4 ms·

TL;DR: Most people in pre-industrial Britain slept the same number of hours we do today, 7-8, but went to sleep earlier. Often by 9, almost all by 10. Update s

TL;DR: Most people in pre-industrial Britain slept the same number of hours we do today, 7-8, but went to sleep earlier. Often by 9, almost all by 10. Update suggested by comment: In addition, more people than today expected to wake up in the middle of the night for an hour or so.

gruseom 14y ago
That is not a summary of the article at all. You've missed the most important part. Ekrich is the historian who discovered that people's sleep used to be divided into two periods, separated by a waking period in the middle of the night. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segmented_sleep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segmented_sleep (The Tl;DR thing is annoying on HN anyway. If it's too long for you, and you didn't read it, there's no merit in announcing the fact.)
- ternaryoperator 14y ago
  You're right, I should have mentioned that, although I found it far, far less interesting than the author did. The overall impression I got from the article is that based on lost of fragments of literature, sleeping was not that different then from what it is today. Just earlier start time, less comfortable, and with an expected break for some in the middle. Will update my comment. I think a lot of people today wake up in the sleep for periods. It's just less formalized as a part of the sleep experience. The TL;DR is really just shorthand for "brief summary of the important stuff." Nothing more.
  - epo 14y ago
    But you didn't give a brief summary. You gave your take on the bits you found interesting (or possibly the bits you bothered to read) which, to the rest of us, is worse than useless.
    - DenisM 14y ago
      It's not useless, it saved me a bunch of time.
      - epo 14y ago
        What's your point? You can save time by simply not reading, and by so doing you remain uninformed. However a poor or slanted 'synopsis' usually serves to misinform which, to my mind, is a disservice.
        DenisM 14y ago
        It gave me enough to understand the general area this is about, and I moved along for lack of interest. Also, your combative tone is not justified by the situation.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
rackman171 14y ago
Agreed with your update. A better treatment than this post re what the history of segmented sleep means for us today is presented in this article, which just appeared in the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/opinion/sunday/rethinking-sleep.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/opinion/sunday/rethinking-...

gruseom 14y ago

That is not a summary of the article at all. You've missed the most important part. Ekrich is the historian who discovered that people's sleep used to be divided into two periods, separated by a waking period in the middle of the night. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segmented_sleep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segmented_sleep (The Tl;DR thing is annoying on HN anyway. If it's too long for you, and you didn't read it, there's no merit in announcing the fact.)

ternaryoperator 14y ago
You're right, I should have mentioned that, although I found it far, far less interesting than the author did. The overall impression I got from the article is that based on lost of fragments of literature, sleeping was not that different then from what it is today. Just earlier start time, less comfortable, and with an expected break for some in the middle. Will update my comment. I think a lot of people today wake up in the sleep for periods. It's just less formalized as a part of the sleep experience. The TL;DR is really just shorthand for "brief summary of the important stuff." Nothing more.
- epo 14y ago
  But you didn't give a brief summary. You gave your take on the bits you found interesting (or possibly the bits you bothered to read) which, to the rest of us, is worse than useless.
  - DenisM 14y ago
    It's not useless, it saved me a bunch of time.
    - epo 14y ago
      What's your point? You can save time by simply not reading, and by so doing you remain uninformed. However a poor or slanted 'synopsis' usually serves to misinform which, to my mind, is a disservice.
      - DenisM 14y ago
        It gave me enough to understand the general area this is about, and I moved along for lack of interest. Also, your combative tone is not justified by the situation.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

rackman171 14y ago

Agreed with your update. A better treatment than this post re what the history of segmented sleep means for us today is presented in this article, which just appeared in the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/opinion/sunday/rethinking-sleep.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/opinion/sunday/rethinking-...