7 ms·

I'm tired of the endless posts over Why We Sleep. The book attempts to cover hundreds of studies in an accessible way, and it largely succeeds. It's certainly f

by knzhou 7y ago

I'm tired of the endless posts over Why We Sleep. The book attempts to cover hundreds of studies in an accessible way, and it largely succeeds. It's certainly fluffy at times (as are all popular books, by necessity), but if you didn't like its message, nitpicking at minor points doesn't refute the central thesis, and pretending it does is below the standards of even internet flame wars. Like, this kind of exchange is exactly why academics try to avoid randos from the internet. They tend to seize on one point, declare victory, and refuse to change their minds. And when the academic doesn't grovel in compliance, they declare academia to be a failure. As far as I'm concerned, UC Berkeley responded perfectly.

6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
The author of this post isn't some rando from the internet. He's a really big name in stats. He wrote the main textbooks for a couple topics.
- knzhou 7y ago
  No, but the post is largely a quote of a blog post (the guy who declared UC Berkeley a failure), which is in turn a followup on a different blog post. I respect Andrew Gelman, but in this case I think he jumped to fit this into a pattern where it doesn't belong. I've looked into all the criticisms of Why We Sleep (which, again, covers hundreds of studies), and there's no p-hacking, there's no fraudulent data, there's no piles of studies retracted, and there's no crisis of replication. Literally the worst criticism is that one bar of a bar graph is removed, in a way that doesn't even change the point of the single sentence referring to it. There are simply better targets out there than sleep.
  - dntbnmpls 7y ago
    > I respect Andrew Gelman, but in this case I think he jumped to fit this into a pattern where it doesn't belong. What you wrote: "Like, this kind of exchange is exactly why academics try to avoid randos from the internet. They tend to seize on one point, declare victory, and refuse to change their minds. And when the academic doesn't grovel in compliance, they declare academia to be a failure." So here you are, a "rando", attacking/dismissing a well respected academic with decades of experience from an well respect university over one point. You are exactly what you claimed to despise. > Literally the worst criticism is that one bar of a bar graph is removed in a way that doesn't even change the point of the single sentence referring to it. If that was the case, don't remove that bar and data point. But it was removed for a reason right? Good god, you still don't get it. Our authors ( even silly popsci authors ) and especially our universities are held to high standards. This isn't china where you have little to no standards and can make up anything at universities and everything is okay. Authors and academics are expected to meet standards, this is why we have so much trust in our institutions. Following your logic, why should I or anywhere here trust a "rando" like you over a well respect academic from columbia university? Using your own logic, we should dismiss you outright.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
    > there's no p-hacking, there's no fraudulent data, there's no piles of studies retracted, and there's no crisis of replication. I fundamentally disagree. What else is throwing away data that disagrees with your argument?
dntbnmpls 7y ago
Did you even read the article? It isn't a "nitpick", it points to the integrity of the book/author and the university which appears to back the author. It's about integrity. And the author of the article is no more a "rando" than columbia university is just a "rando" university.
martingoodson 7y ago
Falsifying data is not being 'fluffy', it's academic misconduct. You might not personally care about this but academic norms exist for a reason. Universities are trusted institutions precisely because they follow these norms.
- hackandtrip 7y ago
  But" Why We Sleep" is not intended for an academic context, right? I mean, obviously it wouldn't pass a "peer-review" analysis, but that is exactly what happens every time in science pop readings. Either we eliminate every science reading that is not strictly papers, or we accept some misinformation here and there.
  - naasking 7y ago
    The author apparently specifically states that the book is a scientific work. The article and comments go into this point further.
  - yhoiseth 7y ago
    Guzey covers this point in https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/#appendix-is-why-we-sleep-pop-science-or-is-it-an-academic-book-also-miscitations-impossible-numbers-and-walker-copy-pasting-papers https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/#appendix-is-why-we-sle...
- syrrim 7y ago
  "falsifying data" because someone disagrees with which data was excluded from a table.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
yhoiseth 7y ago
You (?) made a very similar comment on Reddit a couple of weeks ago [1]. Have you read the responses to your comment there? 1. https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/fo3ess/why_we_sleep_a_tale_of_institutional_failure/fldrash/ https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/fo3ess/why_...
- knzhou 7y ago
  Yes, I copy-pasted that comment because this is my tenth time commenting on guzey's critiques, and I'm tired of writing new ones. I still don't think that trimming a graph in a way that doesn't even change the conclusion of the sentence that refers to it (having less than 8 hours of sleep increases injury risk, and it's still true upon included the omitted bar, which barely even changes the average) is worth trashing an entire 300 page book. Academia isn't about following a set of rigid rules, as if it were some endless high school project. It's about finding the truth, and I've seen no evidence that this was harmed at all here.
  - yhoiseth 7y ago
    I agree that academia isn't only about following a set of rigid rules, but following rigid rules is certainly partly what academia is about. For example, you must include all data. Omitting data is research misconduct. > I still don't think that trimming a graph in a way that doesn't even change the conclusion of the sentence that refers to it … is worth trashing an entire 300 page book. You're strawmanning. The trimming is simply the most obvious of many errors found in a single chapter. There are other known errors as well as (probably) unknown errors. That said, I think we should be forgiving when people make mistakes as long as they own up to them. Neither the author, the publisher nor the university have demonstrated much of a commitment to research integrity in this case. That's my main complaint.

by knzhou 7y ago

6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago

The author of this post isn't some rando from the internet. He's a really big name in stats. He wrote the main textbooks for a couple topics.

knzhou 7y ago
No, but the post is largely a quote of a blog post (the guy who declared UC Berkeley a failure), which is in turn a followup on a different blog post. I respect Andrew Gelman, but in this case I think he jumped to fit this into a pattern where it doesn't belong. I've looked into all the criticisms of Why We Sleep (which, again, covers hundreds of studies), and there's no p-hacking, there's no fraudulent data, there's no piles of studies retracted, and there's no crisis of replication. Literally the worst criticism is that one bar of a bar graph is removed, in a way that doesn't even change the point of the single sentence referring to it. There are simply better targets out there than sleep.
- dntbnmpls 7y ago
  > I respect Andrew Gelman, but in this case I think he jumped to fit this into a pattern where it doesn't belong. What you wrote: "Like, this kind of exchange is exactly why academics try to avoid randos from the internet. They tend to seize on one point, declare victory, and refuse to change their minds. And when the academic doesn't grovel in compliance, they declare academia to be a failure." So here you are, a "rando", attacking/dismissing a well respected academic with decades of experience from an well respect university over one point. You are exactly what you claimed to despise. > Literally the worst criticism is that one bar of a bar graph is removed in a way that doesn't even change the point of the single sentence referring to it. If that was the case, don't remove that bar and data point. But it was removed for a reason right? Good god, you still don't get it. Our authors ( even silly popsci authors ) and especially our universities are held to high standards. This isn't china where you have little to no standards and can make up anything at universities and everything is okay. Authors and academics are expected to meet standards, this is why we have so much trust in our institutions. Following your logic, why should I or anywhere here trust a "rando" like you over a well respect academic from columbia university? Using your own logic, we should dismiss you outright.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
  > there's no p-hacking, there's no fraudulent data, there's no piles of studies retracted, and there's no crisis of replication. I fundamentally disagree. What else is throwing away data that disagrees with your argument?

dntbnmpls 7y ago

Did you even read the article? It isn't a "nitpick", it points to the integrity of the book/author and the university which appears to back the author. It's about integrity. And the author of the article is no more a "rando" than columbia university is just a "rando" university.

martingoodson 7y ago

Falsifying data is not being 'fluffy', it's academic misconduct. You might not personally care about this but academic norms exist for a reason. Universities are trusted institutions precisely because they follow these norms.

hackandtrip 7y ago
But" Why We Sleep" is not intended for an academic context, right? I mean, obviously it wouldn't pass a "peer-review" analysis, but that is exactly what happens every time in science pop readings. Either we eliminate every science reading that is not strictly papers, or we accept some misinformation here and there.
- naasking 7y ago
  The author apparently specifically states that the book is a scientific work. The article and comments go into this point further.
- yhoiseth 7y ago
  Guzey covers this point in https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/#appendix-is-why-we-sleep-pop-science-or-is-it-an-academic-book-also-miscitations-impossible-numbers-and-walker-copy-pasting-papers https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/#appendix-is-why-we-sle...
syrrim 7y ago
"falsifying data" because someone disagrees with which data was excluded from a table.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

yhoiseth 7y ago

You (?) made a very similar comment on Reddit a couple of weeks ago [1]. Have you read the responses to your comment there? 1. https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/fo3ess/why_we_sleep_a_tale_of_institutional_failure/fldrash/ https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/fo3ess/why_...

knzhou 7y ago
Yes, I copy-pasted that comment because this is my tenth time commenting on guzey's critiques, and I'm tired of writing new ones. I still don't think that trimming a graph in a way that doesn't even change the conclusion of the sentence that refers to it (having less than 8 hours of sleep increases injury risk, and it's still true upon included the omitted bar, which barely even changes the average) is worth trashing an entire 300 page book. Academia isn't about following a set of rigid rules, as if it were some endless high school project. It's about finding the truth, and I've seen no evidence that this was harmed at all here.
- yhoiseth 7y ago
  I agree that academia isn't only about following a set of rigid rules, but following rigid rules is certainly partly what academia is about. For example, you must include all data. Omitting data is research misconduct. > I still don't think that trimming a graph in a way that doesn't even change the conclusion of the sentence that refers to it … is worth trashing an entire 300 page book. You're strawmanning. The trimming is simply the most obvious of many errors found in a single chapter. There are other known errors as well as (probably) unknown errors. That said, I think we should be forgiving when people make mistakes as long as they own up to them. Neither the author, the publisher nor the university have demonstrated much of a commitment to research integrity in this case. That's my main complaint.