Peo­ple are divid­ed into two chrono­types — “larks” and “owls”. Some get up eas­i­ly at dawn, ener­getic and cheer­ful. Such peo­ple work pro­duc­tive­ly through­out the day, how­ev­er, in the late after­noon, their effi­cien­cy decreas­es. The evening brings with it fatigue, men­tal process­es slow down no mat­ter how hard the day’s work was. Oth­ers, on the con­trary, can do busi­ness all night long (the evening and night hours are the most pro­duc­tive for them), but get­ting up ear­ly in the morn­ing is a huge prob­lem for them.

The nutri­tion of both types of peo­ple is essen­tial­ly the same. The only dif­fer­ence is the rec­om­mend­ed meal times. Larks, for exam­ple, are advised to have a good break­fast before going to work. Where­as for owls, eat­ing a large amount of food is bet­ter to post­pone after wak­ing up for a cou­ple of hours.

The intellectual potential of “owls” is higher

Exten­sive test­ing con­duct­ed at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Syd­ney and the BBC Research Group showed that peo­ple with a noc­tur­nal lifestyle (“owls”), although slight­ly, are bet­ter than “larks” in terms of their abil­i­ty to quick­ly assim­i­late new mate­r­i­al, engage in sev­er­al tasks at the same time, instant­ly switch from one work to anoth­er with­out loss of qual­i­ty of work. Based on the data obtained, psy­chol­o­gists Richard Roberts and Patrick Kil­lo­nen con­clud­ed that, despite pop­u­lar belief, “owls” can cope with the tasks more effi­cient­ly and bet­ter.

“Larks” are no better than “owls” in work

Many believe that the ear­li­er a per­son gets up, the more and bet­ter he can do the work. A pair of sci­en­tists from the Uni­ver­si­ty of Southamp­ton con­duct­ed an exper­i­ment on an audi­ence of more than 300 peo­ple. It turned out that wealth, posi­tion in soci­ety is much high­er for peo­ple belong­ing to the “owl” chrono­type. Also, those who like to sleep more often have a per­son­al car. At the same time, health, lev­el of edu­ca­tion, intel­lec­tu­al abil­i­ties do not depend on the time of activ­i­ty of peo­ple. Although, when ana­lyz­ing part of the audi­ence clos­er to 50 years old, it turned out that “owls” are still health­i­er than “larks”, prob­a­bly because their adap­tive abil­i­ties are high­er.

It has been proven that play­ing sports, main­tain­ing a healthy lifestyle does not real­ly depend on the chrono­type of a per­son. Rather, it serves as a way of self-hyp­no­sis and jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for unwill­ing­ness to work. The con­duct­ed exper­i­ments proved that peo­ple make non-stan­dard effec­tive deci­sions, being in an unusu­al envi­ron­ment and at a time that does not cor­re­spond to their chrono­type.

Who is better?

No sci­en­tist can answer this ques­tion. Every­one choos­es dai­ly rou­tine and rhythm of life. Although it is very con­ve­nient to write off all your prob­lems on your chronorhythm. Such beliefs (caused by self-con­fi­dence in rela­tion to a cer­tain chrono­type, self-decep­tion) often pre­vent peo­ple from improv­ing them­selves and get­ting rid of the neg­a­tive impact of this or that object or per­son in their work­ing life.

By Yraa

Leave a Reply