Cosma Shalizi Is On Drugs

He's ODed on coffee, I think:

2006 06: Neuropharmacological Foundations of the Public Sphere: The importance of coffee-houses in the Enlightenment, and the rise of the public sphere, is a historical common-place. But it's also puzzling: historians can say a lot of sensible things about how, as a social setting, the cafe was conducive to the give and take of (more or less) rational argument, and (relative) indifference to social standing in favor of persuasion. But I've never heard a good story for why coffee houses had to be run that way, nor that (say) taverns weren't, or couldn't have been, run that way. So, while not denigrating the social factor, it doesn't seem to explain why this connection took hold. Now, at last, scientific proof that Enlightenment had a sound material basis (via Mind Hacks):

Pearl Y. Martin, Jenny Laing, Robin Martin, and Melanie Mitchell, "Caffeine, Cognition, and Persuasion: Evidence for Caffeine Increasing the Systematic Processing of Persuasive Messages", Journal of Applied Social Psychology 35 (2005): 160-18: Abstract: Caffeine is known to increase arousal, attention, and information processing--all factors implicated in facilitating persuasion. In a standard attitude-change paradigm, participants consumed an orange-juice drink that either contained caffeine (3.5 mg/kg body weight) or did not (placebo) prior to reading a counterattitudinal communication (anti-voluntary euthanasia). Participants then completed a thought-listing task and a number of attitude scales. The first experiment showed that those who consumed caffeine showed greater agreement with the communication (direct attitude: voluntary euthanasia) and on an issue related to, but not contained in, the communication (indirect attitude: abortion). The order in which direct and indirect attitudes were measured did not affect the results. A second experiment manipulated the quality of the arguments in the message (strong vs. weak) to determine whether systematic processing had occurred. There was evidence that systematic processing occurred in both drink conditions, but was greater for those who had consumed caffeine. In both experiments, the amount of message-congruent thinking mediated persuasion. These results show that caffeine can increase the extent to which people systematically process and are influenced by a persuasive communication.

I should perhaps add that the leap from their findings to the rise of modern rationalism is entirely my own.

Comments

[John Emerson]

I don't think that it's a mystery why taverns didn't work as well.

I've done extensive research, and in sum, the reasons are a.) Too much verbal abuse and fighting b.) I had a really interesting conversation with someone last night but can't remember the details and c.) What was I just talking about?

[T.R. Elliott]

Wow: Just think how enlightened we'd all be if they'd been hanging out in cocaine houses.

Then again, I've long suspected that cornucopian libertarians like Julian Simon are amped up on something.

So let's see. Coffee buzz equals liberal enlightenment values. Cocaine buzz equals libertarian nirvana.

No wonder those libertarians want to legalize drugs. Their theoretical academic productivity is currently dependent on black market sources.

[GGordonL]

I would hope that the subjects normal caffine intake was included as a covariate in the analysis. I'm a confirmed caffine addict, and know that I'm more open to persuasion post-fix than pre-fix. I don't know that it is due to caffine's effects on arousal, attention, and information processing, but suspect that it is due to the fact that I've got a great buzz.

[ccobb]

Simple economics I bet.

Coffeehouses were called penny universities, because for a couple of pennies you could be served and partake in the debate. Not so cheap at the tavern. Coffee is 99% water, and beans require no refrigeration except to purists. Taverns on the other hand offered food and beverages, needed cooks and storage.

[Scott Martens]

Inspired by a Too Much Coffee Man strip, I've been wondering if there's a correlation between coffee consumption and the deterioration of work conditions in the developed world. When you have to support the wife and kids with a job you hate but can't quit, it's understandable that you might need a shot of chemical motivation. I note that the rise of Starbucks took place during a period when wage growth was stagnant.

[vtcodger]

My impression is that in the American colonies, eighteenth Century intellectual ferment was fueled by ethanol rather than caffiene. Of course, they didn't have to get into a car and drive home.

[James Wimberley]

Perhaps it wasn't the caffeine but the reduction in alcohol intake. Before tea and coffee, and long before safe drinking water, you had to take in your fluids with alcohol to stay alive.

[kharris]

Doesn't the coffer-house-as-intellectual-center argument include a large does of timing? There was a rise in sit-down employment, including bookkeeping, professional letter writing and indoor business activity in general at about the same time. Taverns attracted a mix of types, but coffee houses offered the drink of choice for people who sat a lot and needed a lift. They happened to represent a narrower slice of the population - more literate, more urban, less in need of a painkiller. Culture was changing, and coffee houses concentrated people involved in that change. Isn't that the standard story, or am I just making it up?