7 ms·

If you genuinely want to learn, I think the popular book "Why We Sleep" covers this (and various other topics) very well. Short version: Young people sleep sch

If you genuinely want to learn, I think the popular book "Why We Sleep" covers this (and various other topics) very well. Short version: Young people sleep schedules naturally deviate and it is legitimately difficult for a large segment to "Just go to bed earlier".

floxy 3y 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/
- LaffertyDev 3y ago
  Thanks for the link. I read the book with the popular-science-ness of it in mind and was glad to have done so. It was produced right in the middle of the replication crisis... which isn't a particularly good look. I agree there are _a lot_ of ridiculous claims that are tenuous at best in the book. He also repeats himself a lot in a quite annoying way. I still think the book has merit as an accessible way for people to learn more about sleep.
- LaffertyDev 3y ago
  You sent me down a rabbit hole on this person's blog. I found their 2022 reflections very interesting and tangentially relevant (does not dismiss the point made about Why We Sleep, I just found it interesting.) https://guzey.com/2022-lessons/ https://guzey.com/2022-lessons/
- BeefWellington 3y ago
  This dissection is, on its own, full of inaccuracies. It may be true that the book is based on some weak studies but anyone can cherry pick a few individual sentences out of their context and from that write an essay about how wrong someone is (essentially the first 4 points that don't relate to a data error are summed up this way). In fact, even some of the studies that person is referencing don't agree with the theses presented. As one real basic example: The author of that blog is disingenous when they take the sentence: > the shorter your sleep, the shorter your life span Out of context from the rest of the page: https://archive.org/details/why-we-sleep/page/n9/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/why-we-sleep/page/n9/mode/2up Within context it's clear the author is speaking about specifically getting too little sleep as short sleep. In that context, shorter doesn't mean what is implied by the blog author's response (less in hours).
  - fasterik 3y ago
    Ironically, you're cherry picking from the cherry picking. It's not just weak studies. Guzey provides multiple examples of demonstrably false statements in the book. There is also evidence of flagrant data manipulation. For example, rather than reproducing a chart from a study, Walker presents a modified chart with the data removed that contradicts the claim he wants to make. This calls into question the quality of the entire book and Walker's integrity as a researcher. At the same time, I think Guzey's analysis is often brought up in order to dismiss the core claim of the book, which is that most people should be getting more sleep. I'm willing to believe that in fact people should be getting more sleep, and I'm also willing to believe that 90% or more of the scientific research referenced by the book is valid. It's just unfortunate that the book seems to be sloppily (and borderline fraudulently) written and researched.
    - BeefWellington 3y ago
      No, I provided one example, made it clear it's one example, and did not remove the surrounding context (in fact, providing more of it, which the author of that blog fails to do). Those are very different things. > It's not just weak studies. Guzey provides multiple examples of demonstrably false statements in the book. There is also flagrant data manipulation. For example, rather than reproducing a chart from a study, Walker presents a modified chart with the data removed that contradicts the claim he wants to make. This calls into question the quality of the entire book and Walker's integrity as a researcher. I did not see any examples of actual research being misrepresented. Where does this happen? Throughout the post, Guzey is effectively saying: "Walker's book says X but a study says Y" without mentioning the study was released after the book, sometimes years. This is literally the first study linked to that suggests there's no correlation between sleep length and longevity (2018 meta analysis, book released 2017), which is a point the author isn't making in that first section, when viewed in context. If the argument is it's poor communication on Walker's part in the book, sure, I'll agree to that. That's not what Guzey is arguing though; rather he's arguing a statement that doesn't seem to be made. To put it plainly, these two statements are very different: - If you do not get enough sleep, there is a correlation to worse health effects, worse health outcomes, and less lifespan vs - If you don't sleep a minimum number of hours, you will have a shorter lifespan Walker appears (in context) to suggest the former, while Guzey is arguing against the latter. One of the first problems with any study (let alone meta-analysis) in sleep has to contend with is the fact that the individual data points may require a different number of hours of sleep to be properly rested, and that sleep quality can vary greatly. Simply counting the hours is insufficient. Really, maybe there's a bigger discussion to be had around the reproducibility crisis as a whole and what it means for people who author books. The problem with books and subjects like this is that they can be an in-time snapshot of knowledge, which are often incorrect when further reviewed (see: Power posing and related). Maybe ethically social scientists should be barred from publishing.

floxy 3y 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/

LaffertyDev 3y ago
Thanks for the link. I read the book with the popular-science-ness of it in mind and was glad to have done so. It was produced right in the middle of the replication crisis... which isn't a particularly good look. I agree there are _a lot_ of ridiculous claims that are tenuous at best in the book. He also repeats himself a lot in a quite annoying way. I still think the book has merit as an accessible way for people to learn more about sleep.
LaffertyDev 3y ago
You sent me down a rabbit hole on this person's blog. I found their 2022 reflections very interesting and tangentially relevant (does not dismiss the point made about Why We Sleep, I just found it interesting.) https://guzey.com/2022-lessons/ https://guzey.com/2022-lessons/
BeefWellington 3y ago
This dissection is, on its own, full of inaccuracies. It may be true that the book is based on some weak studies but anyone can cherry pick a few individual sentences out of their context and from that write an essay about how wrong someone is (essentially the first 4 points that don't relate to a data error are summed up this way). In fact, even some of the studies that person is referencing don't agree with the theses presented. As one real basic example: The author of that blog is disingenous when they take the sentence: > the shorter your sleep, the shorter your life span Out of context from the rest of the page: https://archive.org/details/why-we-sleep/page/n9/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/why-we-sleep/page/n9/mode/2up Within context it's clear the author is speaking about specifically getting too little sleep as short sleep. In that context, shorter doesn't mean what is implied by the blog author's response (less in hours).
- fasterik 3y ago
  Ironically, you're cherry picking from the cherry picking. It's not just weak studies. Guzey provides multiple examples of demonstrably false statements in the book. There is also evidence of flagrant data manipulation. For example, rather than reproducing a chart from a study, Walker presents a modified chart with the data removed that contradicts the claim he wants to make. This calls into question the quality of the entire book and Walker's integrity as a researcher. At the same time, I think Guzey's analysis is often brought up in order to dismiss the core claim of the book, which is that most people should be getting more sleep. I'm willing to believe that in fact people should be getting more sleep, and I'm also willing to believe that 90% or more of the scientific research referenced by the book is valid. It's just unfortunate that the book seems to be sloppily (and borderline fraudulently) written and researched.
  - BeefWellington 3y ago
    No, I provided one example, made it clear it's one example, and did not remove the surrounding context (in fact, providing more of it, which the author of that blog fails to do). Those are very different things. > It's not just weak studies. Guzey provides multiple examples of demonstrably false statements in the book. There is also flagrant data manipulation. For example, rather than reproducing a chart from a study, Walker presents a modified chart with the data removed that contradicts the claim he wants to make. This calls into question the quality of the entire book and Walker's integrity as a researcher. I did not see any examples of actual research being misrepresented. Where does this happen? Throughout the post, Guzey is effectively saying: "Walker's book says X but a study says Y" without mentioning the study was released after the book, sometimes years. This is literally the first study linked to that suggests there's no correlation between sleep length and longevity (2018 meta analysis, book released 2017), which is a point the author isn't making in that first section, when viewed in context. If the argument is it's poor communication on Walker's part in the book, sure, I'll agree to that. That's not what Guzey is arguing though; rather he's arguing a statement that doesn't seem to be made. To put it plainly, these two statements are very different: - If you do not get enough sleep, there is a correlation to worse health effects, worse health outcomes, and less lifespan vs - If you don't sleep a minimum number of hours, you will have a shorter lifespan Walker appears (in context) to suggest the former, while Guzey is arguing against the latter. One of the first problems with any study (let alone meta-analysis) in sleep has to contend with is the fact that the individual data points may require a different number of hours of sleep to be properly rested, and that sleep quality can vary greatly. Simply counting the hours is insufficient. Really, maybe there's a bigger discussion to be had around the reproducibility crisis as a whole and what it means for people who author books. The problem with books and subjects like this is that they can be an in-time snapshot of knowledge, which are often incorrect when further reviewed (see: Power posing and related). Maybe ethically social scientists should be barred from publishing.