3 ms·
The OP cites scientifically-established correlations between low productivity and sleep deprivation. You, on the other hand, point to a couple of heavyweight co
by atlantic 13y ago
The OP cites scientifically-established correlations between low productivity and sleep deprivation. You, on the other hand, point to a couple of heavyweight counter-examples (Edison and Newton), plus one historical period (early industrial) and leave it at that. Macho attitudes like yours are the exact reason why common-sense attitudes to sleeping hours have not taken hold in companies. There doesn't seem to be much to argue with in your comment.
- StandardFuture 13y agoThis is an oversimplification of an already simpleminded discussion (in pursuit of being able to "justify" conclusions you have built on presumptions beforehand). I am not sure where this irrelevant accusation of "macho attitudes" came from but it certainly fell in line with using terminology similar to what the article use with words like "effeminate" and "male champions". And yet this article contradicts your argument by naming several (large) companies incorporating sleep-is-good attitudes. SO I highly doubt that my singular paragraph offering contradictory arguments for the sake of discussion and clarity is the reason why "common-sense attitudes ... have not taken hold in companies". Regardless of studies that have shown individualized scenarios of productivity loss due to sleep deprivation (also dependent on numerous external and internal parameters) there are still counter examples that cannot be scientifically ignored. Your (appeared) devotion to 'scientific-establishment' is just you using particular studies to justify held beliefs (and/or just to be in agreement with localized observations e.g. your personal dependency on sleep or those you work with).