4 ms·

This again? As mentioned in those HN threads, it has been rebutted: http://www.puredoxyk.com/index.php/2006/11/01/an-attack-on-polyphasic-sleep/ http://www.pur

by zyfo 15y ago

This again? As mentioned in those HN threads, it has been rebutted: http://www.puredoxyk.com/index.php/2006/11/01/an-attack-on-polyphasic-sleep/ http://www.puredoxyk.com/index.php/2006/11/01/an-attack-on-p... Fact is there's not a ton of evidence for it not working out. There has been virtually zero research on it, despite plenty of polyphasic people volunteering for research.

billpatrianakos 15y ago
Assuming you're right, the absence of evidence is not evidence to the contrary. The article that you say rebuts it, certainly argues for polyphasic working but that article isn't a good rebuttal at all. It actually mocks facts! The author rails against the anti-polyphasic article's author for saying that people who need an alarm clock are sleep deprived and that people shouldn't need one. Well, sorry to break to him but that's true. Any doctor or sleep expert will tell you the same thing. This rebuttal just sounds like typical Internet ranting against something a person disagrees with.
- zyfo 15y ago
  Indeed it's not evidence to the contrary. How about leaving the question open until proper research has been done? The fact that there are anecdotal reports of people sleeping polyphasically should at the very least hint at the possibility of it working, rather than, as Wozniak takes it, dismiss it with what's in essence a very non-scientific approach. To me it seems obvious that Wozniak has a clear agenda with the article considering his general advocacy of free running sleep as the Only Path.
  - wbeaty 15y ago
    Exactly. Pseudoscience has two sides: emotion-based mindless acceptance, and emotion-based mindless rejection. Wozniak's hotheaded web article demonstrates the latter type. And the term "Anecdotal evidence" is often used as smear word to ridicule what otherwise would be called direct observation. It's an old dishonest politician ploy: if you can't rebut observations, try to discredit the observer. In my own case I found (during school days, cramming for finals) that I'd fall into a weird fast-cycling sleep schedule with no hours-long sleeps and no apparent sleep debt over a term of weeks. I suspect that conventional sleep research would label this insomnia: needing constant catnaps of 5-30min duration, and complete inability to sleep nights. Most important: it took many days before the fast-cycling appeared, and once this rhythm took hold, no alarm clock was needed. When I required a nap, extreme grogginess came on suddenly and I almost had no choice. Immediate dreaming as soon as my eyes were closed. ~10 minutes later, bam, I'd suddenly wake up fully with no grogginess. Hours later the cycle would repeat. Also it took me days/weeks to escape it and regain the ability to sleep for more than a half hour. I found that strange mental effects did eventually appear, but only after many weeks. This wasn't 'sleep debt,' more like mild sleep deprivation psychosis.
gwern 15y ago
That's hardly a good rebuttal. Most of it is just disproving some overreaching by Wozniak and other anecdotal evidence, which leaves his basic point untouched, and the rest is lacking in actual science. For example: > * Everybody who needs an alarm to wake up is “seriously sleep deprived”. No really, he says that outright. I feel bad for my parents — apparently they’ve never been well-rested in their entire lives. Of course, while I’m sure it’s a better sign if you don’t need an alarm at all (like I didn’t when I had Uberman down pat?), this guy is completely ignoring the known fact that people will sleep extra if they can, just like they’ll have a second helping of pie if you let them. The existence of a second piece of pie on your plate is hardly an indicator that you’re starving! No, people don't oversleep 'normally', they oversleep as a result of sleep deprivation; this is the standard way to measure sleep deprivation, to see whether, given the opportunity, they sleep more for a while and then start sleeping less! And for that matter, the basic theory of polyphasic sleep - forcing very fast REM rebound to get the REM done within the 20 or 30 minutes - basically presumes constant deprivation because deprivation is what triggers REM rebound. If a polyphasicer wanted to disprove that, they'd have to switch back to a monophasic or biphasic sleep without immediately incurring any excess sleep penalties compared to their normal monophasic/biphasic sleep lengths. (I'd do this since I have a Zeo and that would give great data for this purpose, but unfortunately, neither time I tried did I succeed in adapting to polyphasic. Maybe one of the polyphasic sleepers using Zeos http://www.myzeo.com/sleep/forum/176 http://www.myzeo.com/sleep/forum/176 will do this at some point.)
- zyfo 15y ago
  In any case, I forgot to set my alarm tonight and woke up after exactly three hours, wham. Anybody trying to adjust to a new sleep schedule would need an alarm for some months to stay on track; that by itself doesn’t mean you’re constantly sleep-deprived. In fact, the only times in my life that I didn’t need an alarm, I was polyphasic! How's that for not immediately incurring any excess sleep penalties? Rebuttal might be the wrong word but it points out some serious flaws in Wozniaks conclusions. What of his in your opinion basic point is untouched? Regarding REM etc, here's a polyphasic forum discussion on Wozniaks article: http://trypolyphasic.com/forum/topic/340/not-sure-if-its-possible-now/ http://trypolyphasic.com/forum/topic/340/not-sure-if-its-pos...

by zyfo 15y ago

billpatrianakos 15y ago

Assuming you're right, the absence of evidence is not evidence to the contrary. The article that you say rebuts it, certainly argues for polyphasic working but that article isn't a good rebuttal at all. It actually mocks facts! The author rails against the anti-polyphasic article's author for saying that people who need an alarm clock are sleep deprived and that people shouldn't need one. Well, sorry to break to him but that's true. Any doctor or sleep expert will tell you the same thing. This rebuttal just sounds like typical Internet ranting against something a person disagrees with.

zyfo 15y ago
Indeed it's not evidence to the contrary. How about leaving the question open until proper research has been done? The fact that there are anecdotal reports of people sleeping polyphasically should at the very least hint at the possibility of it working, rather than, as Wozniak takes it, dismiss it with what's in essence a very non-scientific approach. To me it seems obvious that Wozniak has a clear agenda with the article considering his general advocacy of free running sleep as the Only Path.
- wbeaty 15y ago
  Exactly. Pseudoscience has two sides: emotion-based mindless acceptance, and emotion-based mindless rejection. Wozniak's hotheaded web article demonstrates the latter type. And the term "Anecdotal evidence" is often used as smear word to ridicule what otherwise would be called direct observation. It's an old dishonest politician ploy: if you can't rebut observations, try to discredit the observer. In my own case I found (during school days, cramming for finals) that I'd fall into a weird fast-cycling sleep schedule with no hours-long sleeps and no apparent sleep debt over a term of weeks. I suspect that conventional sleep research would label this insomnia: needing constant catnaps of 5-30min duration, and complete inability to sleep nights. Most important: it took many days before the fast-cycling appeared, and once this rhythm took hold, no alarm clock was needed. When I required a nap, extreme grogginess came on suddenly and I almost had no choice. Immediate dreaming as soon as my eyes were closed. ~10 minutes later, bam, I'd suddenly wake up fully with no grogginess. Hours later the cycle would repeat. Also it took me days/weeks to escape it and regain the ability to sleep for more than a half hour. I found that strange mental effects did eventually appear, but only after many weeks. This wasn't 'sleep debt,' more like mild sleep deprivation psychosis.

gwern 15y ago

That's hardly a good rebuttal. Most of it is just disproving some overreaching by Wozniak and other anecdotal evidence, which leaves his basic point untouched, and the rest is lacking in actual science. For example: > * Everybody who needs an alarm to wake up is “seriously sleep deprived”. No really, he says that outright. I feel bad for my parents — apparently they’ve never been well-rested in their entire lives. Of course, while I’m sure it’s a better sign if you don’t need an alarm at all (like I didn’t when I had Uberman down pat?), this guy is completely ignoring the known fact that people will sleep extra if they can, just like they’ll have a second helping of pie if you let them. The existence of a second piece of pie on your plate is hardly an indicator that you’re starving! No, people don't oversleep 'normally', they oversleep as a result of sleep deprivation; this is the standard way to measure sleep deprivation, to see whether, given the opportunity, they sleep more for a while and then start sleeping less! And for that matter, the basic theory of polyphasic sleep - forcing very fast REM rebound to get the REM done within the 20 or 30 minutes - basically presumes constant deprivation because deprivation is what triggers REM rebound. If a polyphasicer wanted to disprove that, they'd have to switch back to a monophasic or biphasic sleep without immediately incurring any excess sleep penalties compared to their normal monophasic/biphasic sleep lengths. (I'd do this since I have a Zeo and that would give great data for this purpose, but unfortunately, neither time I tried did I succeed in adapting to polyphasic. Maybe one of the polyphasic sleepers using Zeos http://www.myzeo.com/sleep/forum/176 http://www.myzeo.com/sleep/forum/176 will do this at some point.)

zyfo 15y ago
In any case, I forgot to set my alarm tonight and woke up after exactly three hours, wham. Anybody trying to adjust to a new sleep schedule would need an alarm for some months to stay on track; that by itself doesn’t mean you’re constantly sleep-deprived. In fact, the only times in my life that I didn’t need an alarm, I was polyphasic! How's that for not immediately incurring any excess sleep penalties? Rebuttal might be the wrong word but it points out some serious flaws in Wozniaks conclusions. What of his in your opinion basic point is untouched? Regarding REM etc, here's a polyphasic forum discussion on Wozniaks article: http://trypolyphasic.com/forum/topic/340/not-sure-if-its-possible-now/ http://trypolyphasic.com/forum/topic/340/not-sure-if-its-pos...