TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

“Why We Sleep” Is Riddled with Scientific and Factual Errors

312 点作者 giansegato大约 4 年前

21 条评论

fedorareis大约 4 年前
Something doesn’t quite sit right with me about him linking to a couple things that mention Walker’s rebuttal <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;sleepdiplomat.wordpress.com&#x2F;2019&#x2F;12&#x2F;19&#x2F;why-we-sleep-responses-to-questions-from-readers&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;sleepdiplomat.wordpress.com&#x2F;2019&#x2F;12&#x2F;19&#x2F;why-we-sleep-...</a> but not linking to it directly. If you are trying to get people to think critically about the book it seems like they should at least be given the opportunity to see the authors response to your criticism.
评论 #26685290 未加载
评论 #26686455 未加载
评论 #26685625 未加载
评论 #26685234 未加载
评论 #26689384 未加载
dang大约 4 年前
Past threads:<p><i>“Why We Sleep” Is Riddled with Scientific and Factual Errors</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=22419958" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=22419958</a> - Feb 2020 (34 comments)<p><i>“Why We Sleep” Is Riddled with Scientific and Factual Errors</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=21546850" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=21546850</a> - Nov 2019 (58 comments)
评论 #26684764 未加载
jimnotgym大约 4 年前
I had a purely practical issue with &quot;Why we sleep&quot;. The book says multiple times that you cannot run a sleep deficit and then make it up later. So what <i>should</i> I do if I have run a deficit? If the deficit reduces cognitive function, and I can&#x27;t make it up with more sleep, does it follow that for every short nights sleep I will have a <i>permanent</i> reduction in cognitive function? If I turn my alarm off and let my body decide it makes me sleep for longer after a deficit, is my body wasting its time?<p>It doesn&#x27;t feel like this can be 100% true
评论 #26685743 未加载
评论 #26687116 未加载
评论 #26685912 未加载
评论 #26685983 未加载
评论 #26710799 未加载
评论 #26685679 未加载
评论 #26686708 未加载
tayo42大约 4 年前
So how do i, a regular person without a neuroscience or sleep background, know who to trust? The about page on this page doesn&#x27;t lead me to believe that this is another expert in the field. Maybe Guzey got it wrong, maybe they&#x27;re both wrong? Why should I take this page at face value?<p>I guess this leads to a bigger philosophical leaning question, how do I pick out good information when I don&#x27;t know the field. This has been a struggle for me, I have a recent interest in neuroscience and how it relates to consciousness. This topic seems to have a wide variety of science based, philosophy based and some real out there stuff but it gets pitches as reliable. I really don&#x27;t know how to pick good books to read. I don&#x27;t know how to filter out the equivalent of like being antivax in a field i dont know about.<p>To try to answer my own questions, I guess in some way, you can&#x27;t ever know the truth? But relying on one book, blog, article, view point to base your understanding will definitely lead to being uniformed unless you are lucky enough to stumble on a god source the first time.
评论 #26684989 未加载
评论 #26685036 未加载
评论 #26684924 未加载
评论 #26685269 未加载
评论 #26685944 未加载
评论 #26684880 未加载
评论 #26685022 未加载
评论 #26686681 未加载
评论 #26687037 未加载
nikanj大约 4 年前
There seems to be a very strong correlation between popularity and scientific inaccuracy. For example, Sex at Dawn was a massive hit, and completely based on wistful thinking and speculation, like &quot;We found multiple different kinds of arrowheads in one cave. It must mean the lady living in the cave had multiple lovers, in a happy and peaceful polyamorous utopia&quot;
评论 #26685024 未加载
评论 #26685779 未加载
评论 #26685116 未加载
softwaredoug大约 4 年前
My biggest complaint about the book: it&#x27;s simply terrifying.<p>If you suffer from insomnia, don&#x27;t pick up this book. It will have the opposite of the desired effect. It doesn&#x27;t have a lot of practical guidance. And now, according to this article, much of the terror might be unfounded.<p>Better books I&#x27;d recommend if you have insomnia are &quot;The Sleep Solution&quot; and &quot;The Circadian Code&quot;
评论 #26684831 未加载
评论 #26685587 未加载
onethought大约 4 年前
This feels cherry picked and dishonest.<p>- Why we sleep literally calls out the example of treating depression with sleep deprivation.<p>- The cancer reference was made with the context of “consistently less than 5 hours of sleep”, he then referenced many studies that assessed 4 hour sleeps. This essay misrepresents the context of that chapter.<p>- As counter evidence throughout he references research done AFTER the book was written...
评论 #26685479 未加载
pedalpete大约 4 年前
I personally believe sleep research is at the same stage as the food pyramid was in the 80s.<p>As someone who is also currently doing sleep trials for our start-up (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;soundmind.co" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;soundmind.co</a>), I can understand why. Clinical sleep trials are time consuming and expensive. Try getting a volunteer to sleep in a lab for more than a few nights, then try to get thousands of people doing that, like you would in a drug trial, also try to factor in all the things that person would have done that day which would affect their sleep, as well as factoring in what their sleep was like the previous 3 or more nights, and how that would affect on going sleep.<p>When I read Why We Sleep, I remember thinking that the conclusions Dr Walker was arriving at seemed wrong much of the time, and seemed sensationalist. At the same time, I&#x27;ve seen him interviewed where he walks back things like the link between circadian rhythm and blue-light.<p>I&#x27;m not sure if the expectation is that he writes a rebuttal to his own work, or a living document about how the science has changed?<p>I think we need to look at the emerging field and understand that sleep is still something we don&#x27;t understand well, and that much of the research is still a moving target.
评论 #26689078 未加载
Barrin92大约 4 年前
personal heuristic of mine, never read something that even remotely reeks of self-help.<p>when it starts with &quot;popular science person xyz charts a map of the most important scientific breakthrough of the decade&quot; etc just put it back and pick something from the fiction section and you&#x27;ll have a better time.<p>Life isn&#x27;t lived in the aggregate, you don&#x27;t need &quot;sleep science&quot; to figure out how much <i>you</i> need to sleep. Are you tired? Sleep more, no? you&#x27;re fine. This emerging health industrial complex has just one purpose: create neurotic people who try to optimise their life and then sell them answers.
评论 #26685292 未加载
评论 #26684948 未加载
评论 #26684870 未加载
评论 #26685060 未加载
评论 #26685298 未加载
评论 #26685018 未加载
georgewsinger大约 4 年前
Tangential: Guzey&#x27;s &quot;Best of Twitter&quot; (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;guzey.com&#x2F;best-of-twitter&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;guzey.com&#x2F;best-of-twitter&#x2F;</a>) is the best Twitter curation list, bar none.<p>He explores a lot of of interesting contrarian ideas and runs a lot of interesting self-experiments in productivity.
htfu大约 4 年前
&gt; contrary, there’s strong evidence of no reduction in average sleeping time and perhaps even an increase in sleeping time over this approximate time period<p>Followed by a source snippet looking at not average sleep time but prevalence of very short and very long sleep durations - outliers. Ie doesn&#x27;t necessarily, or even likely, have anything to say on the subject.<p>For such a meticulous takedown repeating exactly the kind of mistake you&#x27;re criticizing seems really sloppy. And the alarm bells over &quot;harm&quot; seem overkill and somewhat shrill.<p>That said, the book definitely has issues and it&#x27;s good someone tries to point them out. I just feel this overshoots.
raphlinus大约 4 年前
They say &quot;don&#x27;t read the comments,&quot; but taking that advice would have led me to miss <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=MUw3s4evhTE" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=MUw3s4evhTE</a> . That is a 7 minute video of science comedy that had me laughing out loud at several points, and its punchline is directly relevant to the question at hand here.
austinjp大约 4 年前
The page linked by wpietri [0] [1] is worth reading. Guzey engages in a conversation with someone named Phil who did a &quot;PhD in a circadian rhythms&#x2F;sleep lab&quot;. No firm conclusions, but topics include how applicable animal models are to humans, and the difficulty of producing conclusive evidence about sleep in humans. Plenty of references, and little argument that aspects of Walker&#x27;s book seem sensationalist.<p>[0] wpietri&#x27;s comment <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=26684989" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=26684989</a><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu&#x2F;2019&#x2F;11&#x2F;24&#x2F;why-we-sleep-update-some-thoughts-while-we-wait-for-matthew-walker-to-respond-to-alexey-guzeys-criticisms&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu&#x2F;2019&#x2F;11&#x2F;24&#x2F;why-we-sle...</a>
SZJX大约 4 年前
I have a feeling that the author might have had a strong opinion on the value of sleep deprivation therapy for depression and might have benefited from it, and that might be an important reason why he felt an obligation to rebut the book. However, those two things do not need to be contradictory after all. Acknowledging the validity of sleep deprivation therapy in some cases (maybe it does help your brain produce euphoric chemicals) does not negate the idea that in general good sleep hygiene is conducive in the long run for most people. It could well be that while your level of depression is reduced, your cognition suffers, especially if you have short sleep for a long duration of time, which is not sustainable and will lead to a rebound.<p>I am in general also not a fan of bestselling science books going overboard with their claims (e.g. the book <i>Grit</i>). Though in this case I have a feeling that Guzey’s stance could be an overkill in the opposite direction. I think the general idea of the book might well still be valid despite the inevitable imperfections&#x2F;exaggerations in it.
评论 #26687833 未加载
imron大约 4 年前
&gt; Please do not use sci-hub to access them for free and do not use this trick (a) to easily redirect papers to sci-hub.<p>Hilarious
评论 #26686571 未加载
RocketSyntax大约 4 年前
sure, some of it is wishy-washy, but i&#x27;ve made adjustments based on it (no caffeine after 11:30am), and my health has dramatically improved.<p>now i&#x27;m dreaming every night AND waking up with programming solutions because of it.
binbag大约 4 年前
Great article. The percentage reduction bit is particularly bonkers.
tompark大约 4 年前
I just read this book last month on a friend&#x27;s recommendation. I don&#x27;t want to pile on whatever anyone else said, but I had noticed a contradiction in Chapter 6 that I found to be <i>very</i> distracting, and I&#x27;d love to hear from anyone else who knows the facts behind the subject.<p>First, in Chapter 3, he introduces &quot;light NREM sleep&quot; as stage-2 NREM, while &quot;deep NREM sleep&quot; is stage 3-4 NREM.<p>Then, throughout most of Chapter 6, he says that you get a huge &quot;memory restoration&quot; benefit from light stage-2 NREM, due to sleep spindles:<p>* &quot;The memory refreshment was related to lighter, stage 2 NREM sleep, and specifically the [...] sleep spindles.&quot;<p>* &quot;The more sleep spindles obtained during sleep, the greater the restoration of learning.&quot;<p>* &quot;The concentration of NREM sleep spindles&quot; happen in stage-2 NREM, and you get the most of this type of sleep after 6 hrs of sleeping.<p>* In the first 6 hrs, you&#x27;ve gotten all your deep NREM sleep: &quot;we obtain most of our deep NREM sleep early in the night, and much of our REM sleep (and lighter NREM sleep) late in the night.&quot;<p>* &quot;Sleep six hours or less and you are shortchanging the brain of a learning restoration benefit that is normally performed by sleep spindles.&quot;<p>* Furthermore, stage 2 NREM is important for other kinds of restorational benefit: &quot;The increases in speed and accuracy, underpinned by efficient automaticity, were directly related to the amount of stage 2 NREM, especially in the last two hours of an eight-hour night of sleep [...]. Indeed, it was the number of those wonderful sleep spindles in the last two hours of the late morning—the time of night with the richest spindle bursts of brainwave activity—that were linked with the offline memory boost.&quot;<p>So he <i>firmly</i> establishes this point about light NREM sleep throughout Chapter 6.<p>However, but there&#x27;s a section (&quot;SLEEP-THE-NIGHT-AFTER LEARNING&quot;) where he makes a big deal about the distinction between deep NREM and light NREM sleep, calling it a &quot;battle royal&quot;:<p>&gt; You will recall from chapter 3 that we obtain most of our deep NREM sleep early in the night, and much of our REM sleep (and lighter NREM sleep) late in the night. &gt; After having learned lists of facts, researchers allowed participants the opportunity to sleep only for the first half of the night or only for the second half of the night. In this way, both experimental groups obtained the same total amount of sleep (albeit short), yet the former group’s sleep was rich in deep NREM, and the latter was dominated instead by REM. &gt; The stage was set for a battle royal between the two types of sleep. The question: Which sleep period would confer a greater memory savings benefit—that filled with deep NREM, or that packed with abundant REM sleep? &gt; For fact-based, textbook-like memory, the result was clear. It was early-night sleep, rich in deep NREM, that won out in terms of providing superior memory retention savings relative to late-night, REM-rich sleep.<p>This doesn&#x27;t <i>necessarily</i> contradict the idea that the spindles during light NREM sleep are restorative, but it says light NREM is less effective than deep NREM, and then he doesn&#x27;t cite any more research on deep NREM&#x27;s memory benefits. In chapter 7 he focuses on how deep NREM sleep has other benefits. The author does mention &quot;deep NREM sleep&quot; as important for cognitive benefits later in the book when it seems he meant to say &quot;light NREM sleep&quot;.<p>Also, to say they allowed participants to sleep &quot;only for the second half of the night&quot; is strange, and I don&#x27;t know what that means. Looking at the original study <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.jstor.org&#x2F;stable&#x2F;1414040" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.jstor.org&#x2F;stable&#x2F;1414040</a> it looks like there were ONLY TWO subjects, and it&#x27;s not clear to me that this study was described accurately by Walker.<p>If this point was already discussed elsewhere, I&#x27;m not aware of it, and would appreciate a link.
hellbannedguy大约 4 年前
Yea, I get it—-sleep is important.<p>I saw a guy get a ticket for sleeping in a public park the other day. I don’t know if he was homeless.<p>I started thinking where could I could legally take a nap if tired. I live in one of the wealthiest liberal enclave (Marin County). Home of Gavin Neusome, and important stuff like taking a nap is against the law for all practical purposes.<p>Yea—technically I could hike to BLM land? For myself I would be a 60 mile hike. And even then there’s a fee to get into the park, and there is no camping?<p>Personally, I’ve given up on a good nights rest. I can go to sleep, but wake up 3-4 hours later. This has been going on for 20 plus years. I do take naps during the day though. If I had a do over I might have moved to a country that encourages siestas?<p>(I know I’m not adding anything to this study. I’m just angry over the way we have made everything essentially against some law. And I’m venting?)
评论 #26685635 未加载
a_throwaway_6大约 4 年前
My first instinct when hearing of accusations of academic misconduct is to ask who is making those accusations: is it someone whose opinions I can trust?<p>The author of the blog above has an About page where they introduce themselves as &quot;a researcher with a background in Economics, Mathematics, and Cognitive Science&quot;. Instead of a list of academic achievements: publications, grants, chairs, awards, etc, as we would expect to see in a researcher&#x27;s &quot;about&quot; page, the author continues their introduction with a few words on what they&#x27;re &quot;thinking about&quot; at the moment and what their long-term goals are, then makes a peculiar plea:<p><pre><code> If you’re reading this and you do anything biology-related at all, I would love to talk to you and would especially appreciate you getting in touch. </code></pre> Then the author lists their favourite TV shows, personal essays, interviews etc. All this does not make the author of the article sound like a trustworthy source, but rather as someone desperate for attention.<p>The next thing I usually look for in cases like this is whether the person accusing someone else of academic fraud has given an opportunity to the party they accuse to defend themselves. The author of this blog has not only not done that but is engaging in misleading tactics. The following text is in TFA:<p><pre><code> Also see UC Berkeley’s official response regarding this essay – all problems with the book I discovered are “minor”. </code></pre> The sentence &quot;UC Berkeley’s official response&quot; links to the following URL:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;yngve.hoiseth.net&#x2F;articles&#x2F;why-we-sleep-institutional-failure&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;yngve.hoiseth.net&#x2F;articles&#x2F;why-we-sleep-institutiona...</a><p>However, the linked resource is not &quot;UC Berkeley&#x27;s official response&quot; at all, but rather a blog by a different blogger, Yngve Hoiseth, who claims they contacted someone -who is never named- at UC Berkeley about Alexey Guzey&#x27;s post we are reading above. Yngve Hoiseth&#x27;s blog itself claims to have uploaded &quot;the entire exchange here&quot;, linking to the following URL:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;yngve.hoiseth.net&#x2F;why-we-sleep-institutional-failure&#x2F;email-exchange.eml" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;yngve.hoiseth.net&#x2F;why-we-sleep-institutional-failure...</a><p>Which is dead and has not been archived by archive.org.<p>All this makes the article above sound very difficult to take seriously. In all honesty, it sounds entirely like an attempt to kick shit up for the author&#x27;s personal gratification. Or perhaps there is some strange ???-PROFIT scheme hidden somewhere in there, but even that is not particularlly interesting.<p>Posting under a throwaway because the article&#x27;s author sounds desperate enough to engage in all sorts of internet attacks to deter critics.
评论 #26687864 未加载
评论 #26686550 未加载
评论 #26686782 未加载
Ansil849大约 4 年前
The thing to remember is that popsci books are not peer-reviewed academic literature. They are the, generally unchecked, thoughts of the author. If you listen to them, you do so at your peril as you are effectively performing alterations to your life based purely on the thoughts of one person. Much like with medicine, you should seek multiple qualified opinions.