4 ms·

Currently reading a book on this topic. Can be repetitive at times but has a lot of really good insight. Had no idea your REM as a percentage of sleep is high

Currently reading a book on this topic. Can be repetitive at times but has a lot of really good insight. Had no idea your REM as a percentage of sleep is highest in the last few weeks before you are born. Why We Sleep: Unlocking the Power of Sleep and Dreams https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34466963-why-we-sleep https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34466963-why-we-sleep

digianarchist 4y ago
Free on Audible with a subscription.
moremetadata 4y ago
>Had no idea your REM as a percentage of sleep is highest in the last few weeks before you are born. It would seem the Dimethyltryptamine is the last thing to be "topped up" in the brain then if what you say is true.
deafpolygon 4y ago
Matthew Walker makes some false claims. https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/ https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/
- pedalpete 4y ago
  He's been very public about correcting for the errors he made, and as a good scientist, he now clearly states "the current body of knowledge actually says..." There is no reason to discredit his claims as "false", unless you believe he made the false claim intentionally - which I don't believe he did. He took complicated research and tried to simplify it and make it digestible to a general audience, and was successful at that. I had a similar reaction when I first read the book, that some of his conclusions didn't make sense, but I've since backed off as I hear him speak, and believe he is one of the better researchers in the sleep space. Of note, I work in the sleep space, and there is a TON of crap "science" out there, so I like to give support to those I believe are doing good work.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    My general perception of what happened is that Walker wrote a highly-praised, to the point of hyped, popular science book that was very much celebrated on HN. A blogger wrote a meticulous analysis attacking several details in the book, but probably more nitpicking than actually demolishing its main thesis. That similarly popular analysis has since caused the pendulum to swing to the other extreme on HN, as those who were skeptical of the initial hype has since leapt to it to denounce Walker. It's all very much groupthink, but that's sort of how pop scientific consensus works- with popular narratives and groups of datapoints and conclusions seemingly overthrowing other narratives and groups of datapoints and conclusions. The average layman is too busy to read either the book or the meticulous critique; I've only listened to about fifteen minutes of one of Walker's hour-long podcast interviews.
    - DoughnutHole 4y ago
      > A blogger wrote a meticulous analysis attacking several details in the book, but probably more nitpicking than actually demolishing its main thesis. The takedown gets nitpicky certainly, but the first sections are very much targeting the main thesis of the book, which is that people are not getting enough sleep and that this lack of sleep is causing significant harm. Walker makes claims about the effect of sleep on lifespan and risk of disease that are completely unsupported, and in some cases even contradicted by the sources he provides. You're right that it's groupthink, but it's also basic economy of attention. If the most basic of scrutiny of the opening chapter reveals sweeping unsupported claims, contradictions, and apparent outright fabrications I don't think it's unreasonable to disregard the author as a charlatan, if only because no one has infinite time to dig down to the foundations of every piece of pop-sci in the world.
  - deafpolygon 4y ago
    > There is no reason to discredit his claims as "false" I'm just pointing out that he made false claims. I'm not concerned with whether it was intentional - many of the claims he made in the book was false. Some of the premises he attempts to support were supported with conflicting information. I simply wouldn't trust anything he's written in that book unless he republishes it with the corrected information, and retracts the mistakes. Has he done so? The fact that he allows the book to continue to be publish and circulated is enough for me. Also, he's been found citing his own books in his research papers - nothing shockingly wrong with that, but poor practice as far as research goes.

digianarchist 4y ago

Free on Audible with a subscription.

moremetadata 4y ago

>Had no idea your REM as a percentage of sleep is highest in the last few weeks before you are born. It would seem the Dimethyltryptamine is the last thing to be "topped up" in the brain then if what you say is true.

deafpolygon 4y ago

Matthew Walker makes some false claims. https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/ https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/

pedalpete 4y ago
He's been very public about correcting for the errors he made, and as a good scientist, he now clearly states "the current body of knowledge actually says..." There is no reason to discredit his claims as "false", unless you believe he made the false claim intentionally - which I don't believe he did. He took complicated research and tried to simplify it and make it digestible to a general audience, and was successful at that. I had a similar reaction when I first read the book, that some of his conclusions didn't make sense, but I've since backed off as I hear him speak, and believe he is one of the better researchers in the sleep space. Of note, I work in the sleep space, and there is a TON of crap "science" out there, so I like to give support to those I believe are doing good work.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  My general perception of what happened is that Walker wrote a highly-praised, to the point of hyped, popular science book that was very much celebrated on HN. A blogger wrote a meticulous analysis attacking several details in the book, but probably more nitpicking than actually demolishing its main thesis. That similarly popular analysis has since caused the pendulum to swing to the other extreme on HN, as those who were skeptical of the initial hype has since leapt to it to denounce Walker. It's all very much groupthink, but that's sort of how pop scientific consensus works- with popular narratives and groups of datapoints and conclusions seemingly overthrowing other narratives and groups of datapoints and conclusions. The average layman is too busy to read either the book or the meticulous critique; I've only listened to about fifteen minutes of one of Walker's hour-long podcast interviews.
  - DoughnutHole 4y ago
    > A blogger wrote a meticulous analysis attacking several details in the book, but probably more nitpicking than actually demolishing its main thesis. The takedown gets nitpicky certainly, but the first sections are very much targeting the main thesis of the book, which is that people are not getting enough sleep and that this lack of sleep is causing significant harm. Walker makes claims about the effect of sleep on lifespan and risk of disease that are completely unsupported, and in some cases even contradicted by the sources he provides. You're right that it's groupthink, but it's also basic economy of attention. If the most basic of scrutiny of the opening chapter reveals sweeping unsupported claims, contradictions, and apparent outright fabrications I don't think it's unreasonable to disregard the author as a charlatan, if only because no one has infinite time to dig down to the foundations of every piece of pop-sci in the world.
- deafpolygon 4y ago
  > There is no reason to discredit his claims as "false" I'm just pointing out that he made false claims. I'm not concerned with whether it was intentional - many of the claims he made in the book was false. Some of the premises he attempts to support were supported with conflicting information. I simply wouldn't trust anything he's written in that book unless he republishes it with the corrected information, and retracts the mistakes. Has he done so? The fact that he allows the book to continue to be publish and circulated is enough for me. Also, he's been found citing his own books in his research papers - nothing shockingly wrong with that, but poor practice as far as research goes.