= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jsteinhardt comments on Open thread, Jul. 11 - Jul. 17, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (131)
I don't think this is really a status thing, more a "don't be a dick to your guests" thing. Many people get cranky if they are hungry, and putting 30+ cranky people together in a room is going to be a recipe for unpleasantness.
But there is a difference between having an amount appropriate to avoid crankiness and more than can be eaten.
But like, there's variation in how much food people will end up eating, and at least some of that is not variation that you can predict in advance. So unless you have enough food that you routinely end up with more than can be eaten, you are going to end up with a lot of cranky people a non-trivial fraction of the time. You're not trying to peg production to the mean consumption, but (e.g.) to the 99th percentile of consumption.
You seem to think that people that are not completely satiated are automatically cranky. That doesn't match my observation.
Also you may have multiple dishes. For example we mostly start with a collaboratively prepared soup - which thereby will be the right size by construction. Later we have some snacks or sweets or fruits. First the fresh ones, later if needed packaged ones.
I don't think I need that for my argument to work. My claim is that if people get, say, less than 70% of a meal's worth of food, an appreciable fraction (say at least 30%) will get cranky.
Then maybe we have different experience. Or differently selected people around us.