
Kathy Sierra: Your app makes me fat - _pius
http://seriouspony.com/blog/2013/7/24/your-app-makes-me-fat
======
tobtoh
For those people wondering why so many comments here are saying 'Glad to see
Kathy blogging again', it's because she stopped blogging in 2007 after getting
severely harassed online.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Sierra#Harassment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Sierra#Harassment)

As someone who followed her previous blog 'Creating Passionate Users', I'm
really glad she's back writing publicly - not so much for this particular post
(which wasn't anything novel), but more that it means her scars have healed
enough. Hope to see more posts from her soon!

~~~
bishnu
Wow this is appalling. Was it a large-scale campaign or was it all just weev?
Disgusting.

~~~
true_religion
From what I remember it was just one person who was very persistent, but she
found it troubling enough to stop.

------
foobarbazqux
> Willpower and cognitive processing draw from the same pool of resources.

Like many things in psychology, this is basically unfalsifiable. Our brains
have pools of resources? How do you even differentiate between willpower and
cognitive processing at a neurological level? It's one model, but there are
other equally valid but also unfalsifiable explanations. What about anxiety
goes up after working on a hard problem (memorizing a 7-digit number,
apparently) - maybe you can test this by measuring cortisol levels - and so
you choose the (stereotypically) more satisfying and rewarding dessert (cake)
as a form of emotional eating and also, you know, rewarding yourself for a job
well done?

I mean, it's basically just saying, "Use your brain, and your brain will get
tired. Both solving problems and doing something you don't want to do count as
using your brain." Sure, but I hardly need an experiment to tell me that.

Also, what about people who perform better under stress? Since it requires
willpower to work hard and meet a deadline, and since the quality of your
cognitive processing also goes up (for an initial period), doesn't that defeat
the "competing for the same pool of resources" claim?

Psychology is great and a lot of the unfalsifiable stuff is valuable but it's
irritating when it's dressed up as science.

~~~
vidarh
> How do you even differentiate between willpower and cognitive processing at
> a neurological level? It's one model, but there are other equally valid but
> also unfalsifiable explanations. What about anxiety goes up after working on
> a hard problem

This may matter for _some_ things, such as if you're doing research in the
field. But there are plenty of situations where it is irrelevant, such as in
the context of this article, where what matters is the overall point:

Added cognitive load has been shown to result in reduced willpower. Whether or
not explanation given is correct may be interesting to discuss, but it is not
important to the point of the article.

> I mean, it's basically just saying, "Use your brain, and your brain will get
> tired. Both solving problems and doing something you don't want to do count
> as using your brain." Sure, but I hardly need an experiment to tell me that.

No, it is saying more than that. It also says that exercising willpower
affects the same. That is, maintaining decisions that you do want, such as
keeping to a diet, is _also_ affected, and so counteracting desires to stick
to what you consciously have decided you ant gets progressively harder if you
have "used your brain" on pretty anything else.

More importantly, when you say "your brain will get tired", it is misleading:
Many people feel energized after spending time thinking about a puzzle, or
playing a complicated game, for example. Yet as far as I remember, even when
people feel they are relaxing, if they impose cognitive load, those actions
will _still_ measurably reduce your willpower for some time afterwards.

You may not have needed an experiment to tell you that, but a lot of people
have needed experiments to tell them that.

More people should be aware of that tooo, as it makes a big difference in
strategies to ensure you stick to your goals:

For example, you may get better results if you make sure you go to the store
when relaxed to reduce the chance of impulse buying stuff that messes up your
diet. Many who diet avoid shopping for food when hungry, but few avoid
shopping for food when they've spent a lot of time solving problems.

In general, rest before you put yourself in situations that test your
willpower, and be aware that playing your favourite mind puzzle game is _not_
the right type of rest, even if it's fun and you feel energized afterwards.

> Also, what about people who perform better under stress? Since it requires
> willpower to work hard and meet a deadline, and since the quality of your
> cognitive processing also goes up (for an initial period), doesn't that
> defeat the "competing for the same pool of resources" claim?

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; that the quality of your cognitive
processing goes up (as opposed to that you actually sit down and try to do the
work). Maybe you're right, but you fall straight into the same trap you accuse
the psychologists behind research into willpower of doing: Ignoring other
factors like anxiety.

~~~
simula67
> 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
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.

~~~
Zimahl
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
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
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
> 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)

------
xenophanes
This is so stupid. The experiment can be explained in many different ways and
she just picks a trendy one. Another explanation is people who did harder work
were more tired and hungry, or felt more like rewarding themselves. I don't
particularly favor this explanation; I have no idea what is the right
explanation; and that's the point, the experiment doesn't tell us.

She also ignores that for some people it takes more willpower to eat the cake.
It can go either way depending on a person's ideas. She just assumes everyone
has currently trendy ideas wherein fruit bowls are unpleasant but virtuous and
people use willpower to eat them. But many other lifestyles are possible. For
example, one might think cake is more delicious but they are scared of getting
fat so it requires willpower to enjoy eating it instead of giving in to the
fear, whereas the fruit bowl is easy to eat because there's no pressure
against it, so it's the easy default.

~~~
algorias
Another example: I am a chocolate lover and would take the fruit, because
chocolate cake (especially the free variety) has a tendency of tasting worse
than it looks.

------
kevinconroy
So happy to see Kathy blogging again! She's always been my favorite tech-UX
blogger.

For anyone interested in her prior blog, Creating Passionate Users, I coped
with her absence from the blogosphere by curating an e-book with all of my
favorite posts.

You can grab a copy here:
[http://www.kevinmconroy.com/pdf/creating_passionate_users.pd...](http://www.kevinmconroy.com/pdf/creating_passionate_users.pdf)

~~~
porker
Thank you! Any chance you could convert your source into an epub (or even
mobi, but not so keen on that)?

~~~
kevinconroy
A quick Google search turned up some PDF-to-epub converters. YMMV. I can send
you the Word document that I used for this if it's helpful.

~~~
kaitai
word to epub is easy -- do that instead.

------
teej
This is bothering me, but first image is inaccurate. They were asked to
memorize a two-digit number (like 17) or a seven-digit number (like 8675309).
The image shows 2 two-digit numbers and 7 two-digit numbers. This is important
as our working memory capacity has been shown to be about seven digits.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two)

It's a minor detail, but an important one.

EDIT: It looks like the image has been updated. Thanks Kathy!

~~~
noloqy
It bothered me a bit too.

What also bothered me was that I'm not sure if the conclusion of the research
is correct. At least, from the fact that people who were asked to memorize
more, we can't deduce that willpower and cognitive processing draw from the
same pool of resources. The conclusion could be correct (and I confess that I
haven't read the paper), but there is one other obvious reason that may be
possible.

If I do physical exercise, I have an easier time allowing myself to eat some
chocolate. If I work a long day, I have an easier time allowing myself to sit
down and watch TV for a while. If I solve a difficult puzzle, I have an easier
time allowing myself to do something fun.

I like to believe that this is not the result of my lacking willpower after
cognitive processing or physical exercise, but of a moral justification that
it related to the quid pro quo principle: if I do something good, I have
deserved the right to do something bad.

~~~
samastur
What you described is exactly how lack of will power looks like.

You find rationalization, an argument why it is OK to do something you
otherwise would prefer not to do (eat cake, avoid work-out...).

I've always had to pay attention to my weight and the difficult part is
persuading yourself not to make an exception no matter how compelling the
argument for it looks like (and "deserve" is one of the more difficult ones).

~~~
Zimahl
It assumes that cake to all participants is decadent and requires willpower.
As a college student in my 20s, no amount of food was off limits and therefore
I wouldn't have batted an eye at choosing the cake.

I read the results as more of "I completed a hard task therefore I feel it's
appropriate choosing the greater reward."

~~~
Joeri
If that were true, i don't see any reason why people would ever choose the
lesser reward, since both were presented in an equal fashion. They chose fruit
because they consider it the healthier alternative, not because it's a more
appropriate reward. It really is the case that it's all about our finite
capacity of willpower, and how we rationalize it away.

Since realizing a few years ago that willpower is finite and must be
periodically recharged i've remapped the way i go about things to remove the
possibility for negative choices or to make the right choice require less
willpower. For example, when i commit source code the server runs a jshint
syntax check and prevents my commit if there are issues. I have no choice but
to make all my code pass jshint checks. Another example: recently i noticed i
spent a lot of time playing a game that i considered a negative use of my
time. In a single limited moment of willpower i deleted it and my savegames,
so that it would cost a great deal of effort to get back to where i was. The
easiest path now is not to play that game. If only i could do the same thing
for my internet addiction :)

~~~
Zimahl
The problem I have is that 'willpower' is completely subjective and arbitrary.
Exerting your willpower is not the same as me exerting mine. Also, your
definition of a willpower choice might not be the same to me.

Like I said, in my 20s, food was meaningless. Calories/fat/cholesterol weren't
even something I considered. I wasn't overweight due to my high metabolism, so
the choice between fruit or cake would be arbitrary. It wouldn't depend on
using my brain, it would depend on any number of other factors. To put it
simply: if I felt like the fruit, I'd eat the fruit, otherwise cake.

You felt that playing a specific game was a waste of your time and you felt
you'd have difficulty in quitting so you made it significantly hard to start
again. Someone else might be able to just shut it down, leave it all
installed, never go back to it, and, maybe, never even think about it again.

So, unless you know that a person has some reservations about eating cake,
it's hard to say whether choosing cake over fruit is a willpower decision.
There's an even worse example in the article:

 _Spend hours at work on a tricky design problem? You’re more likely to stop
at Burger King on the drive home._

Once again, it makes the assumption that stopping off at Burger King is
somehow taboo to the person and because they blew a ton of cognitive cycles
their willpower is blown. And all this completely inferred by a flawed premise
(or at least flawed in how it is presented to us in this blog post).

Let me give a reverse example. I chew my nails, sometimes very badly, and this
can get to the point of the skin around the nail as well. It can be pretty
painful. I've tried just about everything to quit, yet I've been doing this
for at least early middle school. I find that if I can keep myself busy
enough, either through work or non-stressful activities, I do not chew my
nails (or at least it's minimized. My willpower is low when my cognitive
functions are in excess - the exact opposite of what this research and
accompanying blog assumes. That is one reason I find it to be somewhat
questionable.

------
ryandvm
I don't get it. How did the first experiment imply anything about willpower?

Seems to me that a viable explanation for the first experiment is that heavy
cognitive processing trips some circuitry in the brain that says "We got a lot
of work to do. Get me some glucose."

~~~
rcthompson
The blog post is glossing over the details of the peer-reviewed scientific
literature a bit. I'm not sure, but I believe the result has been replicated
without food.

On the other hand, I believe there is also a body of more recent research
indicating that the "cognitive fuel tank" model is too simplistic to give an
accurate description of how it works.

~~~
JanezStupar
A guy went and invented calculus in something like 2009.

It went through peer review process and got praised for being revolutionary.

However the author was a MD.

Peer-reviewed scientific literature means nothing on its own.

~~~
rcthompson
A single peer-reviewed article means nothing on its own, but a result
replicated in many peer-reviewed articles by independent authors over many
years starts to mean something. That's generally what people mean when they
say that the "peer-reviewed scientific literature" supports a claim or theory.

However, the very common exception is when someone with an agenda abuses the
term "peer-reviewed scientific literature" to describe a single article or a
string of articles from a single or a few closely-affiliated sources in order
to support their agenda. Of course, this is taking advantage of the true
meaning of the term. See also "clinically proven".

~~~
JanezStupar
But the example I mentioned resulted in citations. And praise and replications
and whatnot.

It was still absurd and should not have happened.

------
_pius
Truly great to have Kathy back. She gave an awesome talk at BoS 2012 on the
"Minimum Badass User" that subsumes this post. Well worth an hour of your life
to watch:

[http://businessofsoftware.org/2013/02/kathy-sierra-
building-...](http://businessofsoftware.org/2013/02/kathy-sierra-building-the-
minimum-badass-user-business-of-software-a-masterclass-in-thinking-about-
software-product-development/)

------
pygy_
"To my readers from long ago: _I 've missed you._ More than you know."

\-- [http://seriouspony.com/about/](http://seriouspony.com/about/)

...

She's back. I'm giddy as a schoolgirl.

------
6ren
One thing that troubles me about technological progress is whether we really
are making anything better. Sure, we solve one problem... but it creates
problems of its own, and exposes previously hidden problems.

I think this article provides something of an answer: work in itself is not a
bad thing. It takes effort and concentration - it's _work_ \- but it can be
enjoyable, satisfying, meaningful.

But putting in effort that is wasted, by being diverted into tedious,
pointless, unnecessarily complex tasks, is a bad thing. It's not enjoyable,
not satisfying, not meaningful.

Therefore, any technological progress that reduces that tedium is a good thing
(even if it has problems of its own, or exposes other problems, provided net
tedium is less).

[I don't think this is the whole answer, but I think it's part of an answer
(probably, things like saving lives, health, and somehow enabling people to
relate better are more important goals).]

------
hoi
My take on this, is that you can create an app/site that is engaging and
depletes self/control or willpower and then monetize that at the end by
selling cake or equivalent.

Can test if the conversion funnel for cake (or low self-contro) goods) sell
more after a more 'intense' work out on the site/app.

~~~
asciimo
I don't think that you're being facetious. But I don't care; that's an awesome
takeaway. Score one for the Dark Side.

~~~
hoi
Nope, not being facetious, it's a perfectly valid monetization strategy to
test and pursue, in some ways, it's similar to a gaming mechanic... spend
energy doing things that interest you, then pay to replenish energy, except
the energy your depleting is cognitive.

~~~
PavlovsCat
In the same way rohypnol is a perfectly valid dating strategy? If the ends
justify the means, just about anything is "valid" as long as it achieves the
desired result.

~~~
hoi
That's being facetious since you're now using morally questionable examples
and rohypnol wouldn't fit the example of buying something that relies on
willpower to stop you.

A better example would be, an exam revision/study website that affiliates
themselves with energy drinks/bars. There isn't a requirement to buy the
energy drinks to continue to use the app, but would be interesting to see if
people are more inclined to buy the energy foods.

Alternatively a bakery/cake website, whether they can increase conversions.

~~~
PavlovsCat
> _That 's being facetious since you're now using morally questionable
> examples_

No, I'm 100% serious. It's morally questionable for the same reason, it just
has lots more of that reason: To softly encourage someone to go against their
own interest, or to force them, is a difference of degree, not in morality. As
Kathy puts it:

    
    
      But if it's "content" designed solely to suck people in ("7 ways to be OMG 
      awesome!!")  for the chance to "convert", we're hurting people. If we're 
      pumping out "content" because frequency, we're hurting people.
    

> _There isn 't a requirement to buy the energy drinks to continue to use the
> app, but would be interesting to see if people are more inclined to buy the
> energy foods._

Why not pay breastfeeding mothers to put stickers of Ronald McDonald on their
breasts? Wouldn't it be interesting to see if more kids grow up eat at
McDonald's a lot?

For more info, search on youtube for "mitchell webb kill the poor"... i.e.
just because it's possible, just because it's profitable for YOU, doesn't mean
you should do it. Just because you win a little, for a while, doesn't mean
zero sum games aren't a waste of time and life in the long run.

Because I know you love my analogies: This is like someone reading Nineteen-
Eightyfour as a manual; a tragic waste of a great point made.

> _Alternatively a bakery /cake website, whether they can increase
> conversions._

To find ways to make people eat unhealthy, because who cares what suffering
(and for those who only understand that: gigantic costs, too) that produces
down the road?

------
eagsalazar2
Not to be too cynical but this really seems like a dangerous insight for
people optimizing conversions. Hmm, _everyone_ wants my product but it is
wasteful/bad for me/a luxury/etc? Just deplete their ability to resist first.
Ooops, someone trying to cancel their subscription? How about a nice maze of
forms to get through first?

Anyway, the super cool insight of this article is the relationship between
cognitive load and will power. We all knew "try harder" didn't work. Simplify
everything else is a way more powerful way to manage your motivation and it
makes it super clear that you can really only do a certain number of things.
When your motivation turns to procrastination, it isn't some "problem" you are
having, it is you simply hitting your cognitive limit for the day/week/month.
Awesome.

~~~
gohrt
This is of course how sales _actually_ works. That's why there are 700 models
of camera -- to get you focused on which one you want, not whether you even
need it or if there is a competitor you should look at.

------
lkrubner
Yesterday on HN there was a link to this story:

[http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/swimming-in-a-
sea...](http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/swimming-in-a-sea-of-shit-
the-internets-war-against-creatives)

Which had this quote:

"This isn't something that happens to some people online, it's something that
happens to everyone who has ever put any of themselves out there for public
consumption."

One thing that has confused me from the beginning, when Sierra first claimed
that she had received death threats, was exactly why this story took on the
scale that it took on. I recall at the time, of the 100 tech bloggers that I
read on a regular basis, this story overshadowed everything else. I recall
that previously I had been unsympathetic to Sierra because of the perception
that she tended to rely on hyperbole and drama to sell her books. For that
reason I was initially skeptical of her claims. Later it turned out that the 4
bloggers who harassed had clearly stepped over some line, and said some things
that were at the least, very rude. As I recall, all of them later apologized
(all of them were bloggers with some substantial reputations in the world of
tech blogs). But given the amount of abuse that happens online on a regular
basis, it seemed a little surreal to me that the story reached such a scale.

~~~
showerst
I think it partially exploded because this wasn't some youtube celeb or
musician (not that they don't have a right to be harassment free), but a
_professional_ blogging about, of all things, _user experience_.

There was quite a bit of 'oh, that happens online in scummy places, but surely
not in my community', until people saw some of the things that were said and
done.

------
okamiueru
Anecdotal, conjectural, and even the dubious psychological experiments she
references are completely misrepresented.

The subjects were told told to memorize a number, and on their way to a
different room where they expected to be tested, someone stopped them mid-way
and asked them to choose between two snacks -- a fruit salad and a cake. The
people who had been told to memorize many digits didn't choose the healthy
snack as frequent as the people who had been told to memorize few digits (and,
presumably, could focus on which choice they really preferred).

It tries to convey "common sense" concepts, using conjecture and complicated
constructs. It hurts my brain when I try to understand what is meant by "to
use up cognitive resources". The more convoluted an explanation is, the less I
feel it has been understood by the person explaining it. I have a strong
distaste for psychology terms that add depth, but not clarity, as if trying to
validate and give authority to the field or explanation.

A bit ironic for an article trying to explain the concept of "minimizing
drainage of the cognitive tank" (to paraphrase).

So, what is this article really about? This -- [http://www.amazon.com/Dont-
Make-Me-Think-Usability/dp/032134...](http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Make-Me-
Think-Usability/dp/0321344758).

------
cafard
"The participants who memorized the seven-digit number were nearly 50% more
likely than the other group to choose cake over fruit.

Researchers were astonished by a pile of experiments that led to one bizarre
conclusion:

Willpower and cognitive processing draw from the same pool of resources."

Bizarre, all right. Unless the subjects were wrestlers or models, why should
the choice of fruit v. cake involve self control at all? If you wished to
argue that they thought they deserved more of a reward, I might be willing to
consider that.

And are we talking about seven numbers vs. two numbers (as in the
illustration) or seven-digit number v. two-digit numbers, as in the text?

~~~
ealloc
The more obvious conclusion, to me, is that people prefer energy-rich foods
after expending more mental energy. Our brain is a major energy sink, as it
consumes about 20% of our body's energy.

I'm pretty sure that after I've been thinking hard, I prefer to eat energy
rich foods. Of course, as with anything related to the brain, since we
understand it so poorly it's hard to say if either hypothesis is really true.

~~~
vidarh
You get the same results without having people make food related decisions,
and I believe there are experiments that have explicitly looked at the link to
energy usage and found it entirely unconvincing at best.

------
winfred
Now take it one step further, not just your UI, that's peanuts next to that
big elephant in the room. Each ad you make me watch, requires a little bit of
my willpower. I have to ignore its message, resist clicking on that nice
looking lady. Your ad based revenue model is making me fat way faster than
your UI will ever be able to do.

------
mijustin
So nice to have Kathy Sierra back blogging. I've missed her!

------
fauigerzigerk
_" Willpower and cognitive processing draw from the same pool of resources."_

I don't see how that follows from the the memorization experiment. Maybe the
people who could remember 7 items felt they worked hard so they deserved to be
rewarded with a chocolate cake.

~~~
h3st
> Maybe the people who could remember 7 items felt they worked hard so they
> deserved to be rewarded with a chocolate cake.

That would be what depleted willpower feels like, assuming you like chocolate
cake and prefer it over the other option. Depleted willpower doesn't really
feel like much in itself, just an increased likelihood of thinking "oh wow,
chocolate cake" over "cake? doesn't fit my macros".

~~~
yeahrightdbag
How do we know it's not an increased sense of entitlement rather than a
reduction of willpower?

------
ryanobjc
I love pretty much any time Kathy Sierra writes. So ditto here, I'm glad to
read it.

As for the willpower situation, on a tangent, I really believe that the notion
of willpower as a useful ANYTHING is outdated and badly needs to be replaced.

The reality is we are smart people who understand our brains, and can
reprogram it. Using emotions and basic urges to create motivations and
positive feelings about the things we NEED to do but typically dislike doing
is the key here.

Luckily there is a group that is teaching these skills outside the normal
context of "self help" that turns off oh-so many people.

~~~
vidarh
> The reality is we are smart people who understand our brains

I see extremely little evidence of that. Most people are clueless about even
the basics of how their mind responds to various stimuli - even the things
that are "obvious" with some self observation. Few know what current research
results say about it. And even many of those who do know still fail to
consistently apply it, because the body is pretty damn good at circumventing
our decision making process by pumping the right chemicals.

~~~
ryanobjc
I think as a species we have a fairly good understanding, but as they say, the
future is here, but it just isn't uniformly here yet.

Here's to the future! _clink_

------
dschiptsov
Statistically caught correlation does not imply the assusmed causation you
wish to "prove".

The guys who memorize numbers might associate a cake with a reward and choose
it just in order to reward oneself for a meaningless and boring waste of time
they choose by mistake, while in 2 digits group it wasn't counted even as a
joke.

As for willpower/self-control - hormonal levels are almost always the major
factors. Just do the silly experiments which are "considered unethical"
involving "images from those magazines" and you will notice lots of
correlations.)

The famous experiment with tape-recorded heart-beats is the beautiful one.

Again, trying to find a single cause in psychology is kind of naive. The
theoretical framework advocated by Marvin Minsky of constant competition of
multitude of semi-independent agencies (specialized regions of the brain)
helps to develop the notion of multiple causation.

My guess is that if one would nail a poster of a fit bikini girl to a wall,
the number of cakes chosen will be reduced dramatically, everything else being
equal.

But for a pony psychology the article is perfectly OK.)

------
dkarl
I don't think the logic is sound. The psychological finding she's applying is
that willpower is a finite cognitive resource. It isn't sound to apply that
finding to all decisions you make while using an app -- only the decisions
that involve willpower. She generalizes to _all_ cognitive resources being
finite...

 _If your UX asks the user to make choices, for example, even if those choices
are both clear and useful, the act of deciding is a cognitive drain. And not
just while they 're deciding... even after we choose, an unconscious cognitive
background thread is slowly consuming/leaking resources, "Was that the right
choice?" _

... which sounds plausible and may well be true, but is much more general than
the result she's building on.

I'm inclined to think she's right, though. It would be interesting to know if
the psychological research has already been done. The willpower results are
only well-publicized because people have a compelling personal interest in it.

------
ibejoeb
That's pretty neat. I understand why so many folks reject the claims here, but
the observation itself is very interesting.

It certainly seems that highly successful, highly visible people (creatives,
executives, politicians) tend, disproportionally, to exhibit behavioral
problems (addiction, suicide, etc.) I don't know if it really _is_
disproportionate, but if so, is it related to their exertion, or depletion, as
the author puts is? Is it the visibility and the accompanying scrutiny? Maybe
it's the other way around, and the underlying psychological makeup propels
short-term performance.

Very interesting stuff, especially in context of burn-out.

------
hsuresh
For those interested in this topic, Daniel Kahneman's book "Thinking, fast and
slow" is an excellent resource. He refers to 2 systems in our brain, and how
they interplay when making everyday decisions. Fascinating read.

------
astral303
Sadly, when it comes to app reviews from tech blogs and publications, the
cognitive load placed on the user is rarely ever noticed or highlighted,
unless it's so high that it's unbearable. Instead, apps often get bonus points
for eye candy and gratuitous, but cool-looking animation. Nobody ever writes
"wow, I got a bunch of things done and I didn't even notice the interface
details."

This is particularly bad in the geek community, as we are used to high
cognitive load (configuring X anyone?), and so we brush off any complaints
about it as "stupid" or "computer illiterate."

One early app example is all the gas mileage tracking apps. Damn near every
one of them in the early iPhone days had the spinning odometer control and the
spinning gas number controls (where you spin each number up and down, like a
key combo). I recall being infuriated by those designs, because all I really
wanted to do was to quickly enter the odometer or the gallons and dealing with
spinning those damn digits was NOT at all quick. Compared to the
effortless/mindless act of typing into a digit keypad, spinner controls
required much more cognitive load (did I spin too fast, will it go too far?
Let me catch it at the right digit. Which digit do I need to push up or down
to make it match what's on my real odo?).

~~~
mrxd
Well, yeah but... no. Cognitive load is not really about speed or animation
taking up time.

------
marcamillion
Like the other commenters, so glad that Kathy is blogging again.

That being said, I am glad that she has finally verbalized what I have always
felt.

As the only person running 5KMVP, I have always found that it is hard for me
to do things like marketing, and customer relations/support on the same day I
do development.

That would also negatively impact my performance of both.

But now that I have people working with, I can concentrate on interacting with
my clients without feeling guilty (i.e. knowing that the rest of my day is
dead, from a development perspective).

Also, this explains the logic behind Steve Jobs always choosing a black
turtleneck, blue jeans and sneakers. If he has 1 less thing to make a decision
about, his life is much easier. I have recently adopted that, and am trying to
simplify my wardrobe as much as I can.

This also impacts how I schedule 'outside' events. If I have to go to an event
outside of the house, that usually means no coding for me on that day. I can't
quite explain why - other than the mere fact that I know I have to go out, is
enough of a distraction to make me not be able to 'get into the zone'. Glad to
know that I am not deficient in anyway, and it is just being depleted from the
same 'cognitive tank'.

------
varelse
A bit off-topic, but it aligns with why I find daily standups to be a soul-
crushing waste of time. Scrum Master Jar Jar
([http://softwaremaestro.wordpress.com/2007/06/30/scrum-
master...](http://softwaremaestro.wordpress.com/2007/06/30/scrum-master-jar-
jar/)) went into more detail as to why Scrum is usually run this way, but just
sayin'...

------
yutyut
Perhaps the conclusions drawn by the experiment (if they are correctly
paraphrased in the post; I didn't read the full paper yet:
[http://www.d.umn.edu/~dglisczi/4501web/4501Readings/Shiv(199...](http://www.d.umn.edu/~dglisczi/4501web/4501Readings/Shiv\(1999\)FruitOrCake.pdf))
are valid but I think it would be pertinent to consider that perhaps rather
than being 'cognitively taxed', those 7-number participants simply felt that
they worked harder and therefore deserved a better prize. I often find myself
making similar justifications if I've pushed myself hard in a workout or
followed my diet faithfully.

It would be interesting to see an experiment that 'cognitively taxes'
participants by having them perform a task that is not considered positive.
Memorizing a number elicits a feeling of accomplishment that may contribute to
the justification I described above.

~~~
vidarh
> those 7-number participants simply felt that they worked harder and
> therefore deserved a better prize.

That is exactly how you expect reduced willpower to play out in practice in a
situation where people are forced to make a conscious choice (as opposed to
just absent-mindedly picking something). Nobody "just" takes the option that
is counter to their long term goals, they rationalise the choice either then
and there or afterwards, and rationalisations that we "deserve" something or
are morally justified are amongst the easiest for us to grab onto.

~~~
yutyut
I'm not sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me here.

------
areeved
This is fascinating. For those that are interested, Daniel Kahneman discusses
this in 'Thinking, Fast and Slow' too:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow)

What I would like to know is how can we _grow_ this limited resource?

~~~
msprague
I'm reading that book right now and I absolutely love it.

------
ankeshk
While I agree with the thesis, a contradictory point comes to mind.

We just don't know a lot about how cognitive resources are utilized. Long
distance runners know this. Athletes know this. The whole concept of "second
wind". Where they find the strength to better their game using way less
resources -- after they have been tired. Some type of cognitive resource
depletion gives people even more energy and motivation.

While I agree that things should be made simpler and we shouldn't over-gamify
things, I don't think we should make decisions with the cake / fruits question
in mind. That just provides a framework to dumb things down. We will never
enable the users to hit their second wind if they never get tasks that make
them crave cakes.

I guess my point is: simplicity is good. Simplicity to the point of dumbness
is not.

~~~
tetha
Also, another important thing to realize is: Simplicity is ambiguous and
highly dependent on the target group. Or, put in other words, certain choices
that might look hard or certain mechanisms that look complicated might end up
being simple.

For example, in a small project, the simplest possible solution for a problem
was to throw the full power of regexes at the user. Why? Because the audience
was a number of developers who knew regexes and they needed the ability to
match some strings.

In a similar vein, if my mom is cooking, it is actually simpler if the recipe
doesn't give her a billion choices how to do a simple step, just tell her that
one step. She'll do it the way she likes.

So, simplicity is actually pretty complicated, and removing the wrong choices
and possibilities might make your program a lot harder to use.

------
PaperclipTaken
Anecdotal evidence is not scientific, but this makes a lot of sense in the
context of my life. At work, when I hit a tough problem, I'm much more likely
to tab over to HN or reddit, yet I've found that somehow I manage to hit the
deadlines at the same pace regardless of how much I force myself to focus.

I do think though while you might be drawing from one 'pool', it's a pool that
you can work to expand. To me this seems to be the same vein of psychology
that makes ADHD medicine ineffective for kids on the long term. There's one
pool of resources you are drawing from but like muscular strength you aren't
doomed to your current limits.

~~~
manmal
Yes! My pool was quite drained 1 or 2 years ago, but I managed to enlarge it
by taking longer breaks, shutting down completely on weekends, eliminating
foods I'm intolerant to (gluten & lactose inflame my gut pretty quickly),
introducing intermittent fasting (no food until noon), adding fish oil and vit
D, switching from cardio to HIIT workouts, and keeping caffeine intake
constant. I can now be highly productive for at least 7-8h per day, and then
still focus on my family (vs turning into a couch zombie). Lack of sleep (<
6h; optimum is 8h) still kills me though.

I think intermittent fasting and fish oil did the most for me in this regard.
Since quality of sleep is really important to my focus, it might be worth
mentioning that zinc supplements do a lot for me here (but at least this
remedy is purely anecdotal).

------
dreamfactory
Why is this considered the moral responsibility of the app creator and not the
consumer? Seems to be a highly immature viewpoint where the consumer doesn't
take responsibility for how they live their life.

------
jjindev
Dan Ariely's Coursera on Irrational Behavior spent much time on current
research in these areas. Very interesting (and a good/fun course, should it
come around again).

------
piyush_soni
What a lame article. I know so many people are praising the author here and
happy for her 'return', but if this has always been the quality of her
writing, I'm not impressed. Not the mobile app, but any kind of thinking or
stress will reduce your will power, and thus according to you is making you
fat. So you might as well stop thinking. Or, on other side, do diet control
and exercise. 2nd option is wise, according to me.

------
tcskeptic
Based on this I would think that the conversion rate on the TURBOTAX offer to
subtract the cost of the service from your return for a HUGE 100% fee (meaning
the cost of that method of payment is as much as the tax service itself) but
allows you to skip the entering of your CC information, given that it comes at
the end of doing your taxes, is probably pretty high. They should try a cake
add on.

------
ludoo
Sitting all day on a chair, then going home to sit in front of a TV makes you
fat, not exercising willpower and using your brain...

------
hheide
Actually the the app doesn't make you fat. The resource that is burned is
sugar. To replenish it you need one piece of candy. After which you'll be as
able to make decisions as you ever was. (But Burger king won't tell you, since
they don't make money from candy.)

------
timmyelliot
Having a user expend more cognitive energy on my app (as long as I'm not
frustrating them), sounds like a good thing. It sounds like another way for
them to bond. Seems like I'd rather it be my app them my competition's.

------
harishankar
I always knew that thinking a lot made me hungry. And tired. Mental work is
quite as tiring to the mind as physical work is to the body and muscles. The
article is well written, but I found nothing particularly new in that
viewpoint.

------
6ren

      If you spend the day exercising self-control (angry customers, clueless co-workers),
      by the time you get home your cog resource tank is flashing E. 
    

The _Linus solution_ becomes increasingly appealing...

------
KedarMhaswade
This is definitely very interesting. In the long run however, I think self-
control/willpower works in unison with cognitive abilities, as another famous
experiment -- the Marshmallow experiment, tends to conclude.

------
moomin
She's back, the article's great, all is right with the world. Let's read the
first comment... oh.

Seriously, I thought the article was great. It would be great even if it
wasn't written by Kathy Sierra.

------
muratmutlu
There's so many articles full of analogies and fluff in UX, sometimes I read a
post and wonder if I'm in the same industry.

------
mmilo
Anyone notice hitting the escape key sends you to a squarespace login screen?
Seems like an odd thing to have turned on by default.

------
krmboya
I'd guess terminal users consume more cognitive resources than GUI users. Are
they on average fatter than the latter?

Just a speculation.

~~~
asdasf
Why do you guess that? I don't think there is any correlation between GUI vs
terminal and cognitive load. There are simple terminal apps, and simple GUI
apps. There are also complex and difficult to use terminal apps and GUI apps.

~~~
krmboya
Fair point. I also remembered Robe Pike's paper:

[http://harmful.cat-v.org/cat-v/unix_prog_design.pdf](http://harmful.cat-v.org/cat-v/unix_prog_design.pdf)

------
NatCrodo
I'm a fan too! I was extremely happy when I saw that she is writing again.
Looking forward for more.

------
lancefisher
I'm glad she's back. I always enjoyed reading her articles back when blogs
were new.

------
vannevar
Grad students and dogs, sure. But how do we know these findings apply to
humans?

------
matthiasb
Now I know why my dog stopped working on his Kong... he's spoiled!

