5 ms·

The problem is that there are both some inaccuracies with the takedown, the book is still factually inaccurate in dangerous ways even though it is accurate in o

The problem is that there are both some inaccuracies with the takedown, the book is still factually inaccurate in dangerous ways even though it is accurate in others, and ultimately neither source gives a satisfactory conclusion to the question of how you should approach sleep issues. There is something about the Why We Sleep controversy that is uniquely frustrating to me, having dealt with sleep problems for years. If I hadn't read HN then I probably would have read that book for far longer than I did. What about the people that might not read HN and still aren't aware of the tangible harms it can cause? It currently has a 4.4 out of 5 on Goodreads and pages of written five-star reviews, proving the utter uselessness of such a metric for topics like health. It seems the solution is research from a variety of different sources. That worked pretty well for actually sorting out my sleep issues, because I was more careful. But the thing is, time is finite. In the programming realm we can't always do the same militant validation for the thousands of microdependencies a single npm project can pull in. The amount of available information is exploding, and much of it is becoming obsoleted constantly. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. And when we decide to trust the creator as being an "expert" as a compromise, we will inevitably encounter sources like these.

prostoalex 6y ago
What makes it dangerous? Seems like most people supposedly misinformed by the book content would just pay more attention to their circadian cycle and try to go to bed earlier and avoid screens?
- MauranKilom 6y ago
  I have read that several people had their lives worsened because they got worried and/or tried to enact change for no gain after the book told them they were not getting enough sleep (even though they had felt comfortable with their sleeping habits thus far). Which in turn caused them to get less healthy sleep due to feeling bad about their sleeping habits, trying to "fix" it, or just being stressed about not being able to fall asleep early enough. It's not that the first-order advice of "avoid blue light in the evening" is necessarily bad. Rather, telling people (in no uncertain terms) that if they do <x> they are hurting themselves and that they must change what they do, may cause second-order problems. This is one of the reasons why you should not get medical advice from the internet or pop science books. (FWIW, I have read the book, before learning of the scientific critiques. I must agree that the presentation of the book is usually much stronger than what the data presented admits. It's not that the small-scale studies in question seem particularly flawed or that the interpretations are downright unreasonable, but I think it's borderline unscientific to present as fact a story woven from more or less isolated data points in the form of individual studies.)
  - onethought 6y ago
    “It made people anxious” is a possibility with anything. Also, I’d like to actually understand the inaccuracy... it seems the real problem is he “emphasised” some things. That’s hardly inaccurate.
  - d0mine 6y ago
    You are discarding the benefit for people who did change their habits thanks to this book
onethought 6y ago
What are the inaccuracies? The takedown is incorrect on every point. What is the controversy?
- guzey 6y ago
  extraordinary
  - onethought 6y ago
    I know, I thought the same thing. All that work, citations of research done after the writing of the book, and some how still misunderstood the points made by the author. Curious also why this isn’t published in a journal, and be peer refereed... or has it? That is the standard required for a “takedown”. Edit: Or at least allow a right of reply from the author. Having just read the book you have intentionally misrepresented a number of (perhaps even all) points. I can only think you are trying to generate controversy to build your own profile.

prostoalex 6y ago

What makes it dangerous? Seems like most people supposedly misinformed by the book content would just pay more attention to their circadian cycle and try to go to bed earlier and avoid screens?

MauranKilom 6y ago
I have read that several people had their lives worsened because they got worried and/or tried to enact change for no gain after the book told them they were not getting enough sleep (even though they had felt comfortable with their sleeping habits thus far). Which in turn caused them to get less healthy sleep due to feeling bad about their sleeping habits, trying to "fix" it, or just being stressed about not being able to fall asleep early enough. It's not that the first-order advice of "avoid blue light in the evening" is necessarily bad. Rather, telling people (in no uncertain terms) that if they do <x> they are hurting themselves and that they must change what they do, may cause second-order problems. This is one of the reasons why you should not get medical advice from the internet or pop science books. (FWIW, I have read the book, before learning of the scientific critiques. I must agree that the presentation of the book is usually much stronger than what the data presented admits. It's not that the small-scale studies in question seem particularly flawed or that the interpretations are downright unreasonable, but I think it's borderline unscientific to present as fact a story woven from more or less isolated data points in the form of individual studies.)
- onethought 6y ago
  “It made people anxious” is a possibility with anything. Also, I’d like to actually understand the inaccuracy... it seems the real problem is he “emphasised” some things. That’s hardly inaccurate.
- d0mine 6y ago
  You are discarding the benefit for people who did change their habits thanks to this book

onethought 6y ago

What are the inaccuracies? The takedown is incorrect on every point. What is the controversy?

guzey 6y ago
extraordinary
- onethought 6y ago
  I know, I thought the same thing. All that work, citations of research done after the writing of the book, and some how still misunderstood the points made by the author. Curious also why this isn’t published in a journal, and be peer refereed... or has it? That is the standard required for a “takedown”. Edit: Or at least allow a right of reply from the author. Having just read the book you have intentionally misrepresented a number of (perhaps even all) points. I can only think you are trying to generate controversy to build your own profile.