4 ms·

We're talking about 1/5th of the population suffering needlessly. The comment I replied to merely reinforces the stereotype that there is something wrong with

We're talking about 1/5th of the population suffering needlessly. The comment I replied to merely reinforces the stereotype that there is something wrong with them - "If only you lived better you would get to sleep at a normal time". On its own, its great they have improved their life. But in context its disrespectful.

majewsky 8y ago
If you're insulting a plausible opposing opinion as disrespectful, you should be backing up your claim with facts. You suggested that people are "naturally" night owls, the other side suggests that nightowlism may be caused by lifestyle choices and that many night owls are unaware of this causality. There is nothing disrespectful about either side of the argument, both are just hypotheses at this point (and a bit of anecdata).
- slededit 8y ago
  There is evidence of a genetic cause for night owlism: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121116124551.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121116124551.h... Further nobody questions the legitimacy of "early risers" and blames it on lifestyle. In fact most consider it a positive and something to aspire to. When you go your whole life having to dispel the initial impression of laziness due to your natural sleep rythmn it becomes personal. I'm fortunate that I've come to a place in my career where I can simply live with my natural rythmn, but most people don't get the chance.
  - naasking 8y ago
    > Further nobody questions the legitimacy of "early risers" and blames it on lifestyle. Because being an early riser is adaptive. We're not at all well adapted to operating at night given our sensory apparatus, we're quite well adapted to operate in daylight. Furthermore, humans aren't genetically predetermined creatures, it's entirely possible to change virtually all of our behaviours and inclinations with the right environmental changes. Even if being a nightowl were adaptive at one point, that doesn't mean it's adaptive now, and a maladaptive behaviour needs correcting if you want to function in modern society. > When you go your whole life having to dispel the initial impression of laziness due to your natural sleep rythmn it becomes personal. Don't go pushing your personal prejudice on a factual discussion. No one here called "nightowls" lazy.
    - slededit 8y ago
      Its crazy in this day and age its considered OK to call perfectly healthy people "maladapted" because they don't conform to societies view of a normal sleep schedule. Treating people this way causes real damage to actual humans. Second sleeps used to be very common with people getting useful work and liesure done during the time between. Activity at night is normal.
      - naasking 8y ago
        > Its crazy in this day and age its considered OK to call perfectly healthy people "maladapted" because they don't conform to societies view of a normal sleep schedule. "Maladapted" in this case literally means "poorly suited to functioning in typical jobs". Society's normal sleep schedule is exactly what makes night owls maladapted to most jobs. Of course, you're incorrectly reading some sort of moral judgment in this classification, as you have with many other posts. You should try to be a little more impartial when discussing basic facts.
        slededit 8y ago
        9-5 is an arbitrary restriction on a typical office job. The majority of us no longer perform shift work on the factory floor which was the original impetus for this societal norm. You are recounting society as it exists today which is abnormal in a historical context. I am speaking of a society that could exist. One where 1/5th the population is not needlessly forced through life exhausted and under performing. Not only would productivity be higher, but we'd get more use out of our otherwise vacant buildings at night. Rush hour would be greatly diminished if not everyone had to arrive at work exactly the same time. Flex hours are a simple and mainstream solution that more companies should adopt. But it has to start with an appreciation that night owls are not "defective" or as you say, "maladapted".
        naasking 8y ago
        > 9-5 is an arbitrary restriction on a typical office job. It doesn't matter if it's arbitrary, what matters is whether a person's habits can easily conform or adapt to its environment. Those that do not, or that cause other problems are maladaptive by definition. > But it has to start with an appreciation that night owls are not "defective" or as you say, "maladapted". Defective and maladaptive are not synonyms.
naasking 8y ago
> The comment I replied to merely reinforces the stereotype that there is something wrong with them - "If only you lived better you would get to sleep at a normal time". The comment you replied to neither said or implied anything of the sort. He merely conveyed a personal anecdote of an environmental change that allowed a self-identified night owl to function well on a daylight schedule. What's so offensive about that?

majewsky 8y ago

If you're insulting a plausible opposing opinion as disrespectful, you should be backing up your claim with facts. You suggested that people are "naturally" night owls, the other side suggests that nightowlism may be caused by lifestyle choices and that many night owls are unaware of this causality. There is nothing disrespectful about either side of the argument, both are just hypotheses at this point (and a bit of anecdata).

slededit 8y ago
There is evidence of a genetic cause for night owlism: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121116124551.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121116124551.h... Further nobody questions the legitimacy of "early risers" and blames it on lifestyle. In fact most consider it a positive and something to aspire to. When you go your whole life having to dispel the initial impression of laziness due to your natural sleep rythmn it becomes personal. I'm fortunate that I've come to a place in my career where I can simply live with my natural rythmn, but most people don't get the chance.
- naasking 8y ago
  > Further nobody questions the legitimacy of "early risers" and blames it on lifestyle. Because being an early riser is adaptive. We're not at all well adapted to operating at night given our sensory apparatus, we're quite well adapted to operate in daylight. Furthermore, humans aren't genetically predetermined creatures, it's entirely possible to change virtually all of our behaviours and inclinations with the right environmental changes. Even if being a nightowl were adaptive at one point, that doesn't mean it's adaptive now, and a maladaptive behaviour needs correcting if you want to function in modern society. > When you go your whole life having to dispel the initial impression of laziness due to your natural sleep rythmn it becomes personal. Don't go pushing your personal prejudice on a factual discussion. No one here called "nightowls" lazy.
  - slededit 8y ago
    Its crazy in this day and age its considered OK to call perfectly healthy people "maladapted" because they don't conform to societies view of a normal sleep schedule. Treating people this way causes real damage to actual humans. Second sleeps used to be very common with people getting useful work and liesure done during the time between. Activity at night is normal.
    - naasking 8y ago
      > Its crazy in this day and age its considered OK to call perfectly healthy people "maladapted" because they don't conform to societies view of a normal sleep schedule. "Maladapted" in this case literally means "poorly suited to functioning in typical jobs". Society's normal sleep schedule is exactly what makes night owls maladapted to most jobs. Of course, you're incorrectly reading some sort of moral judgment in this classification, as you have with many other posts. You should try to be a little more impartial when discussing basic facts.
      - slededit 8y ago
        9-5 is an arbitrary restriction on a typical office job. The majority of us no longer perform shift work on the factory floor which was the original impetus for this societal norm. You are recounting society as it exists today which is abnormal in a historical context. I am speaking of a society that could exist. One where 1/5th the population is not needlessly forced through life exhausted and under performing. Not only would productivity be higher, but we'd get more use out of our otherwise vacant buildings at night. Rush hour would be greatly diminished if not everyone had to arrive at work exactly the same time. Flex hours are a simple and mainstream solution that more companies should adopt. But it has to start with an appreciation that night owls are not "defective" or as you say, "maladapted".
        naasking 8y ago
        > 9-5 is an arbitrary restriction on a typical office job. It doesn't matter if it's arbitrary, what matters is whether a person's habits can easily conform or adapt to its environment. Those that do not, or that cause other problems are maladaptive by definition. > But it has to start with an appreciation that night owls are not "defective" or as you say, "maladapted". Defective and maladaptive are not synonyms.

naasking 8y ago

> The comment I replied to merely reinforces the stereotype that there is something wrong with them - "If only you lived better you would get to sleep at a normal time". The comment you replied to neither said or implied anything of the sort. He merely conveyed a personal anecdote of an environmental change that allowed a self-identified night owl to function well on a daylight schedule. What's so offensive about that?