Über Takes Have a take
Life · The body-clock question · Take No. 020

Morning person or night owl?

Up at five with the sun and the gym, or alive at midnight when the house finally goes quiet. Science says you're mostly born one way. Culture says only one of them is virtuous.

The case for each side, then the verdict. Then the floor is yours.
The case for

The morning person

Early to bed, early to rise

  • 9 to 5The world runs on morning time: school, work, markets. Larks get the whole day before anyone bothers them.
  • 0Decisions made at 1 a.m. that you'll regret. Early risers simply aren't awake for them.
  • SunMorning light sets the body clock, improves mood and sleep. The science on this one is boringly consistent.
vs
The case for

The night owl

Late to bed, later to rise

  • 1 in 4People are naturally evening types, by chronotype studies. It's genetic, not laziness.
  • 0Emails after 10 p.m. The night is the only uninterrupted time most people get.
  • CreativeStudies keep finding evening types score higher on measures of creativity and openness. Make of that what you will.

Cast your take

——
The verdict

It's Morning, and it's not fair.

The owls have a legitimate grievance: chronotype is largely inherited, the 9-to-5 was built by larks for larks, and the smug 5 a.m. culture is unbearable. Most of the moralising is nonsense.

But a verdict is about which is better to be, not which is more virtuous, and the world's schedule, the sunlight and the sleep research all line up on one side. Morning, with sympathy, and the owls get the best playlists.

Disagree? That's what the buttons are for.

Next on the docket

Life · No. 017

Cats or dogs?

DogsCats
Life · No. 018

Toilet paper: over or under?

OverUnder
Life · No. 019

Window or aisle?

AisleWindow