I have always believed that, somehow, I would eventually come across someone who would finally reassure me of the points you have made: "People whose actual sleep deviates from what they consider ideal may be in poorer health because of stress about not sleeping as much as they think they should," and that, "If you feel alert and energetic most of the day, you're probably getting enough sleep." Certainment! And there, as they famously say, is all I need to know. Um, more or less... I put this argument on the shelf next to the "is it 10,000 steps per day, or is 5,000 steps sufficient," argument, and "being mainly vegan - though faithfully vegetarian - need I consume protein in amounts that would choke a horse that I am dedicated not to consume (in my cultural context)." Which, finally, as an avid right-handed guitar player (with not one, but two Fender Stratocasters with left-handed head stocks), begs the question what makes left-handed guitar playing a "bad idea?" [Jimi Hendrix, by the way, was right-handed, but played guitar left-handed. Go figure]
Thank you! I'm glad you found that reassuring (as I do), and that you've been shelving some of those recent health fads that also create stress without necessarily making us healthier.
Being a huge blues fan I've discovered that Elizabeth Cotton and Albert King both played guitar left-handed without reversing the strings. I think they were successful because they were musically gifted and could've made beautiful sounds with a pile of sticks. As for me, being dedicated but less gifted, my left-handed approach is a bad idea at least for fingerstyle pieces.
A key reason is that most fingerpicking involves relatively simple bass lines and complex work on the higher strings. I've got four fingers wasted on the bass, but only my thumb for the higher ones. This makes some songs difficult and others near impossible (e.g., Maple Leaf Rag) because the thumb has to do the work of three or even four fingers.
There's more, but that's the gist of it. Fortunately I found other ways to make a living. :)
I'm a blues player too, acoustic & electric. A couple of things that helped me was to learn to play the slide (glass & metal), though it takes practice and "subtlety"; some say if you play slide you need really heavy gauge strings, but I just can't manage them any more so I play either D'Addario NY/XL 08-38 or "Rev. Willy's Mexican Lottery Brand" (which are Billy Gibbons' of ZZ Top name brand with Dunlop) 07-38 strings (from Amazon); and finally, openG tuning. Now, if you're thinking those are VERY light strings, they certainly are, but I bang them pretty hard & literally have never broken one in 5-years of trying. Plenty of blues written in openG, and you can end up barring so much with a slide or your thumb & index finger. As for fingerstyle playing, I definitely have had proprioception problems for years, and unless I look directly at my right hand at all times, I have no clue where my fingers are in spatial relation to the strings. I took a guitar class once at the community college and tried to learn the Beatles' "Blackbird." Not happening. I do some "garage band" with 3 other psychiatrists & a lawyer (sounds like the opening to a bad joke) and a few open mics, but I battle stage fright, not a nice look for a psychiatrist...
I've also shifted to lighter strings and smaller guitars (e.g., Martin 00-6), as this helps offset my older-guy loss of flexibility. Discovered DADGAD recently and am loving tunes like Black Waterside. Your garage band sounds very cool. I sometimes do a Saturday acoustic blues jam at the Archie Edwards Blues Foundation (MD) which is easy on the nerves, because everyone's playing at the same time - hit a wrong note and it doesn't stand out as much. lol.
As I understand it, historians think pre-industrial sleep was different for most people, typically coming in segments, with a classic mode being a first sleep, then awake an hour or two in the middle of the night, then a second sleep. I’ve no idea if this was more healthful, or indeed, more appropriate to a pre-industrial world, and no chance
of understanding if it impacted health given people generally had poorer outcomes back then. I would reflect that it neatly underlines that cultural norms can and do change, and sleep can be more complicated. A nice Wikipedia article on polyphasic sleep is here, including the Dymaxion model, which I’m pretty sure is what Kramer tried once in Seinfeld, ending up being dumped in the East River.
Thank you. The studies on sleep duration I've seen focused on total amount of sleep at night rather than distinguishing between mono- and polyphasic sleep. I agree that it's unclear what the health impacts of a polyphasic schedule would be, though I think experts nowadays would be inclined to call a full hour of wakefulness between first and second sleep, for instance, less than optimal with respect to quality.
I sidestepped discussions of culture owing to the diversity of behavior that might be labeled culturally normative. Sleep is complicated, as you said. I wonder if it's possible, for instance, that the proportions of people who sleep biphasically have been relatively small and constant over time. I'm not a historian, but I'm a little skeptical that a few dozen or even hundreds of references to biphasic sleep during a particular era proves that most people slept that way.
Here's an illustration of the point: I lived in China for 18 months, in one of the places there where "siestas" are normative. Many businesses closed; people went home for lunch and a nap. Historians of the future will surely find lots of references to siesta time in diaries, newspaper articles, books etc, written by the Chinese people in that city. But (a) some of those people worked during siesta time, and (b) many people who went home relaxed but didn't sleep. In short, the "siesta norm" is highly visible in certain parts of China, but it may not reflect majority behavior.
I remember that episode of Seinfeld. Kramer with Connie....:)
Hi Ken, l suffer from long term insomnia so the important thing for me in this discussion is research into finding a solution for this problem. I need 7-8 hours a night but need to be in bed for about 12 hours to facilitate this via broken sleep which is far from ideal. I don’t have any other issues effecting my sleep and practise all of the sleep hygiene that specialists advise.
Hi Lisa. Sorry to hear you struggle with insomnia. There's an open access (i.e., free) article in the May issue of Journal of Sleep Research that reviews research on topics such as insomnia treatments. One thing that popped out for me is the effectiveness of CBT-I for some people (as well as questions about why it works and whether internet-based versions are effective). The components of CBT-I include a lot of guidance on sleep hygeine, so in that respect it's probably nothing new for you, but it may contain something you haven't considered
Stanford offers some free CBT-I procedures you can do at home (see link below - just click on each of the five hyperlinks when you arrive). Again much of this will be familiar to you, but maybe something here could be helpful.
It all seems a bit circular - because after all, the "7-9 hours" figure is probably what everyone has in their heads, either personally or culturally.
This seemed more an individual norm than a cultural norm as phrased, but let's assume it's cultural norm - I doubt there's very many cultures that differ from the 7-9 hour figure, don't you?
Also, it seems a strange methodology. If you asked me what I thought "the ideal amount of sleep an adult should get a night" is, I would say "zero," because I've hated the biological need for sleeping (and eating) for as long as I've been a conscious being, and am an avid spectator of any DEC2 "sleep less" genetic findings (and would pay handsomely to put said SNP's into myself or my own kids). I think both sleeping and eating should be *optional* ways to spend our time, not mandatory ways.
And sure, I'm the lizardman constant there for that particular survey question, but still - the only thing that question seems tuned to surface is broad memetic consensuses, which will all invariably be "8 hours" or "7-9 hours."
If there were some sign that there WERE a noticeable segment of people saying 5 hours or 6 hours, and getting that amount of sleep, and being healthy by whatever combination health metric endpoint they chose, maybe THEN it would be interesting.
1. I don't think any of your concerns about the survey question make you the lizardman constant. It's a very badly-constructed question, even apart from its failure to clearly indicate anything about culture.
2. I also suspect that most cultural norms don't differ much from 7-9 (or 7-8) hours. The researchers didn't tell us what the country-level norms were, but so what... they weren't measuring norms in the first place.
3. I didn't want to delve into field-specific grievances in the newsletter, but PNAS is one of those prominent journals that sometimes publishes demonstrably flaky stuff, and the editor for this particular paper (Susan Fiske) is one of those prominent (and genuinely brilliant) editors who has been called out for (a) greenlighting flaky, ideologically-biased crap, and (b) taking troubling positions on public criticism of psychology research (e.g, calling critics who post criticisms on social media rather than in peer-reviewed journals "methodological terrorists", which I find ridiculous for several reasons...)
I have always believed that, somehow, I would eventually come across someone who would finally reassure me of the points you have made: "People whose actual sleep deviates from what they consider ideal may be in poorer health because of stress about not sleeping as much as they think they should," and that, "If you feel alert and energetic most of the day, you're probably getting enough sleep." Certainment! And there, as they famously say, is all I need to know. Um, more or less... I put this argument on the shelf next to the "is it 10,000 steps per day, or is 5,000 steps sufficient," argument, and "being mainly vegan - though faithfully vegetarian - need I consume protein in amounts that would choke a horse that I am dedicated not to consume (in my cultural context)." Which, finally, as an avid right-handed guitar player (with not one, but two Fender Stratocasters with left-handed head stocks), begs the question what makes left-handed guitar playing a "bad idea?" [Jimi Hendrix, by the way, was right-handed, but played guitar left-handed. Go figure]
Thank you! I'm glad you found that reassuring (as I do), and that you've been shelving some of those recent health fads that also create stress without necessarily making us healthier.
Being a huge blues fan I've discovered that Elizabeth Cotton and Albert King both played guitar left-handed without reversing the strings. I think they were successful because they were musically gifted and could've made beautiful sounds with a pile of sticks. As for me, being dedicated but less gifted, my left-handed approach is a bad idea at least for fingerstyle pieces.
A key reason is that most fingerpicking involves relatively simple bass lines and complex work on the higher strings. I've got four fingers wasted on the bass, but only my thumb for the higher ones. This makes some songs difficult and others near impossible (e.g., Maple Leaf Rag) because the thumb has to do the work of three or even four fingers.
There's more, but that's the gist of it. Fortunately I found other ways to make a living. :)
I'm a blues player too, acoustic & electric. A couple of things that helped me was to learn to play the slide (glass & metal), though it takes practice and "subtlety"; some say if you play slide you need really heavy gauge strings, but I just can't manage them any more so I play either D'Addario NY/XL 08-38 or "Rev. Willy's Mexican Lottery Brand" (which are Billy Gibbons' of ZZ Top name brand with Dunlop) 07-38 strings (from Amazon); and finally, openG tuning. Now, if you're thinking those are VERY light strings, they certainly are, but I bang them pretty hard & literally have never broken one in 5-years of trying. Plenty of blues written in openG, and you can end up barring so much with a slide or your thumb & index finger. As for fingerstyle playing, I definitely have had proprioception problems for years, and unless I look directly at my right hand at all times, I have no clue where my fingers are in spatial relation to the strings. I took a guitar class once at the community college and tried to learn the Beatles' "Blackbird." Not happening. I do some "garage band" with 3 other psychiatrists & a lawyer (sounds like the opening to a bad joke) and a few open mics, but I battle stage fright, not a nice look for a psychiatrist...
I've also shifted to lighter strings and smaller guitars (e.g., Martin 00-6), as this helps offset my older-guy loss of flexibility. Discovered DADGAD recently and am loving tunes like Black Waterside. Your garage band sounds very cool. I sometimes do a Saturday acoustic blues jam at the Archie Edwards Blues Foundation (MD) which is easy on the nerves, because everyone's playing at the same time - hit a wrong note and it doesn't stand out as much. lol.
As I understand it, historians think pre-industrial sleep was different for most people, typically coming in segments, with a classic mode being a first sleep, then awake an hour or two in the middle of the night, then a second sleep. I’ve no idea if this was more healthful, or indeed, more appropriate to a pre-industrial world, and no chance
of understanding if it impacted health given people generally had poorer outcomes back then. I would reflect that it neatly underlines that cultural norms can and do change, and sleep can be more complicated. A nice Wikipedia article on polyphasic sleep is here, including the Dymaxion model, which I’m pretty sure is what Kramer tried once in Seinfeld, ending up being dumped in the East River.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphasic_sleep?wprov=sfti1#In_extreme_situations
Thank you. The studies on sleep duration I've seen focused on total amount of sleep at night rather than distinguishing between mono- and polyphasic sleep. I agree that it's unclear what the health impacts of a polyphasic schedule would be, though I think experts nowadays would be inclined to call a full hour of wakefulness between first and second sleep, for instance, less than optimal with respect to quality.
I sidestepped discussions of culture owing to the diversity of behavior that might be labeled culturally normative. Sleep is complicated, as you said. I wonder if it's possible, for instance, that the proportions of people who sleep biphasically have been relatively small and constant over time. I'm not a historian, but I'm a little skeptical that a few dozen or even hundreds of references to biphasic sleep during a particular era proves that most people slept that way.
Here's an illustration of the point: I lived in China for 18 months, in one of the places there where "siestas" are normative. Many businesses closed; people went home for lunch and a nap. Historians of the future will surely find lots of references to siesta time in diaries, newspaper articles, books etc, written by the Chinese people in that city. But (a) some of those people worked during siesta time, and (b) many people who went home relaxed but didn't sleep. In short, the "siesta norm" is highly visible in certain parts of China, but it may not reflect majority behavior.
I remember that episode of Seinfeld. Kramer with Connie....:)
Hi Ken, l suffer from long term insomnia so the important thing for me in this discussion is research into finding a solution for this problem. I need 7-8 hours a night but need to be in bed for about 12 hours to facilitate this via broken sleep which is far from ideal. I don’t have any other issues effecting my sleep and practise all of the sleep hygiene that specialists advise.
Hi Lisa. Sorry to hear you struggle with insomnia. There's an open access (i.e., free) article in the May issue of Journal of Sleep Research that reviews research on topics such as insomnia treatments. One thing that popped out for me is the effectiveness of CBT-I for some people (as well as questions about why it works and whether internet-based versions are effective). The components of CBT-I include a lot of guidance on sleep hygeine, so in that respect it's probably nothing new for you, but it may contain something you haven't considered
Stanford offers some free CBT-I procedures you can do at home (see link below - just click on each of the five hyperlinks when you arrive). Again much of this will be familiar to you, but maybe something here could be helpful.
https://stanfordhealthcare.org/medical-treatments/c/cognitive-behavioral-therapy-insomnia/procedures.html
I hope you find some relief and more continuous sleep
It all seems a bit circular - because after all, the "7-9 hours" figure is probably what everyone has in their heads, either personally or culturally.
This seemed more an individual norm than a cultural norm as phrased, but let's assume it's cultural norm - I doubt there's very many cultures that differ from the 7-9 hour figure, don't you?
Also, it seems a strange methodology. If you asked me what I thought "the ideal amount of sleep an adult should get a night" is, I would say "zero," because I've hated the biological need for sleeping (and eating) for as long as I've been a conscious being, and am an avid spectator of any DEC2 "sleep less" genetic findings (and would pay handsomely to put said SNP's into myself or my own kids). I think both sleeping and eating should be *optional* ways to spend our time, not mandatory ways.
And sure, I'm the lizardman constant there for that particular survey question, but still - the only thing that question seems tuned to surface is broad memetic consensuses, which will all invariably be "8 hours" or "7-9 hours."
If there were some sign that there WERE a noticeable segment of people saying 5 hours or 6 hours, and getting that amount of sleep, and being healthy by whatever combination health metric endpoint they chose, maybe THEN it would be interesting.
Otherwise, this is just "dog barks at man."
Thank you....
1. I don't think any of your concerns about the survey question make you the lizardman constant. It's a very badly-constructed question, even apart from its failure to clearly indicate anything about culture.
2. I also suspect that most cultural norms don't differ much from 7-9 (or 7-8) hours. The researchers didn't tell us what the country-level norms were, but so what... they weren't measuring norms in the first place.
3. I didn't want to delve into field-specific grievances in the newsletter, but PNAS is one of those prominent journals that sometimes publishes demonstrably flaky stuff, and the editor for this particular paper (Susan Fiske) is one of those prominent (and genuinely brilliant) editors who has been called out for (a) greenlighting flaky, ideologically-biased crap, and (b) taking troubling positions on public criticism of psychology research (e.g, calling critics who post criticisms on social media rather than in peer-reviewed journals "methodological terrorists", which I find ridiculous for several reasons...)