5 ms·

One of the best books on this topic is Why We Sleep by Matthew Walker. While I know people on HN dislike the author, I think it’s a great book to read once in y

One of the best books on this topic is Why We Sleep by Matthew Walker. While I know people on HN dislike the author, I think it’s a great book to read once in your life and get the benefits of knowing how important sleep is without being too alarmist. It helped me each day to get better at sleeping. I think we pride ourselves on our hustle and lack of sleep where these badges hurt us both in the short term and long term. Perhaps that is just a season of life everyone goes through though.

cercatrova 4y ago
> Matthew Walker's "Why We Sleep" Is Riddled with Scientific and Factual Errors https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/ https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/
- laserlight 4y ago
  Guzey’s article has many “weak arguments and misleading claims” [0]. For bonus points, see Guzey’s appeal to logical fallacies in the comments. [0] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sbcmACvB6DqYXYidL/counter-theses-on-sleep https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sbcmACvB6DqYXYidL/counter-th...
  - kruuuder 4y ago
    The article you're quoting is a rebuttal of another article by Guzey, and not of his book review.
    - laserlight 4y ago
      Thanks for pointing it out. I must have confused, because I encountered similar problems in Guzey's review of the book.
  - kiliantics 4y ago
    There's a pretty long (4-part) discussion on Andrew Gelman's blog[0] about Guzey's article and the book. In the end I was pretty convinced that many of the book's claims cannot be trusted. [0] https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/12/27/why-we-sleep-data-manipulation-a-smoking-gun/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/12/27/why-we-sle...
- kruuuder 4y ago
  Oof. Thanks for posting this review. I was a big fan of Walker's book - what a disappointment.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    It does not work like that: now you have to consider the reviews on the reviewer... Or get the instruments for a critical approach.
    - kruuuder 4y ago
      Look at section 19 of the review. Matthew cut off a part of a graph from his sources that doesn't support his theses. How unscientific is that? Why shouldn't I be disappointed? > Or get the instruments for a critical approach What do you mean by that?
      - mdp2021 4y ago
        > What do you mean by that That in a "debate", you could value the proponents and rank the proposals accordingly, but it is a most difficult game for a number of reasons (that the proposals are complex; that the proponents are complex and encompassing strengths and weaknesses; that your judgement over them may be mislead; that circularly it is not clear how to (who will reliably) evaluate them etc.), or that at some point you may want to shift the investment from the pieces of the debate to your ability to assess them critically and build the grounds for a more reliable judgement. Just a general principle of distance from contents - heavyweights are hard to find so our ability to delegate judgement is restricted.
- tdudzik 4y ago
  I prefer to trust a research scientist that works at well known and solid universities than some independent guy who debunks stuff
  - npinsker 4y ago
    Besides being an appeal to authority, this is directly addressed in the piece: https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/#appendix-common-objections https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/#appendix-common-object... > ...it was read by hundreds of psychologists and neuroscientists who – I believe – also failed to find any serious issues [...] Some of the scientists wrote to me directly [including] a sleep scientist with >50 h-index who studied sleep for more than 40 years
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    This isn't some crackpot questioning the scientific consensus of an entire field of study. It's a critique of specific contents of a single piece of work. Given that pop sci publications have a history of being slippery with the truth, and given the financial incentive to make millions off a pop sci book, and given that the claims made in the blog post are easily confirmed and checked, this appeal to authority that you've made is misplaced.

cercatrova 4y ago

> Matthew Walker's "Why We Sleep" Is Riddled with Scientific and Factual Errors https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/ https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/

laserlight 4y ago
Guzey’s article has many “weak arguments and misleading claims” [0]. For bonus points, see Guzey’s appeal to logical fallacies in the comments. [0] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sbcmACvB6DqYXYidL/counter-theses-on-sleep https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sbcmACvB6DqYXYidL/counter-th...
- kruuuder 4y ago
  The article you're quoting is a rebuttal of another article by Guzey, and not of his book review.
  - laserlight 4y ago
    Thanks for pointing it out. I must have confused, because I encountered similar problems in Guzey's review of the book.
- kiliantics 4y ago
  There's a pretty long (4-part) discussion on Andrew Gelman's blog[0] about Guzey's article and the book. In the end I was pretty convinced that many of the book's claims cannot be trusted. [0] https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/12/27/why-we-sleep-data-manipulation-a-smoking-gun/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/12/27/why-we-sle...
kruuuder 4y ago
Oof. Thanks for posting this review. I was a big fan of Walker's book - what a disappointment.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  It does not work like that: now you have to consider the reviews on the reviewer... Or get the instruments for a critical approach.
  - kruuuder 4y ago
    Look at section 19 of the review. Matthew cut off a part of a graph from his sources that doesn't support his theses. How unscientific is that? Why shouldn't I be disappointed? > Or get the instruments for a critical approach What do you mean by that?
    - mdp2021 4y ago
      > What do you mean by that That in a "debate", you could value the proponents and rank the proposals accordingly, but it is a most difficult game for a number of reasons (that the proposals are complex; that the proponents are complex and encompassing strengths and weaknesses; that your judgement over them may be mislead; that circularly it is not clear how to (who will reliably) evaluate them etc.), or that at some point you may want to shift the investment from the pieces of the debate to your ability to assess them critically and build the grounds for a more reliable judgement. Just a general principle of distance from contents - heavyweights are hard to find so our ability to delegate judgement is restricted.
tdudzik 4y ago
I prefer to trust a research scientist that works at well known and solid universities than some independent guy who debunks stuff
- npinsker 4y ago
  Besides being an appeal to authority, this is directly addressed in the piece: https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/#appendix-common-objections https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/#appendix-common-object... > ...it was read by hundreds of psychologists and neuroscientists who – I believe – also failed to find any serious issues [...] Some of the scientists wrote to me directly [including] a sleep scientist with >50 h-index who studied sleep for more than 40 years
- hackerlight 4y ago
  This isn't some crackpot questioning the scientific consensus of an entire field of study. It's a critique of specific contents of a single piece of work. Given that pop sci publications have a history of being slippery with the truth, and given the financial incentive to make millions off a pop sci book, and given that the claims made in the blog post are easily confirmed and checked, this appeal to authority that you've made is misplaced.