3 ms·

> The finding was startling, but “it makes sense,” Horvath says. “When you are hungry, you need to focus your entire system on finding food in the environment.”

> The finding was startling, but “it makes sense,” Horvath says. “When you are hungry, you need to focus your entire system on finding food in the environment.” I never liked these types of rationalization. If the result was opposite, you can easily say that it would make sense because when full, you can concentrate fully on the task at hand, rather than on finding food.

lbr 13y ago
I agree. This logic isn't perfect, but at the same time... I think there is no greater drive than that for sex, food, self preservation etc. I have to imagine that this drive forces you to focus and work. When you are full... sure you can devote your attention to something else. But the body also has a "rest and digest" mode. Blood flows to the core to allow digestion. Pupils constrict. The body sends less blood to the lungs, and decreases O2 exchange. Hear rate slows. These are all responses that make people want to curl up and sleep. Not create, work or work together.
PakG1 13y ago
No you can't. This is one of the first fallacies taught in Logic 101. If A then B, does not mean if !A then !B.
- _delirium 13y ago
  His or her point is that the "evidence" at hand can be rationalized either way. That is because there is no causal evidence about the relationship between hunger and productivity adduced here.
  - PakG1 13y ago
    Thanks for clarifying the point for me instead of simply downvoting. I see what was meant here now. But I think the point could have been made better by pointing out the lack of causal evidence, rather than complaining how it could be rationalized because pretty much anything in the world can be rationalized if you try hard enough.
    - seabee 13y ago
      The point was made best because it presented a counterexample. Merely pointing out 'ad-hoc fallacy' (or similarly, my pet hate 'citation needed') might make the author and a few other people feel good about themselves for seeing the flaws, but it's a lazy response which adds the smallest value greater than saying "I disagree", and is better suited to a points-scoring exercise rather than a discussion.

lbr 13y ago

I agree. This logic isn't perfect, but at the same time... I think there is no greater drive than that for sex, food, self preservation etc. I have to imagine that this drive forces you to focus and work. When you are full... sure you can devote your attention to something else. But the body also has a "rest and digest" mode. Blood flows to the core to allow digestion. Pupils constrict. The body sends less blood to the lungs, and decreases O2 exchange. Hear rate slows. These are all responses that make people want to curl up and sleep. Not create, work or work together.

PakG1 13y ago

No you can't. This is one of the first fallacies taught in Logic 101. If A then B, does not mean if !A then !B.

_delirium 13y ago
His or her point is that the "evidence" at hand can be rationalized either way. That is because there is no causal evidence about the relationship between hunger and productivity adduced here.
- PakG1 13y ago
  Thanks for clarifying the point for me instead of simply downvoting. I see what was meant here now. But I think the point could have been made better by pointing out the lack of causal evidence, rather than complaining how it could be rationalized because pretty much anything in the world can be rationalized if you try hard enough.
  - seabee 13y ago
    The point was made best because it presented a counterexample. Merely pointing out 'ad-hoc fallacy' (or similarly, my pet hate 'citation needed') might make the author and a few other people feel good about themselves for seeing the flaws, but it's a lazy response which adds the smallest value greater than saying "I disagree", and is better suited to a points-scoring exercise rather than a discussion.