Hacker News Reader

Comment by jakewins | Hacker News Reader

A lot of replies in here seem to think the article is arguing that the data be disregarded. My reading is that the author is saying that because of the data, the conclusion that the cause is purely psychological must be disregarded.

The argument for that being, partially, that if the effect is caused by hunger that would predict widespread issues elsewhere in society that we do not see and, partially, that there are no other psychological effects this strong.

Another hypothesis is needed. For instance, anyone who has spent time in a courtroom knows judges like to get small simple cases done first to get people on about their day - perhaps the effect is because more complex cases scheduled towards the end of a shift at the bench are more likely to get a negative ruling?

View on HN

This is what the Tom Stafford [1] article suggests:

The main analysis works like this: we know that favourable rulings take longer than unfavourable ones (~7 mins vs ~5 mins), and we assume that judges are able to guess how long a case will take to rule on before they begin it (from clues like the thickness of the file, the types of request made, the representation the prisoner has and so on). Finally, we assume judges have a time limit in mind for each of the three sessions of the day, and will avoid starting cases which they estimate will overrun the time limit for the current session.

[1]: https://mindhacks.com/2016/12/08/rational-judges-not-extrane...

From the article: "If hunger had an effect on our mental resources of this magnitude, our society would fall into minor chaos every day at 11:45 a.m."

This looks compelling at first but how many people are really making any considerable decisions on an empty stomach before lunch? Everyone at my company sets up meetings earlier (9 or 10am) or after lunch because they know how they are when they are hungry and/or thinking about their lunch break. How many people are actually subject to this effect on a given day and how many are making important decisions at that time?

There are a lot of aspects to our daily life that could be under this effect without us observing them individually or as a whole as "minor chaos".

Automobile drivers could be more aggressive and dangerous when hungry. "the highest percentage of them (crashes) occurring between 6-9pm -- evening rush hour. Commuters rush home daily to eat, spend time with their families, watch television and/or get to work on a second job." [1] and "Nationwide, 49% of fatal crashes happen at night, with a fatality rate per mile of travel about three times as high as daytime hours." [2]

Perhaps this effect is causing more automobile crashes but as individuals we chalk it up to people just wanting to get home under their own free will (because we all want to get home after work for a variety of reasons). Or we've just become accustomed to how evening rush hour is and we don't observe it as a more chaotic event affected by psychology.

Separately, why is "minor chaos" necessary to prove the data? This is just the author's parameters. Even though what the judges do is messed up in the hungry situation, it doesn't cause minor chaos and they're making substantial decisions. And the aggregation of this effect could be minor chaos but still not readily observable as the author suggests.

So to the author's key argument about minor chaos - if this effect has always been around then what we know about our daily life might not have attributable and observable chaos even though it does. Or the chaos might not even exist because the number of people truly affected is very small on a daily basis.

[1] https://coverhound.com/blog/post/what-time-of-day-do-most-ac...

[2] https://www.forbes.com/2009/01/21/car-accident-times-forbesl...

> How many people are actually subject to this effect on a given day and how many are making important decisions at that time?

That is the point, this effect is so remarkable, that even a small number of people making a small number of decisions over a long period of time is going to add up to a huge effect.

Maybe it does. How many 2pm meetings are had to correct for 11am meetings? The thing is, most systems have a lot of checks and balances built even. Even if a decision is made, it is quite easy to revisit it hours later. Even days after it is often pretty easy to revise a decision.

It would be better to look in areas where decisions are irreversible and consequences are immediate instead of society in general.

> a small number of people making a small number of decisions over a long period of time is going to add up to a huge effect

That hasn't been shown but I agree it's possible. As I mentioned, if it's true and there is a huge effect as you suggest or minor chaos as the author argues but it's not observable, then the effect is still real.

The key argument from the author against this effect being true is that minor chaos would manifest because it's remarkable in the judges. But we had to do a study to find this in judges... And judges are in a unique and powerful position.

>The argument for that being, partially, that if the effect is caused by hunger that would predict widespread issues elsewhere in society that we do not see and, partially, that there are no other psychological effects this strong.

I like that the author is invoking a consistency check from a separate domain (a very good practice!), but this particular one is over-reaching, for several reasons:

1) Judges don't personally bear a negative cost from overly harsh judgments (within the variation shown on these cases). So you can reasonably believe that judges are influenced by hunger (and likewise for anyone who knows their decision isn't life-or-death), but also believe that when there is more at stake, the general population is more careful and introspective (at these mild hunger levels).

2) We do in fact, anecdotally, see the "hangry" phenomenon.

3) We do see people rioting when resources are short, especially food. It would be surprising if you got the opposite result -- if judgments were hasty when you're very hungry, but not sorta-hasty when you're sorta-hungry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com