I think the article makes a mistake in assuming that everything painful is unpleasant. Why do people eat spicy foods then? I find that as I get older, my tolerance for boredom has become lower and lower. When I was younger, I used to be able to just sit and think. Now I dread long drives because the sheer boredom of it drives me crazy. And it gets even weirder, because although I don't like social interaction that mu…
> I think the article makes a mistake in assuming that everything painful is unpleasant. Why do people eat spicy foods then?
They gave people an electric shock. Those people said thu would pay to avoid that shock again.
Later, when left in a room where the choice is to sit with your thoughts or give yourself a shock a bunch of people gave themselves a shock, even though they had previously said they'd avoid it.
This seems like a poor study to gauge peoples' desire/aversion to thinking. You put me in a room with nothing but a button I'll probably press it out of curiosity. Put me in a garden with a enjoyable drink and I'll happily contemplate whatever comes to mind until I want to get a refill.
You didn't read the article. It says they shocked the participants before the study started so the curiosity factor was not present.
The fundamental problem is that the study is substituting the author's interpretations of behaviors for a simple description of the behaviors. The authors tell the participants to think when they are in the empty room but there is no verification that thinking is the condition the participants avoid by pressing the button and equally, there's no proof that "pain" is the condition they sought by pressing the button.
I guess one way to test what might have happened in this study is to time yourself for 15 min and see what you'd do. In my experience, being alone with my thoughts and meditating or just sitting there is useful, but not particularly pleasant. Silence is often where people have to find and deal with all the shitty truths about themselves.
This is sad and a bit disturbing because it suggests that average people seem to dislike thinking . I'm quite the opposite, and 15 minutes of pure thinking for me would pass by quite easily - I feel like I can't get enough time to think more carefully about all the ideas that I have for the things I do, or want to. Then again, I'm introverted and definitely not representative of the average population. (Of course, I'…
I find it quite pleasant to be alone with my thoughts. I've always liked taking long showers and walks for exactly this reason. Sometimes, when I'm working on an interesting problem, I can pass entire days mostly just thinking and pacing.
Exactly! Plenty of people like to think; not many people like to sit in a room with nothing interesting happening. Given the choice between sitting in a room with nothing to do but shock myself or stare at a wall, I'd probably play with the button. Given a choice between shocking myself and going for a walk in the woods, I'd absolutely choose to go walk in the woods every time.
I'm TERRIBLE at thinking when I'm sitting. I have to be moving or doing something, even if it's something mindless like walking.
Just because it's published is no reason not to question the validity of the study. I've been in science long enough to know that flawed work can into important journals. The Globe article's title and the original title of the HN post focused on the electrical shocks, implying that people would prefer doing something very painful rather than think silently. I can't read the article itself, but the Science Editor's su…
they are talking about people who would pay money to avoid the very same shocks. So, let's extend your thought, doesn't sound terribly unpleasant? nor does being alone with your thoughts sound terribly unpleasant. But they measured the two and discovered that being alone with your thoughts is MORE unpleasant. your insight that various aspects of the experiment make a difference can be a valuable tool in order to go l…
The real article is behind a paywall so all I have is the Globe article.There isn't much to dig into. Based on he Globe article, the researchers "asked the people how much they would pay to avoid the shock experience if they had $5 to spend." And "...of the 42 people who said they would pay to avoid the shock, two-thirds of men chose to shock themselves..." It didn't say anyone actually stood to lose any real money to avoid shocks. It also doesn't even say how much someone would pay ($5, $1, $0.1), just that they would give up some of (hypothetical) $5 they had. This combined with the fact the shocks were "mild shocks to the ankle" makes me wonder whether that was really unpleasant enough to make the point the Globe headline trumpeted.
This seems like a poor study to gauge peoples' desire/aversion to thinking. You put me in a room with nothing but a button I'll probably press it out of curiosity. Put me in a garden with a enjoyable drink and I'll happily contemplate whatever comes to mind until I want to get a refill.
>> One person pressed the button 190 times That cheered me up. God only knows what was wrong with their study but when someone shocks themselves 200 times just to throw off your excel macros I think you should at least reconsider your bedside manner. Reminds me of nothing more than a very early episode of the Simpsons
I'm curious how much of a shock it was subjectively. Small shocks could be mildly pleasurable due to the endorphin response, similar to the mechanism that makes spicy food pleasurable.
Does this study have any bearing on "hammock-driven development" vs. the compulsion to start writing code (with or without TDD)?
Don't know why you're being downvoted, this actually came to my mind as well - I'm a big fan of HDD (thanks Rich!). I don't think this study has much bearing on it though; the study focused on "the average person", who arguably does not share the same propensity for deep thought as a developer who'd be attracted to HDD.
> Don't know why you're being downvoted
Perhaps because someone who downvotes without replying is the sort of person who would rather click than think.