of humanity. But the explanation as to the mechanism for this in the brain is hand-waving.
- Zimahl 13y ago
  I'm with foobarbazqux. The experiment randomly assigned people to groups and then increased the cognitive load on one group. Then it found a statistically significant difference between groups in a particular measurement. This sentence is true. So as cognitive load increased, there was a significant difference in the choice of the two groups. What it doesn't seem to justify is whether or not it was related to willpower. We also don't know how many chose cake in group A (2-digit group). If it was two in group A and 3 in group B (the 7-digit group), then there's your 50% increase.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    First off I'm assuming the experiment wasn't a fraud, and had statistically significant results, so I'm going to ignore that last line unless you have non-theoretical complaints about their statistics. Now as to your main point, what is willpower other than the applied ability to make good choices in the face of temptation? It's true that if you take this experiment in isolation you can only reasonably extrapolate to food. But that's where you bring in other studies, like the puzzle-solving dogs. The way you could disprove this theory is by doing a few similar tests with other willpower-related choices. Right now the evidence points in a certain way, but it's completely falsifiable and foobarbazqux's argument is an unrelated objection pertaining to where willpower comes from. foobarbazqux is the the one bringing the wishy-washiness into this argument that they blame psychology for.
    - Zimahl 13y ago
      Sure my last line was somewhat facetious but still a valid point - I'd love a link to the paper to draw real conclusions. I think the blog post is a little underwhelming as far as insight into the experiment. As for the puzzle-solving dog study, I still don't think that implies a willpower/cognitive task difficulty link. It certainly doesn't help prove human decision making. I think we can both assume that humans are slightly more complex. Finally, I also think linking this to app design is silly at best. But that is completely biased, personal opinion.
      - foobarbazqux 13y ago
        > I'd love a link to the paper to draw real conclusions https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6125791 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6125791

Dylan16807 13y ago

Correlates? Are you trying to imply that it's not causation? The experiment randomly assigned people to groups and then increased the cognitive load on one group. Then it found a statistically significant difference between groups in a particular measurement. That's the most basic way of showing cause and effect. Go ahead and talk about how it's not that simple in the real world, but don't imply that such a correlation isn't because of causation.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
For what it's worth, I wasn't disputing the results of the experiment, I was disputing the claim about the internal model of the brain. Yes, people chose cake more frequently if they memorized a 7-digit number and there is causation there. This might even happen if the sample represents all of humanity. But the explanation as to the mechanism for this in the brain is hand-waving.
Zimahl 13y ago
I'm with foobarbazqux. The experiment randomly assigned people to groups and then increased the cognitive load on one group. Then it found a statistically significant difference between groups in a particular measurement. This sentence is true. So as cognitive load increased, there was a significant difference in the choice of the two groups. What it doesn't seem to justify is whether or not it was related to willpower. We also don't know how many chose cake in group A (2-digit group). If it was two in group A and 3 in group B (the 7-digit group), then there's your 50% increase.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  First off I'm assuming the experiment wasn't a fraud, and had statistically significant results, so I'm going to ignore that last line unless you have non-theoretical complaints about their statistics. Now as to your main point, what is willpower other than the applied ability to make good choices in the face of temptation? It's true that if you take this experiment in isolation you can only reasonably extrapolate to food. But that's where you bring in other studies, like the puzzle-solving dogs. The way you could disprove this theory is by doing a few similar tests with other willpower-related choices. Right now the evidence points in a certain way, but it's completely falsifiable and foobarbazqux's argument is an unrelated objection pertaining to where willpower comes from. foobarbazqux is the the one bringing the wishy-washiness into this argument that they blame psychology for.
  - Zimahl 13y ago
    Sure my last line was somewhat facetious but still a valid point - I'd love a link to the paper to draw real conclusions. I think the blog post is a little underwhelming as far as insight into the experiment. As for the puzzle-solving dog study, I still don't think that implies a willpower/cognitive task difficulty link. It certainly doesn't help prove human decision making. I think we can both assume that humans are slightly more complex. Finally, I also think linking this to app design is silly at best. But that is completely biased, personal opinion.
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      > I'd love a link to the paper to draw real conclusions https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6125791 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6125791