Use It Too Much and Lose It? The Effect of Working Hours on Cognitive Ability [pdf]
melbourneinstitute.com
melbourneinstitute.com
> For working hours up to around 25 hours a week, an increase in working hours
> has a positive impact on cognitive functioning. However, when working hours
> exceed 25 hours per week, an increase in working hours has a negative impact
> on cognition.
Important detail: They only looked at people 40 or older, so no conclusions should be attempted based on this paper alone about differences between older and younger groups (above/below 40). Looking at their tables at the end of the paper I also didn't see any stratification by age within the sampled group, they only listed the sample size for three (15 years wide) age groups (Table II).
{{citation needed}}
The article crisply called out differences between men and women, on page 13.
If your argument is that these differences are not significant, could you point to the part of the paper that justifies that statement?
"Interestingly, there is no statistical difference in the effects of working hours on cognitive functioning between men and women."
"However, we find that there is no statistically significant gender difference in the effects of working hours on cognitive functioning. "
Yes, 10% is "significant" in the sense that it would be enough for people to care about.
The paper is saying that the sample size is too small to have any confidence that you'd still have a difference (or that the difference wouldn't go in the other direction) if you took a different sample of the population.
But you are right it makes more sense that they are saying gender difference results were not statistically significant - I don't understand why even report them then ?
> ...they are saying gender difference results were not statistically significant -
> I don't understand why even report them then ?
What is the difference between not knowing and knowing there is nothing? Don't tell me there is none... :)
> no conclusions should be drawn from a single study period
The paper more or less confirms from the cognitive domain, that we are working to much. Upto 25 hours are the best. This interestingly coincides with claims from others, eg. UBI folks, to work less for increased productivity. Seems we are getting more and more factual prove that eg. redistribution of wealth should be done not by increasing taxes but by getting more people into the workforce in exchange of others working less (and earning less).
> From what do you come to the conclusion that older people are doing worse?
Hey, why not throw in education or grades while you're at it, after all, "The validity of the variables used to generate exclusion restrictions needs to be investigated in future research", since that would be as valid an instrumental variable as any of the others...
(I also object to the media framing this as an argument for 3-day work weeks. If cognitive performance peaked at 3-days, employee performance could still be way worse due to the few hours split up, in addition to the economic overhead for businesses of having many part-timers.)
There is GDP per hour worked. http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=PDB_LV
Really a recommended read.
For example, if I can get a job and make enough money in a shorter number of hours, I'm probably smarter than the person who can't get or a job or the person who has to work 65+ hours a week, even if accounting for degree or similar.
EDIT: I guess the trick might be to not use a survey, but to give the participants all the same project to work on (very expensive), then adjust the results based on their previous performance. I think an ideal group for this would be students because they're all already working on the same projects. Tell one (random) group that they can have some money if they promise to work on their class project for no more than one hour a day. Could this work?
This may or my not be true. I'm certainly not convinced; the smartest people I know work the longest hours.
Essentially they use 'instruments' which are just other variables to control for this issue. Page 7 has the variables that they're using.
There seems to be a clear correlation between employment and ability, but then they bend the data into a model that seems to exaggerate the differences between >35 and <35 cohorts.
I have worked to much to have energy to read the details, but if the "unemployed" group does not include retired people, then the causality might be in the other direction...
Edit: TL;DR: From the PDF conslussions:
it is found that working hours up to 25–30 hours per week have a positive impact on cognition for males depending on the measure and up to 22–27 hours for females. After that, working hours have a negative impact on cognitive functioning.
> To me seems logical: As we get older...
As we get older more and more energy would be used on preservation (read it as fix damage and less efficient process as result of age), therefore shrinking/eliminating everything not being used it's necessary.
The second is an entry on how our bodies are machines oriented to try to avoid wasting energy... or better said preserving it... for that part my canonical reference would be the Algernon argument:
> The second is an entry on how our bodies are machines oriented to try to avoid wasting energy
The 1st part "our bodies are machines" is as trite a statement as it gets, pardon me for pointing this out.
The 2nd part "oriented to try to avoid wasting energy" is just as bad if not worse - if the main focus of our bodies was just that suicide and eternal sleep would be the best option to achieve that goal.
> As we get older more and more energy would be used on preservation...
> ...therefore shrinking/eliminating everything not being used it's necessary.
No, it's not his "opinion", it is his argument. And he provided argumentation why this might be the case.
It surely is not verified or fact, but it's not merely some subjective opinion.
> And he provided argumentation why this might be the case.
> No, it's not his "opinion", it is his argument. And he provided argumentation
> why this might be the case.
As somebody else (jstanley) responded to a comment in another thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12364193):
> ...for the argument to have any weight you need to show that it is true, not simply state it.I didn't say that parent gave evidence. I say he gave an argument -- you know, premises and logical steps that can be followed (or refuted) to determine if something is true or not.
>So if I argue it's no longer subjective?
No, if someone puts forward an argument, it's by definition not subjective. An argument is something that can be evaluated.
Maybe you conflate arguments with opinions?
Of course an argument might be based on a subjective selection of premises, but that's beside the point. One can always refute the argument by pointing to issues in either its logic or its premises.