I’m surprised that tinkering with sleep is even an area of interest in LW circles. It’s a classic Chesterton’s fence not to mess with. Short-term sleep deprivation is fine and happens all the time, chronic sleep deprivation is bad, don’t do it, focus on some other ways to squeeze more time out of the day, if that’s what one is after. Leave the sleep research to the professionals, it’s not a low-hanging fruit.
(Unless you intentionally sleep deprive to trigger bipolar hypomania and are reckless enough to risk it turning into a full mania.)
Chesterton’s fence means that you want to investigate strange-seeming barriers, rules, and norms before tearing them down permanently, not that you should leave them in place unquestioned :) And the claims you make here are precisely the questions we are trying to address.
Sleep research provides an interesting exercise in rationality, because it touches on so many pertinent challenges. There’s instrumental reasoning with imperfect information, figuring out how to conceptualize the issue, mechanistic reasoning, critical interpretation of scientific literature—it’s all there. Personally, I think it’s a great rationalist exercise.
Chesterton’s fence means that you want to investigate strange-seeming barriers, rules, and norms before tearing them down permanently, not that you should leave them in place unquestioned :)
Indeed. And sleep is one of those, erected by evolution, pervasive across species, but with no clear reasons. Playing with it without clear understanding of what is going on is bound to backfire. Yes, as a pure exercise in rationality it is interesting. It is also called “science of sleep” and best done professionally. As a way to save time or to do self-experimenting, it’s definitely not the way to go.
Your advice here is too imprecise to be debatable. What’s the line between normal sleep variation, individual sleep differences, and “playing with it?” If we don’t feel tired (as in mania), are we “playing with sleep” if we simply stay awake, as we feel inclined to do, or are we “playing with sleep” if we indulge in staying up late?
When you say that it’s “bound to backfire,” can you turn this into a claim precise enough to make into a bet?
When you say it’s “best done professionally,” do you mean that we should leave it to professional sleep researchers to run such studies, or that we should simply get the FDA-recommended amount of sleep and not ask why?
If you can make your claims precise enough to match the level of care, thought, and rigor on display here and in guzey’s original post, I’d love to engage further!
Can’t promise the “level of care, thought, and rigor on display here and in guzey’s original post” in a single comment. Seems like asking a lot. But, to answer some of your questions:
In mania you are not playing with it, it is playing with you, and you have little control of what is going on. It is also known to be unhealthy in various ways.
By “playing with sleep” I mean not going with the flow by staying up or staying awake, but methodical deliberate attempts to change one’s sleeping patterns.
“Bound to backfire”: it is well established that chronic sleep deprivation leads to various side effects that are discussed in the OP (and also argued against by Alexey). One pitfall is that it is not just the side effects, but the inability to tell that something goes wrong as a result of sleep deprivation, thus destroying an essential feedback mechanism.
“Best done professionally” means exactly that, “professional sleep researchers”. Someone who is qualified and is not sleep deprived while doing the research on willing subjects, or on those who are stuck with unusual or poor sleep. “we should simply get the FDA-recommended amount of sleep and not ask why” seems silly enough that I have trouble believing you actually considered that as something I might have suggested.
Not sure if this is up to your standards, but I guess I tried.
By “playing with sleep” I mean not going with the flow by staying up or staying awake, but methodical deliberate attempts to change one’s sleeping patterns.
It surprises me that you’d find relatively impulsive and ill-considered modifications of one’s sleep routine to be preferable to a carefully thought-through approach. Can you say a little more as to why you hold this opinion?
“Bound to backfire”: it is well established that chronic sleep deprivation leads to various side effects that are discussed in the OP (and also argued against by Alexey). One pitfall is that it is not just the side effects, but the inability to tell that something goes wrong as a result of sleep deprivation, thus destroying an essential feedback mechanism.
I think we all pretty much agree here that sleep deprivation comes with downsides. It’s really the magnitude of those downsides, potential for upsides, the impact of those downsides on things like health and functional performance that are in question, and how the downsides weigh against the benefits of ~12% additional waking hours that’s in question. While it’s fine to point out that downsides exist, your tone seems to imply that you believe that the existence of downsides settles the matter, while it seems to me that the whole point of broaching the discussion in the first place is that Guzey and I (and others) think it’s worth discussing.
“Best done professionally” means exactly that, “professional sleep researchers”. Someone who is qualified and is not sleep deprived while doing the research on willing subjects, or on those who are stuck with unusual or poor sleep. “we should simply get the FDA-recommended amount of sleep and not ask why” seems silly enough that I have trouble believing you actually considered that as something I might have suggested.
I don’t think it’s silly to have interpreted you that way. After all, nobody here has suggested actually running any sort of formal sleep study. What we’re all clearly doing is discussing the published results, along with anecdata and our own ideas. You might have been referring to our own personal choices about how much sleep to get as a form of “sleep research,” but given the fact that people vary and try to optimize and improve their sleep all the time, saying that people should not do this sort of “sleep research” would seem silliest of all to me, so I assumed that was not what you meant. Perhaps you could be more specific about what activity you’re recommending people avoid when you say to “leave the sleep research to the professionals?”
From a bunch of downvotes I assume that people don’t want to see the types of comments I have made about tinkering with sleep being unwise, I think I said enough, anyway.
Up to you! I’ve been upvoting you, though. My main concern in this thread is that I don’t want to see an opportunity for constructive debate stifled by people’s feelings getting hurt, or by frustrating levels of imprecision. So I find it annoying that people are downvoting you when you’re making an effort to provide an alternative perspective. If you’d like to PM with other thoughts, please do.
I’m surprised that tinkering with sleep is even an area of interest in LW circles. It’s a classic Chesterton’s fence not to mess with. Short-term sleep deprivation is fine and happens all the time, chronic sleep deprivation is bad, don’t do it, focus on some other ways to squeeze more time out of the day, if that’s what one is after. Leave the sleep research to the professionals, it’s not a low-hanging fruit.
(Unless you intentionally sleep deprive to trigger bipolar hypomania and are reckless enough to risk it turning into a full mania.)
Chesterton’s fence means that you want to investigate strange-seeming barriers, rules, and norms before tearing them down permanently, not that you should leave them in place unquestioned :) And the claims you make here are precisely the questions we are trying to address.
Sleep research provides an interesting exercise in rationality, because it touches on so many pertinent challenges. There’s instrumental reasoning with imperfect information, figuring out how to conceptualize the issue, mechanistic reasoning, critical interpretation of scientific literature—it’s all there. Personally, I think it’s a great rationalist exercise.
Indeed. And sleep is one of those, erected by evolution, pervasive across species, but with no clear reasons. Playing with it without clear understanding of what is going on is bound to backfire. Yes, as a pure exercise in rationality it is interesting. It is also called “science of sleep” and best done professionally. As a way to save time or to do self-experimenting, it’s definitely not the way to go.
Your advice here is too imprecise to be debatable. What’s the line between normal sleep variation, individual sleep differences, and “playing with it?” If we don’t feel tired (as in mania), are we “playing with sleep” if we simply stay awake, as we feel inclined to do, or are we “playing with sleep” if we indulge in staying up late?
When you say that it’s “bound to backfire,” can you turn this into a claim precise enough to make into a bet?
When you say it’s “best done professionally,” do you mean that we should leave it to professional sleep researchers to run such studies, or that we should simply get the FDA-recommended amount of sleep and not ask why?
If you can make your claims precise enough to match the level of care, thought, and rigor on display here and in guzey’s original post, I’d love to engage further!
Can’t promise the “level of care, thought, and rigor on display here and in guzey’s original post” in a single comment. Seems like asking a lot. But, to answer some of your questions:
In mania you are not playing with it, it is playing with you, and you have little control of what is going on. It is also known to be unhealthy in various ways.
By “playing with sleep” I mean not going with the flow by staying up or staying awake, but methodical deliberate attempts to change one’s sleeping patterns.
“Bound to backfire”: it is well established that chronic sleep deprivation leads to various side effects that are discussed in the OP (and also argued against by Alexey). One pitfall is that it is not just the side effects, but the inability to tell that something goes wrong as a result of sleep deprivation, thus destroying an essential feedback mechanism.
“Best done professionally” means exactly that, “professional sleep researchers”. Someone who is qualified and is not sleep deprived while doing the research on willing subjects, or on those who are stuck with unusual or poor sleep. “we should simply get the FDA-recommended amount of sleep and not ask why” seems silly enough that I have trouble believing you actually considered that as something I might have suggested.
Not sure if this is up to your standards, but I guess I tried.
This definitely helps, so thank you.
By “playing with sleep” I mean not going with the flow by staying up or staying awake, but methodical deliberate attempts to change one’s sleeping patterns.
It surprises me that you’d find relatively impulsive and ill-considered modifications of one’s sleep routine to be preferable to a carefully thought-through approach. Can you say a little more as to why you hold this opinion?
“Bound to backfire”: it is well established that chronic sleep deprivation leads to various side effects that are discussed in the OP (and also argued against by Alexey). One pitfall is that it is not just the side effects, but the inability to tell that something goes wrong as a result of sleep deprivation, thus destroying an essential feedback mechanism.
I think we all pretty much agree here that sleep deprivation comes with downsides. It’s really the magnitude of those downsides, potential for upsides, the impact of those downsides on things like health and functional performance that are in question, and how the downsides weigh against the benefits of ~12% additional waking hours that’s in question. While it’s fine to point out that downsides exist, your tone seems to imply that you believe that the existence of downsides settles the matter, while it seems to me that the whole point of broaching the discussion in the first place is that Guzey and I (and others) think it’s worth discussing.
“Best done professionally” means exactly that, “professional sleep researchers”. Someone who is qualified and is not sleep deprived while doing the research on willing subjects, or on those who are stuck with unusual or poor sleep. “we should simply get the FDA-recommended amount of sleep and not ask why” seems silly enough that I have trouble believing you actually considered that as something I might have suggested.
I don’t think it’s silly to have interpreted you that way. After all, nobody here has suggested actually running any sort of formal sleep study. What we’re all clearly doing is discussing the published results, along with anecdata and our own ideas. You might have been referring to our own personal choices about how much sleep to get as a form of “sleep research,” but given the fact that people vary and try to optimize and improve their sleep all the time, saying that people should not do this sort of “sleep research” would seem silliest of all to me, so I assumed that was not what you meant. Perhaps you could be more specific about what activity you’re recommending people avoid when you say to “leave the sleep research to the professionals?”
From a bunch of downvotes I assume that people don’t want to see the types of comments I have made about tinkering with sleep being unwise, I think I said enough, anyway.
Up to you! I’ve been upvoting you, though. My main concern in this thread is that I don’t want to see an opportunity for constructive debate stifled by people’s feelings getting hurt, or by frustrating levels of imprecision. So I find it annoying that people are downvoting you when you’re making an effort to provide an alternative perspective. If you’d like to PM with other thoughts, please do.