What's So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson? - <AUTHOR> https://www.chronicle.com/article/whats-so-dangerous-about/242256 <comment><USER2> What is often lost since Peterson became "famous" after the whole gender pronoun controversy is the quality and depth of his thinking and lecturing that was already available on YouTube. This article starts with that, and explains his popularity as a teacher at Harvard and Toronto. I had been watching his lectures for about a year before the pronoun issue, and his ideas are fascinating and deep. They tie together many disparate fields and ideas into an original and interesting synthesis.

But that synthesis is complex, nuanced, and requires a lot of time to think about. There are problems with it, and it deserves to be criticized (Peterson would be the first to agree). There are also profound insights that can help elevate your thinking if you can incorporate them. Lots of people don't have the intellectual background or ability to do so. But everyone can form a 2 second hot take on one of his more recent controversial statements, so that is what gets discussed.

<comment><USER3> I was quite surprised to discover that the alt-right venerate him. I got the impression that he was pretty liberal. I mean, I support LGBTQ rights, but don't agree that people should be forced to use appropriate gender pronouns.

I thoroughly enjoyed his old lectures, but I've avoided watching any of his newer stuff for fear of finding out if he's begun to pander to his (largely) awful followers.

<comment><USER4> It's not as much "alt-right venerate him", as his ("alt-left", I guss?) opponents like to mark him "alt-right" for no reason other than he is not as "left" as they are.

<comment><USER3> Based on the recent YT comments on his videos (and the titles of clip compilations of his lectures), the alt-right definitely appear to hold him up as some figure head.

I definitely get frustrated when I hear people on the left call him dangerous. I feel like these aren't even "alt" left people either, it sounds like they are largely plain old liberals who never heard of him, and blindly toss him in with the like of Steve Bannon.

<comment><USER5> You may find some "alt-right" comments on some of Slavoj Žižek 's videos.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I would place myself in the conservative corner, but I find Peterson quite problematic.

1\. It just feels too good to hear him talk in those maps of meaning lectures. But if you don't "follow" and instead analyze what he is saying and how he forms an argument, then you realize that he is not arguing but just putting metaphors together and interpreting them as he sees fit in the moment. That's why it's so appealing. But quite often it's not logic and even less conclusive.

2\. His often repeated "life is suffering" is in the presented totallity not a useful nor true worldview. Life is suffering and joy. (I say this as a pessimist.)

3\. If you then check out his reading list you find mostly very disturbing titles and no silver lining.

2\. and 3. put his followers in a depressed state where he can uplift them with 1. No wonder he has a sect like following.

His conservative debates are more to the point but I'm not sure if it is not just advertising for his "religious lectures".

That's what I find dangerous about him.

<comment><USER7> _1\. It just feels too good to hear him talk in those maps of meaning lectures...just putting metaphors together and interpreting them as he sees fit in the moment. That's why it's so appealing. But quite often it's not logic and even less conclusive._

Pretty much like a TED talk. Actually, if you look up TED talks about how to be an effective speaker, you will find the advice to talk in simple language and to use metaphors. Also, they advise you to throw in sentiments to which your audience will agree.

 _2\. His often repeated "life is suffering" is in the presented totallity not a useful nor true worldview. Life is suffering and joy. (I say this as a pessimist.)_

Do you actually think he says that life is only suffering? Sorry, but that seems like a deliberate misrepresentation of his views. What evidence do you have that Dr. Peterson is anti-joy? Here's an exercise: find evidence in what he says that shows he values joy.

 _3\. If you then check out his reading list you find mostly very disturbing titles and no silver lining._

Let's go right for the most disturbing: The Gulag Archipelago. It's disturbing as an indictment of the worst human beings can do, while those same people are spouting the most positive sounding utopian ideology. It's not going to depress anyone in the West, unless they have already tied up their identity and self worth in a similar ideology.

As for a silver lining -- to buck up, bear your burdens, and strive to live a worthwhile life -- strikes me as a worthwhile and positive message.

<comment><USER6> 1\. I already agreed that his lectures are appealing. Do you agree that his arguments are not logic and conclusive?

2\. Fair enough. I shall try if I ever hear his stuff again. With all the metaphors flying around it shouldn't be to difficult. But can you point out where he says it's so great to be alive?

3\. If you call "I survived the gulag where thousands perished" as a silver lining you must have a pretty grim world view.

You agree that the Gulag Archipelago is not a relevant reference point to 95% of his western audience. If you don't find it depressing you must have a very strong character, I would assume a good portion gets depressed (in mood; clinical depression is out of my judgment).

<comment><USER7> _Do you agree that his arguments are not logic and conclusive?_

In that they are public speaking and they are not a thesis. They are public speaking, and those aren't logical and conclusive. The point you're trying to make could only stand if all the speakers you like and feel represent your world view have 100% logically rigorous speeches.

 _But can you point out where he says it's so great to be alive?_

I don't need to, to refute your silly assertion that he's somehow anti- happiness. None of these videos are direct statements about joy, because they are from talks where he is making an entirely differnt point, but it's clear that he's like any human being who thinks children are wonderful, and likes to have fun and laugh.

Talking about the potential of children, and of a pristine relationship with one: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg9TY8uwaSY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg9TY8uwaSY)

Humor: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyWwuv1UkRg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyWwuv1UkRg)

Stoner Comics: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jisfAwMOhrQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jisfAwMOhrQ)

 _3\. If you call "I survived the gulag where thousands perished" as a silver lining you must have a pretty grim world view._

Again, not what I said. You said that he put forward books to depress his audience. That's obviously not true. The Gulag Archipelago is meant to _alarm_ and meant to make a personal, emotional connection to the magnitude of the possible evil of such flowery sounding utopian ideologies.

 _If you don't find it depressing you must have a very strong character_

Or, one could be sure that one is in opposition to such ideologies. My father's older brother disappeared due to one regime with a collectivist ideology. My family here in the US is only here because the US military defended their lives from another regime with a collectivist ideology. Why should The Gulag Archipelago make anyone depressed, as opposed to angry? As opposed to resolute in the opposition of disguised evil?

I can only imagine it makes someone depressed if they identify with such an ideology.

What's more, I explicitly cite Dr. Peterson's message, "As for a silver lining -- to buck up, bear your burdens, and strive to live a worthwhile life," as a silver lining. I find it problematic that you ignore that and try to stuff a different position in my mouth above.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's worth pointing out that Peterson is actually not against using a variety of gender pronouns per se. So many people get this wrong.

He is against being _compelled_ to use a variety of gender pronouns by legislation which is internally inconsistent, scientifically inaccurate, and additionally lacks clarity by punting process and standards to the Ontario human rights commission which can change their process and definitions without involvement from an elected legislature.

<comment><USER7> Not to mention scientifically dubious tests of "unconscious bias" used against you as evidence in kangaroo courts -- enshrined into law. That's something that might be in Room 101 in the world of Orwell's1984.

Also, enshrining into law of scientifically false statements. (Anyone remember the bit about Indiana doing that with pi == 3?)

<comment><USER9> The pi thing never actually happened. The bill was proposed but _did not pass_.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill)

<comment><USER10> All those who jumped on that bandwagon found they couldn't get it rolling, because the wheels looked like hexagons in order to make _d = 2πr_ work out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Jordan Peterson is not extreme at all. We are just currently in a climate where nuanced opinions and observations are ignored by radical ideologues.

<comment><USER12> He is not radical but he is outspoken and does not let himself be cowed. This antagonises other outspoken people who have been able to silence a large part of their opposition by labelling them as racist, insert-whatever-identity- phobe, nazi and such. When they tried the same with Peterson by calling him a 'transphobe' their attempts spectacularly backfired in that they drew the attention of the general public to Peterson which quickly gave him a much larger following than he normally would have had.

<comment><USER13> It's the same pattern with Nicholas Christakis and Bret Weinstein. An association the article pointed out, but didn't mention the pejorative labels applied to those two.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Surprisingly well written and balanced article in today's world of demonizing those we disagree with and deifying those we agree with. Something increasingly lost in the noise is that in the end we're all just people -- something that this article emphasizes.

<comment><AUTHOR> I found it on [http://www.aldaily.com](http://www.aldaily.com). They find some very good stuff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Jordan Peterson became famous after a student tried to debate him about his "Nazi followers" and gender pronouns:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP3mSamRbYA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP3mSamRbYA)

Many people see him as an enemy because of his conservative viewpoints. His most recent debate with Cathy Newman from three days ago:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54)

<comment><USER16> > his most recent debate with Cathy Newman from three days ago

God, that was a terrible interview. The interviewer refused to understand a single thing that JP was saying. I am no fan of Peterson (in particular, I am left liberal), but he makes quite a lot of good points.

<comment><USER17> I'm fairly socially liberal too and on the fence about him. He says a lot of interesting things and I've never been a fan of postmodernism which I regard as a form of "pseudo-profound bullshit," but I keep getting hung up by the fact that a whole lot of Peterson's followers are fascists and racists.

Of course the same might have been said at one time about Nietzsche and Jung. Some Nazis loved Nietzche but it was not all that mutual.

<comment><USER18> > I keep getting hung up by the fact that a whole lot of Peterson's followers > are fascists and racists.

Well, given that Peterson has repeatedly pissed them off by saying that ethnic nationalism is an idiotic ideology (I'm paraphrasing), I'm not sure how many of those followers he now has left.

He definitely has a very vocal cult-like following among a certain type of young adult. While they can be annoying, they're not typically the fascist/racist type. Far from it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Thinking to his issue over pronouns...

He's arguing that he should not be coerced into using preferred pronouns. Ok, that's fine. But he should use preferred pronouns anyway, in order to _not be an asshole_. Because refusing to use preferred pronouns isn't standing up to oppressive postmodern SJWs. It's being an asshole.

And this is the real headache with Jordan Peterson. He may be thoughtful and interesting. But for thousands of followers, he's just providing intellectual cover for bigotry and emotional sadism.

<comment><USER20> Respectfully, I'd like to put this in a different frame.

"Being an asshole" isn't some universal quality. If someone is complaining that someone else is "being an asshole," what is essentially meant is that person "is doing something for which they should be socially shamed." There's nothing inherently right or wrong with having a system of shaming in a society, but it's something particular to a culture and a time. These things come about through consensus and if there isn't some consensus that that's the way things are, then those attempting to impose new norms are ironically also "being assholes."

When you have moral society in recent decades changing very rapidly in terms of what is being considered acceptable or not (whether or not you consider that positive progress), it's going to feel like whiplash to people who are not on the vanguard of the latest new definition of what's acceptable. People say, "Wait a second, I was taught to be a decent person, I think I'm a decent person -- who are these people telling me that I'm now a hateful person for doing or not doing what seemed reasonable up until a couple years ago? Do the people telling me this have moral authority in my eyes?"

Cultural practices take time to adjust or to be adjusted externally. Move too fast and people won't be happy about it, and that should be understood.

<comment><USER19> Most people with unusual gender identities understand this, and are understanding and patient with those who are making an effort to respect their wishes. It's those who consciously refuse, or mock their attempts to clarify their identities, that get called out, and they deserve it.

Yeah, it's hard for us. Hell, I'm 52. I have a lot of adjustment to do. But I try to do it, because I respect my friends. (Patton Oswald did a really excellent speech about this, btw.)

For my own part, a lot of my frustration is the loud and sincerely meant (if wrongheaded) declarations of victimhood by the privileged, simply for being asked to be nice to others. So when I hear Jordan Peterson say he's being oppressed by the evil forces of Marxist postmodernism for being asked to use preferred pronouns... I hear a comfortable, privileged person complaining about how he's a victim. And when he doubles down and says people shouldn't get to choose their own pronouns, their own identity, and instead society should choose for them? Then he's a _hypocrite_. And an asshole.

<comment><USER7> _So when I hear Jordan Peterson say he 's being oppressed by the evil forces of Marxist postmodernism for being asked to use preferred pronouns..._

But you've never heard that. You've only heard him reject being _coerced_ to do that. He's even on the record as saying he's fine with addressing people as they'd like to be addressed, so long as it's all done civilly. What you're doing is projecting a caricatured position onto him.

 _For my own part, a lot of my frustration is the loud and sincerely meant (if wrongheaded) declarations of victimhood by the privileged, simply for being asked to be nice to others._

A law that empowers kangaroo courts isn't "simply asking nice." A law that empowers those courts to use an unscientific "unconscious bias" test that claims to get into your head isn't "simply asking nice." A law that can result in dismissal from your job isn't "simply asking nice."

 _I hear a comfortable, privileged person complaining about how he 's a victim._

He doesn't claim he's a victim. What he claims is that the law is a potential abridgement of freedom. You could make a claim that Lindsey Shepherd claims to be a "victim" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpFUvfAvKs4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpFUvfAvKs4) \-- but then you'd be presenting evidence that Dr. Peterson's assertions about the law are correct.

 _And when he doubles down and says people shouldn 't get to choose their own pronouns, their own identity, and instead society should choose for them? Then he's a hypocrite. And an asshole._

A coworker at my work announced her transition, and everyone just started using the feminine pronoun. Everyone was civil about it, and everything was fine. (And I am certain that she was happier and a more vibrant and complete person for making the change.) Again, you are misrepresenting his position. More accurately, a person exists within society (and hopefully a community) and identity is something which is effectively negotiated between the person and society. It's the parties who are being emotionally dishonest, playing games with emotional blackmail, and being crappy people who are "being assholes." From where I'm sitting, it's a lot of emotionally imbalanced trans "activists" who fit that description. Jordan Peterson gets mail from trans people, the majority of whom are supporters or sympathetic to him. Their collective position is that they just want to not be singled out and live their lives in peace.

<comment><USER18> > A law that empowers kangaroo courts sin't "simply asking nice." A law that > empowers those courts to use an unscientific "unconscious bias" test that > claims to get into your head isn't "simply asking nice." A law that can > result in dismissal from your job isn't "simply asking nice."

I'd like to underline this statement. Making this into a law that will impact employment, sentencing, etc., is not a polite request. It's the power of the state. When that involves a certain way of speaking, or thinking, a lot of us civil libertarian types get very uneasy, regardless of the merits of the issue at hand.

<comment><USER19> I'm a civil libertarian myself. It makes _me_ uncomfortable. But people seem hell-bent on missing my point in order to correct me for God forbid equating coercion and oppression.

My actual godddamned POINT is that, whatever the logical merits of Peterson's position coming from _him_ , the practical effect is for a hundred thousand red-pill assholes to share excerpted clips around, and thinking it means that a wise philosopher agrees with their joy in being mean to people over their gender identity.

<comment><USER7> No matter what position you pick, some gaggle of idiots on the Internet are using it as a pretext for being a dick. A lot of the acrimony coming from the Right is a reaction to others doing it using pretexts from the Left.

The solution is to have reasoned dialogue. If you follow Peterson's message, he seems to have explicitly decided to minister to lost young clueless right- wing men, by urging them to clean their rooms, and live worthwhile, responsible lives. In fact, I remember the video where he talks about becoming aware that so many of his followers were effectively Alt-Right, and seeing him hesitate, then say he didn't know what to make of that.

He also talks about the mechanisms by which a crowd can suborn a speaker, so I think he's actively fighting against that.

 _thinking it means that a wise philosopher agrees with their joy in being mean to people over their gender identity_

It seems to me that a lot of people did exactly that, coming from the far Left, in the name of Intersectionality. It was also done with racial identity. (Google "Feminist Cringe" & "Dartmouth College Library Activists")

<comment><USER19> Oh, undoubtedly. There's no small amount of tribalism and moral sadism among the SJWs, using these sudden shifts in vocabulary as an excuse to berate people they didn't like in the first place.

Which in no way means intersectionality is a Bad Idea. Intersectionality is a major advance in the understanding of oppression.

I hope Peterson can actually wake up some of his red-pill followers, and do more harm than good in the long run. But for now, he really needs to apply that intellect to dealing with something he wasn't ever prepared to deal with - being a symbol of intellectual authority to a movement that stands for things he no doubt despises.

<comment><USER7> _I hope Peterson can actually wake up some of his red-pill followers, and do more harm than good in the long run._

Freudian slip? As George Orwell noted in _Road to Wiggan Pier,_ leftists often don't so much as love the poor, but hate the rich.

 _But for now, he really needs to apply that intellect to dealing with something he wasn 't ever prepared to deal with - being a symbol of intellectual authority to a movement that stands for things he no doubt despises._

For one thing, I can imagine him basically paraphrasing that sentence. How come I don't often hear anything like that kind of introspection coming from the left about the depredations of unbalanced followers? When it does come, why is it that others on the Far Left then try to kick them out of the Left? Then too, I hear and read things like, "It's okay to hate your oppressors." I think I know what it means when people start to say it's okay to hate on a group of people based on outward and inherent characteristics. I grew up being on the receiving end of that.

<comment><USER19> You're making an awful lot of generalizations with very little substance here.

<comment><USER7> You're denying people say "It's okay to hate your oppressors?" You're denying that people have been trying to kick people like Dave Rubin and Bret Weinstein out of the Left?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> >He believes that the insistence on the use of gender-neutral pronouns is rooted in postmodernism, which he sees as thinly disguised Marxism.

I've only been studying theory for a few years but how is this interpretation of postmodernism possible? It seems to run counter to one of what I understand to be the foundations of the movement - the rejection of metanarratives.

<comment><USER22> "Postmodernism" and "deconstructionism" are often used synonymously: [https://jakeseliger.com/2014/10/02/what-happened-with- decons...](https://jakeseliger.com/2014/10/02/what-happened-with- deconstruction/) and like many overarching "isms" they've come to mean such different things that they can be used to mean almost anything.

That being said, many strands of postmodernism in universities have come to teach that there is nothing outside of language itself (that's a common reading of Foucault and Derrida), so everything can be seen as a language or sign system. Want to change "reality" (as if there is such a thing!)? Just change the language.

Another stand holds that there are only two really important groups: the powerful / powerless, which could also be seen as the "oppressors" and "oppressed." Everyone is supposed to be in one of the two groups. This gets grafted onto identity politics in rather unpleasant ways (IMO).

So in the pronoun debate, people who are transgendered or non-gendered are the oppressed and need help; everyone who is not "helping" them is the oppressor and must be opposed.

This, anyway, is the line of thinking, though it isn't my own view of the world. To say that everything is linguistic seems unlikely. When I was in grad school in English (note: don't do this: [https://jakeseliger.com/2012/05/22/what-you-should-know- befo...](https://jakeseliger.com/2012/05/22/what-you-should-know-before-you- start-grad-school-in-english-literature-the-economic-financial-and- opportunity-costs/) ) and would hear this argument, I liked to observe that everyone, given the choice between getting punched in the face or having someone say something mean to them, chooses the latter. This would seem to me to argue that not everything can be reduced to language, even apart from all the other very good and obvious-seeming arguments along those lines.

<comment><USER23> > That being said, many strands of postmodernism in universities have come to > teach that there is nothing outside of language itself (that's a common > reading of Foucault and Derrida), so everything can be seen as a language or > sign system. Want to change "reality" (as if there is such a thing!)? Just > change the language.

> Another stand holds that there are only two really important groups: the > powerful / powerless, which could also be seen as the "oppressors" and > "oppressed."

Those aren't really separate stands, the latter is a consequence of the former: if language (or, rather, beliefs which is transmitted between people by language) is the defining factor in reality, then the ultimately meaningful differentiation between people is whether they are influential in shaping belief (powerful) or not (powerless).

It's also directly contrary to the central theme of Marxism, which makes the association of these particular postmodernist viewpoints with Marxism bizarre. (Certainly, there are people who moved _from_ Marxism to this kind of postmodernism, just like there are people who have moved from Marxism to capitalism or from Marxism to democratic socialism or from Trotskyism to neoconservatism.

<comment><USER7> _It 's also directly contrary to the central theme of Marxism, which makes the association of these particular postmodernist viewpoints with Marxism bizarre._

And yet, activists who claim to be Marxist seem to be very well aligned with others who claim postmodernist derived ideologies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> So, to put it short: "What's dangerous about Jordan Peterson is that he makes ideas we don't like sound plausible"? I don't really see an answer to the question in title.

Anyway, his lectures for psychology students on youtube are quite nice to listen, even though I find it problematic how often he treats hard facts off- handedly to speak in favor of his overall narrative. I wonder if there are more courses (especially on non-technical subjects) of the same quality freely available on youtube.

</comment><comment><USER24> His interview with Camille Paglia is a gem.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-hIVnmUdXM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-hIVnmUdXM)

<comment><USER25> The "so you're saying" interview. Def. a good watch. Peterson handles it so good.

<comment><USER26> That interview is with Cathy Newman BBC4 Radio.

Camille is OG feminist, the real deal. Not the 3rd wave Feminists, that are lying around in the media and academia now a days.

<comment><USER27> Exactly. I've only seen a little bit of her stuff so far but that's been enough to put her high on my list of people to check out more deeply.

I find this response from her hysterical:

[https://twitter.com/100millionbooks/status/91309969607542784...](https://twitter.com/100millionbooks/status/913099696075427840)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> As an interlocutor, Jordan Peterson seems like a reasonable person to debate with. But his followers are quite dangerous, much like many other political thinkers, whose suggestions were modest, but the followers took it to mean something else...

<comment><USER29> Which followers? And what did they take it to mean?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think the "danger" around Jordan Peterson goes beyond the pronoun debate.

Individualism and wariness of ideological collectivism seem to be tenets of what he espouses. No surprise, then, that ideological collectivists are his most vocal enemies.

<comment><USER17> Why do so many fascists and racists like him then? They're collectivists.

(Not necessarily saying Peterson is a fascist or a racist, but that's a separate question.)

<comment><USER13> From a post elsewhere in these comments:

> Another stand holds that there are only two really important groups: the > powerful / powerless, which could also be seen as the "oppressors" and > "oppressed." Everyone is supposed to be in one of the two groups. This gets > grafted onto identity politics in rather unpleasant ways (IMO).

> So in the pronoun debate, people who are transgendered or non-gendered are > the oppressed and need help; everyone who is not "helping" them is the > oppressor and must be opposed.

Same thing applies here. Take note of who is applying these -ist labels, and who they are being applied to: anyone in the outgroup.

I would be floored to discover if the majority of these strawmen "fascists" and "racists" are a collective by any definition other than "not on board with the cause."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Below is a very good related article about the "intellectual dark web" consisting of academics like Peterson who are being driven out of the academy by orthodoxy and instead work through podcasts, Youtube, Patreon, etc

[http://conatusnews.com/rise-intellectual-dark- web/](http://conatusnews.com/rise-intellectual-dark-web/)

edit:

I made a thread [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16189120](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16189120)

<comment><USER20> I think there's something really interesting happening with philosophy and its use of the Internet as a platform. It's a disruption in the same way that traditional media is being disrupted.

YouTube debates held by self-made moderators are a sort of spectator sport where differing schools of thought are battling it out rhetorically. The audiences are people who are honed by online debate groups and have experience in one-liner Tweets and trolling to prove a point.

When you think about it, it's not all that new of a concept -- the classical philosophers had their "schools" but they weren't like formal institutions with faculty. Philosophers had their followers or acolytes, not matriculated registered students. Maybe the more calcified academic structures we see starting to break down are the aberration rather than the norm.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> The article mentions the first interview Sam Harris did with Jordan Peterson. It appeared frustrating for both parties because they got caught up in definitions of words, etc. Still, it was civil so they parted and agreed to talk again. Harris says, "I'd received more listener requests for him than for Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Edward Snowden—or, indeed, any other person on earth."[0]

Notably, but not in the article, Harris interviewed Peterson again, two months later.[1]

[0] [https://samharris.org/speaking-of-truth-with-jordan-b- peters...](https://samharris.org/speaking-of-truth-with-jordan-b-peterson/)

[1] [https://samharris.org/podcasts/meaning-and- chaos/](https://samharris.org/podcasts/meaning-and-chaos/)

<comment><USER32> This is key: Continuing discussion is essential to scientific and social progress -- _especially_ on topics in which you disagree or may even be offended (if emotions were allowed to dominate), not to the exclusion of such things.

This inversion from intellectuals _welcoming_ disagreement to _shunning_ it is a terrifying movement to those who value science and truth-seeking, because in a worst case scenario it could very realistically lower us into a new dark age. Just the necessity of an "intellectual dark web" is itself an extremely concerning reflection of today's intellectual climate, which is becoming hostile to tenets of rationality and civilized discourse.

When we subtract dialogue and reason from the picture, all we are left with is emotional conflict -- and rarely do two extremely conflicting emotional views of a topic resolve automatically without the intervention or guidance of rationality.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> The article really tries hard to paint Jordan Peterson (JP) as a controversial figure who espouses fringe messages. The article uses adjectives like "controversial" and "polarizing" to describe JP. His public presence is "notoriety". His followers are said to be "something akin to a cult following". He "appears on TV, including on Fox & Friends, President Trump's preferred morning show". WoW so edgy.

But is JP really the one who is controversial and polarizing?

\- JP is against the Pomo stuff that passes for scholarship now a days. [https://twitter.com/realpeerreview?lang=en](https://twitter.com/realpeerreview?lang=en)

\- We have professors university calling for violence against his political opponents. [http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/14/criminal-justice- professor...](http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/14/criminal-justice-professor- justifies-antifa-violence-and-jokes-about-dead-cops/)

\- We had a Antifa professor who nearly killed a guy hitting someone with a heavy bike lock. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qKCl9NL1Cg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qKCl9NL1Cg) (WARNING: GRAPHIC)

Is JP really the one who is polarizing and extreme here? The left academic really dropped the ball not pointing out their own dirty laundry and cleaning out their own cesspool of fake academics and violent thugs.

<comment><USER30> I think the article was pretty fair.

He is controversial and polarizing: many people hate him and many people love him.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/](https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/) and [https://www.reddit.com/r/Jordan_Peterson_Memes/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Jordan_Peterson_Memes/) are kind of cultish. It's a very ironic cult, but a bit of a cult nonetheless.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> In an environment where non-progressives are shunned, he refrains from shunning them.

Where non-progressives are demonized, he dispels the myth that non- progressives deserve to be demonized.

And so forth -- we are en an environment where progressives are increasingly assertive and increasingly hostile to non-progressives, for whatever reason.

We can wax poetic about the quality of his zealots' character until the cows come home but it doesn't address the fact that people will _always_ seek an icon to revolve around. The only solution to such a situation, like insurgencies in war-zones, is de-escalation and re-integration (of militant progressives and social conservatives into a cohesive society where they both achieve political representation and fairness in the eyes of the law).

Unfortunately modern-day progressives (regressives) have no interest in this and as such social conservatives will continue to gravitate towards those that they don't fully understand but nevertheless find appealing.

<comment><USER35> progressives have been shunned and demonized for so much longer. What did you expect would happen?

<comment><USER8> Without my agreeing or disagreeing, does that make the above posted ideas incorrect? If not, why are they downvoted?

<comment><USER21> Probably the way that poster threw in the "regressive" label for modern progressives (who I'm guessing a lot of people might identify as) at the end, if I had to guess.

<comment><USER8> How would you describe the emerging subset of traditional liberals who are beginning to embrace authoritarian stances in the context of authoritarianism being largely incompatible with liberal ideals?

Edit: This is a sincere question. If a more useful description or label exists I would like to know it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Easily add watermarks to your images - <AUTHOR> https://markyourphotos.us/ <comment><AUTHOR> This was my weekend (really a few hours) project. I am learning photography and occasionally want to post an image online for my friends to see. While I do this, I'd like to watermark these images with my own logo. Sometimes I post from my computer, sometimes from my phone (Pixelmator for iOS works wonderfully). Instead of having separate solutions for all this, I decided to create a simple web app that would allow me to do this. The advantage of my thing is that your watermark is saved on S3 and protected by a secret URL. No accounts to create, no passwords to remember. And the images, originals or watermarked copies are never saved.

Let me know what you think.

</comment><comment><USER2> I'd like that if I upload a png, then get a png as the final. Sometimes jpg have artifact with graphics.

Also, the final image has no extension. That's slightly annoying in windows.

And the name of the file match the upload file. For example if I upload something.png it will be named random5876586757656758/something_watermarked.png

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback. Just implemented all that. Check it out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Server error 500</comment>


Don't Buy The HTC EVO, It Is A Seriously Flawed Device - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/09/dont-buy-the-android-evo-it-is-a-seriously-flawed-device/

<comment><USER2> I was about --| |-- this close to waiting in line last Friday for the EVO launch and moving away from my iPhone. Then I got to play with one for awhile and I was really shocked by the battery issue.

I kept thinking that reviewers were just overstating the point for the sake of traffic, that the HTC EVO didn't get good battery life but that it was a relative measure. Then I played with one and in half an hour of web browsing and using the menus (with Sense turned off, display reduced, task killer in action, in the Mission Bay district of SF where Sprint's signal is good) and we rampaged through 20% of the battery.

20% in half an hour. Guys, this is _not cool_.

For comparison, with my pre-4.0gm I used my iPhone 3GS for web work an average of an hour and a half per day with between 1-2 hours of talking and push email and nearly all-day iPod use on and I came home with 20-40% (mostly that depended on talk time), and I could still rely on it to be my iPod at the gym even if I was using Pandora. I go 8am-11pm with confidence. With the iOS 4.0GM, it's like I've got a 20% battery upgrade and I'm using the device more.

It's really frustrating that Apple keeps making hardware that fits my specs but not being on a carrier that does me right. Meanwhile other carriers—carriers that I know will drop far fewer calls and have far fewer problems at crowded events—simply cannot get a phone that doesn't have a tower of serious flaws. The closest stab in recent memory was the Nexus One (with its terribly flawed touchscreen) and the Droid (which by now appears like a doddering old slowpoke by comparison to the current crop of phones).

<comment><USER3> The Evo sucks down battery. I found that by disabling background data transfer the battery life improved Tremendously, to the point where it's not an issue anymore and I can go 1.5-2 days between charges.

However, I would love to be able to install Froyo and remove Sense. I imagine each of those steps would help to improve battery life even further.

Aside from being aesthetically ugly, Sense is so tightly embedded that it's impossible to fully disable it. I'd prefer some nice HTC branded wallpaper that could be easily disabled in a few minutes.

<comment><USER4> I doubt Sense makes a difference in battery life. It's also my understanding that it's just a home screen; change the preference for which app manages the home screen, and you are back to plain Android.

What's irritating about Sense is that it basically precludes any updates. My guess is that the Evo 4G gets Froyo never, which is why I think I'm just going to get a Nexus One. Or wait for a Nexus Two.

<comment><USER5> Will there be a Nexus Two? Only about 135k Nexus One's have been sold. Google is shuttering their web store that they were selling the Nexus One at. While a technical and usability triumph, it has to be said that the Nexus One is a bit of a boondoggle, considering how much Google and HTC probably spent developing it.

The big problem for Google is that they wanted to change the way people bought cell phones, but it just didn't take. The phone companies control the sales channel (except for the Apple store) and they probably won't want to sell a Google-branded Android phone without all of their silly carrier-specific modifications (NASCAR? Really, Sprint? NASCAR?!?). If there ever is a Nexus Two, Google has to figure out where they're going to sell it.

<comment><USER6> There seemed to be some kind of media backlash against this phone in the US but they're selling it unbranded on Vodafone in Europe and the HTC Desire appears to be fundamentally the same phone (sold with the Sense UI, but again without carrier branding). I can't see how the phone hardware, as opposed to the attempt to change the sales channels in the US, can be considered any kind of white elephant.

<comment><USER5> That's a good point about the Desire. If Google does make a Nexus Two, I guess that's how they'd do it - ride on the back of an already-developed smartphone.

Still, the web store for the Nexus One is going away - that seems to indicate that Google has lost interest in selling Google-branded phones. We can always hope they'll change their minds...

<comment><USER3> When is it going away? Will unlocked nexus ones still be sold?

<comment><USER5> <http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20005015-265.html>

I don't think the article mentions when it's being closed. And considering you can typically get any GSM/HSPA phone unlocked somewhere, I'm sure the Nexus One will still be available. Most 'unlocked phone stores' have gruesome markups though, and it was something of an anomoly that you could get such an advanced phone as the Nexus One unlocked for just $530. Just looking at a couple of online merchants, both Plemix.com and exoticphone.com both have the audacity to sell the Nexus One itself for a hefty markup!

$629 <http://www.plemix.com/phone-htc-nexus_one-phone>

$749 [http://exoticphone.com/htc-google-nexus-one- unlocked-p-2065....](http://exoticphone.com/htc-google-nexus-one- unlocked-p-2065.html)

The Plemix.com one is especially amusing - it claims that $629 is a mark-down, and that the original price was $854! Keep in mind that Google has always and still is selling the Nexus One for $529 in their web store.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There's conflicting evidence on this issue. Once I set my battery profile by draining it completely then recharging it with the power off, my battery life has been just fine.

I left my phone on, unplugged, last night, drove to work listening to a podcast, and have been at work for about two hours and my phone still reads a full charge. Advanced Task Killer is showing 18 apps running in the background (power user here :) )

Also, if you read the EVO forums there are plenty of other people who are getting great battery life out of this powerful device.

<comment><USER8> From what I remember (and I may be mixing up phones here) it was use of 4G that chewed battery life. Are you using 4G at all?

<comment><USER7> I had 4G turned on overnight as well (where I have full 4g/3g service). I've heard that leaving 4G on while in a 3G-only area will drain the battery, but hopefully that problem will be fixed with an update.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> HTC has been known to cut some corners on their hardware. For example they ship some variations of the HTC Hero with a tiny 1200mAh battery, others with a 1500mAh and will sell you an extended life 1800mAh. Why not just include the best battery possible? The HTC Evo ships with a 1500mAh battery -- the same as my HTC Hero that is half the clock speed with a smaller display. I don't get very good battery life on my Hero so I can only imagine the Evo with the same sized battery is really going to struggle. It looks like there's a 1750mAh extended life battery coming but that's not a huge improvement. (and it's going to cost you $50)

<comment><USER4> They really needed that $199 price point at any cost, I think. My impression from trying to buy one is that Sprint is not the wireless provider of choice for people with tons of money.

<comment><USER3> True. Consider the pricing per month:

450 Minutes, unlimited mobile/mobile and data: $59 for google IO attendees.

$29 per month to use wifi teathering.

This is 450 minutes for $90 per month! To make it unlimited the prices becomes $130 per month!

Compare that to T-Mobile which offers all that (unlimited) for $65 with the Nexus One.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I have an evo. It's really a nice phone, however the battery life is indeed a major issue. However, better software will help fix the issue and make it a _great_ phone.

Currently there's a couple of hackers attempting to open the NAND and make the filesystem read/write. This is a crucial step and needs help! Any low level guys or just general hackers should help the cause!

<http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=694034>

</comment><comment><USER6> Is there any hard info about what the battery issue is?

Some people think it's just Android being rubbish or written in Java or not made by Apple, but some people with the device seem to have no problems while others are writing articles like this.

I was under the impression that Android phones actually told you what had used up all the battery. I would have thought that might have been a good starting point for writing an actual journalistic article about this.

<comment><USER11> JavaME was a known battery hog, but maybe Dalvik is better. Going with Java is a risky decision because whatever you do you still lose: if you ramp up the CPU it will consume more power and drain the battery, if you don't the software will be too slow. Add JIT and you use more battery.

I found it particularly amusing how one commenter was bragging about how his HTC EVO made it through the day on one battery charge.

<comment><USER6> What device do you have? One busy day seems to be standard with iPhones as I understand it and based on my experience with an iPhone 3G, though iPhones are generally supposed to be worse than say Nokias or Blackberries.

Apple's figures suggest that if you browse the web on 3G or Wifi, make calls or watch video constantly then you'd get 5-6 hours on my 3G, but even that's a high estimate as it assumes that when you're talking on the phone or watching videos then you have the 3G and WiFi powered off.

That's enough for me as it's routine for me to charge my phone every night (though I've turned notifications right down and I do have a car charger because using the GPS for directions seems to really eat at the battery) but I can imagine many kinds of travelling businessman who would find that an annoyance.

<comment><USER11> But the braggart said that he almost didn't use the phone...

I have a Nokia E72 and recharge every ~4 days with heavy 2.5G internet use, ~20 minutes of talk time per day, use as a PDA, etc. Almost no wi-fi, no videos, no music.

<comment><USER6> If he's _bragging_ about 8 hours of standby then he's either confused or a troll. On the other hand some people have, apparently genuinely, struggled to get 8 hours of standby from this particular model, so he may have been refuting this with personal experience and everyone's got confused.

I'm not sure we're any closer to any actual conclusions about how battery hungry the Evo actually is, what problems it might have and what kind of usage triggers them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> In my use of the EVO battery life didn't seem that bad. A bit worse than the Nexus, but not a nightmare. I did run into the photo issue: got SD card errors when trying to save that would require rebooting the phone. Seems like a possible bug that a software upgrade could address.

Aside from these issues, the EVO's display makes it hard to go back to an N1. The display is gorgeous and the extra screen real estate makes typing via the soft keyboard significantly easier. Photos taken by the EVO are impressive as well: much better than the N1 or any smartphone I've ever seen.

</comment><comment><USER13> Are we ever going to get an Android device (preferably on US T-Mobile) with comparable power to the new iPhone, that has a _gorram slide-out keyboard_?

<comment><USER14> I'm sincerely hoping that the next generation of the Nexus One has a slide out keyboard. I suffer from pretty bad shakes due to the cocktail of medication I'm taking and often typing on my iPhone is an exercise in futility. Luckily, there is hope for us yet!

"Google Inc executive Andy Rubin said on Friday that the next version of the Nexus One phone, which was made by HTC Corp, will be for enterprise users and might have a physical keyboard."

Source: <http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60809H20100109>

<comment><USER6> You might want to keep an eye on the Samsung Galaxy S that's just been released in the UK. There's a rumour (and a fan-made mockup) of a "Pro" version with a hardware keyboard.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have tried to buy an EVO 3 times now, and every time I've done so, I've shown up at the store to be laughed at by the sales people for wanting one (despite calling and being told that there was availability). Now that I've had time to think about the cost over a 24 month contract, I don't even want one anymore, even though I already have Sprint for my mobile broadband plan. (Sprint sucks, but Wimax is really good.)

Anyway, Arrington and the other TC reviewer already admitted they don't live in a 4G market. Why buy a 4G phone when you can't get 4G?

<comment><USER15> Those jackasses don't buy anything. It's all sent to them for free.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The T-Mobile G1 (HTC Magic) had horrendous battery life when it first came out. Gradually the battery life got better and better as they released more software updates. These were changes to the OS that made it use less battery life, however. There might not be as much "free juice" to squeeze out of this device. To be fair though, this is the first phone-like WiMAX device, and it's likely that they don't really understand the real world conditions of handheld WiMAX devices yet.

<comment><USER17> HTC Magic = myTouch 3G, HTC Dream = G1

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_Magic>, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_Dream>

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> But... but... but... Eric Raymond said, "If I were an Apple marketing guy, I'd be asking "How the hell can I compete against the EVO 4G with this?".

</comment><comment><USER19> "Or wait a few months for a better android phone."

I think this line really exemplifies the difference between the iPhone and Android. The speed-to-market for a brand new Android device is -insane-.

</comment><comment><USER20> I just went 45 hours between charges. I am not in a 4G market so the 4G radio is turned off and I use locale to disable GPS when I am at home but I really wonder about some of these issue people have experienced. It almost makes me wonder if the stock batteries may have had some bad manufacturing batches or something - either that or they really need to be conditioned properly which is something I was religious about the first few days.

</comment><comment><USER21> I have the HTC Hero and I'm having the very same issues. Sense is mucking up the UI, the sd card can often not be read and the updates that are routinely being delayed by month. Worst of all, HTC has installed a kernel that blocks attempts to root the phone, which is required for updating. Basically I'm getting the Apple treatment but without the amazing devices.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, the Hero is a low-end device like the Dream and Sapphire. What you get for being an early adopter is shitty hardware.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> i love my htc evo. the battery isn't as great as my pre but after disabling a few things and some tweaks it is not nearly as bad as everyone is making it out to be. hopefully it will get better with software updates or an extended battery that fits the standard cover will come out.

</comment><comment><USER23> If you read nothing else in this article:

"MG Siegler irrationally loves the iPhone and it has become an important fashion accessory and self confidence crutch in his San Francisco hipster lifestyle."

Sorry, I thought that was too funny not to share with anybody skimming the thread . . .</comment>


How much sleep do we really need to work productively? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.bufferapp.com/how-much-sleep-do-we-really-need-to-work-productively <comment><USER2> > _"Sleeping 8.5 hr. might really be a little worse than sleeping 5 hr."_

How can people even take this kind of pseudo-science seriously?

If I sleep for 5 hrs, I'm a complete zombie during the day, unproductive and depressed.

If I sleep for 8.5 hrs (which is how long I sleep naturally), I feel great, productive, and happy. I get way more done.

There are all sorts of studies showing all the negative effects of not getting enough sleep -- that sleep-deprived doctors, for instance, are basically acting under an impairment equal to a few drinks of alcohol.

The idea that people in general are getting too _much_ sleep is really quite preposterous.

<comment><USER3> How is an expert on sleep saying something MIGHT be true now being classed as pseudo science and not to be taken seriously?

Your rebuttal of this "pseudo science" is that you perceive that you personally need 8.5 hours sleep - now _that_ smacks of pseudo science to me.

People are very different. Just because 1 person in a 1000 (or 100 or million or whatever) benefits from 8.5 hours sleep does not necessarily mean that in general one might get more benefit from less than 8.5 hours sleep.

This is not hard science, I doubt it could ever be, but that does not mean it is pseudo science and certainly should not be dismissed out of hand because it does not fit into the model of the world that you have personally.

<comment><USER4> Because of statements like:

> people who sleep between 6.5 hr. and 7.5 hr. a night, live the longest, are > happier and most productive

O RLY? Time for another basic primer on causation vs. correlation.

<comment><USER3> That was the result of a study (in other words, science). Where is your proof that the study is invalid?

Note that I am not saying that the result is fact, just that there is science to indicate that things are not as simple as they may appear to people that dismiss the whole thing as "pseudo science".

<comment><USER5> >>That was the result of a study (in other words, science). Where is your proof that the study is invalid?

I'm afraid "science" is quite a bit more complicated than you seem to believe.

One of its most basic tenets is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. One study is not enough to prove the assertion that people who sleep for 6.5 to 7.5 hours a night are the happiest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> You can have a lot of fun with this story by search and replace with "drink glasses of water" and/or "sex per week". Its the exact same story, complete with anecdotes about extremes, unusual people with unusual requirements, conformist people terrified they're out of conformity in the deep decimal places, rebels proud of their rebellion in the deep decimal places, plenty of misguided residual puritanism, stories about how everyone knows the Americans (never other nations?) have numbers too low.

The best answer is probably something along the lines of when you're tired, sleep. When you're sleeping, sleep. If you have some weird imbalance leading to poor sleep, talk to a dr. This philosophy of life also works pretty well for drinking glasses of water, getting laid, and probably about 80 bazillion other human activities.

<comment><USER7> This philosophy assumes easy access to a doctor, and ignores the possibility of any illness.

Furthermore, some people are curious about their body, and wish to understand better activities which consume about a third of their lifetime. I'm one of those people, and even if I get _literally_ no useful information out of reading an article such as this, I am still happy to have read it and to have thought about it, simply because it satiates my desire to learn more about myself.

<comment><USER6> If the whole point is that search and replace feature results in the same infotainment article for sleep, sex, drinking water, exercise, diet, probably a whole bunch of other activities, you may not have objectively learned anything about yourself as you claim. Then again if the subjective experience was fun for you, clearly it doesn't hurt anyone else so go for it, the standard social libertarian thing applies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> In general, most people (in the United States, the country I live in) need more sleep than they are getting. One way this is put to the test is by letting people relax in a comfortable reclining chair in a quiet, dark room during daylight working hours. Many people fall asleep in this condition, signaling that they are sleep-deprived, even if they have no regular habit of taking a nap in the daytime.

I have lived in a country (Taiwan) where a siesta, a mid-day nap, is quite a regular practice. The first time I lived there (1982-1985), I was only unlearning my American habit of sleeping only at night near the end of my stay. The second time I lived there (1998-2001), I was better able to adapt to napping in the middle of the day like my co-workers, perhaps because I had become a care-giving parent of young children in the meanwhile.

As the submitted blog post mentions, there is a research basis for thinking that symptoms of what is characterized as "lack of executive function" or "ADD" can be relieved just by getting sufficient sleep. It appears that one of the roles of sleep is letting the brain have opportunity to restructure based on new experiences while awake, so sleep seems to aid learning, planning, and attention control.

I had a friend back in my college days who was a very hard-working research scientist trying to find a cure for diabetes. Her claim, which she read somewhere back in the 1970s, was that an hour of sleep before midnight is just about as beneficial as two hours of sleep after midnight. It does seem to me that I wake up especially rested on the rare occasions when I am fully asleep for the night before 11:00pm. As my own lifestyle changes over the next decade (= as my children grow up and live on their own), I will be eager to try the experiment of better matching my hours of sleep with the actual hours of darkness in my time zone.

AFTER EDIT: The top level comment by rayiner mentions allergies and writes

 _I jack up a humidifier_

and I agree with his statement that it is worthwhile to figure out what helps sleep be deeper and less disturbed, including breathing without obstruction during sleep. Depending on what a person is allergic to, DE-humidifying may be the way to go. Dust mite allergies, for example, will be worse for a person who lives in a humid room. Good luck to all in your experiments.

<comment><USER9> _I wonder how much symptoms of what is characterized as "lack of executive function" or "ADD" can be relieved just by getting sufficient sleep._

If you're a person who reads the description of ADD and says that it sounds like you, maybe a lot.

If you're a person who has the disorder, sufficient sleep is not going to make it go away.

<comment><USER10> > _Ιf you're a person who has the disorder, sufficient sleep is not going to > make it go away._

IIRC, the "disorder" is mostly a psychological thing, not something concrete.

And it's uptick can also be ascribed to the willingness of more doctors to diagnose something where there was nothing before (to assist in selling some drugs, among other things).

So the two situations you describe here are not at all contradictory.

<comment><USER9> I'll bet you $1000 that I've read more about ADHD than you have in the last year.

Dismissing a genetically transmitted brain chemistry problem as "mostly a psychological thing" is extremely unhelpful.

<comment><USER11> Genetically transmitted brain chemistry may well be involved, but sleep is necessary for all kinds of brain chemistry, too.

You can't have one without the other, perhaps .. perhaps, the reason we have the genetic scenario now, is precisely because lack-of-sleep, or at least sleep-culture-effecting-brains, has been an environmental factor over the period of our evolution where such things mattered.

I think the entire point is, if sleep helps you focus, then for goodness sake: get the proper amount of sleep.

<comment><USER9> You have completely missed the point.

Sleep is good. Get sleep. But people who actually have ADHD do not simply lack sleep. End. Of. Story.

Your speculation of lack-of-sleep being the cause of ADHD is laughably wrong. If it were true, then my son wouldn't have the disorder.

<comment><USER11> Its always those who have ADHD, or who somehow profit from its existence, who defend the condition vehemently, while those who question the science behind its diagnoses are always considered 'wrong' because 'mainstream society has accepted that ADHD is a cultural normality'. Well, in some societies anyway - there are plenty of places still left in the world where childrens' behaviours are not incorrectly assumed to be 'faulty, as a result of some flaw' just because the adults can't handle them, or because of some other cultural normative being applied from beyond the fringe of industrialized mental health practictioners.

But I would say to you this: there are other ways to deal with your problems than to form a dependency with a pharmaceutical company and a consumer- dependent relationship on other high preists of industrialized medicine. I know you won't accept that, given your position on the matter is pretty clear that of one who has succumbed to the problem, but the point of view that ADHD diagnoses and treatment is overly exagerated is an equally valid one.

Your son has a 'disorder' described to you by your high priests. However, maybe he just needs a better way of life, a healthier diet, more interaction, more outside time, less participation in a caustic, chemical society. You wouldn't know that, unless you tried to exceed the imposition of cultural 'normality' imposed on you by your society, by, frankly, leaving it behind.

<comment><USER9> _Your son has a 'disorder' described to you by your high priests. However, maybe he just needs a better way of life, a healthier diet, more interaction, more outside time, less participation in a caustic, chemical society. You wouldn't know that, unless you tried to exceed the imposition of cultural 'normality' imposed on you by your society, by, frankly, leaving it behind._

You have absolutely no idea of how much of an asshole you are being right now. You have your opinion, absolutely no facts about my personal situation, are making a ton of assumptions, and yet think that YOU have the right to lecture ME on this subject.

For the record, my son gets a much healthier diet than is standard in our society. He gets several hours outside every day. We have never had a working TV in his life. As he has grown we have allowed him movies - typically under 4 hours per week. He goes for regular hikes. Yes, we use medicine, but only the minimum necessary to affect his ability to pay attention in school hours.

When he is not on medication, the following sequence is common. I can address him by name, he looks at me, and I tell him to put his socks and shoes on. This repeats 3x at 2 minute intervals. His socks and shoes remain not on, and when I ask him to tell me what I've been asking him to do he honestly doesn't know that I want him to put on socks and shoes. Not because he's malicious, but because he simply was lost in his thoughts.

Yes, that is a culture-specific requirement. But if he was being raised in a "natural hunting/gathering society" he'd be the kid who gets eaten by a tiger because he was too busy looking at a spider to watch out.

Now you may think that there isn't a problem here. But I'm the parent here, you're the stranger, you know nothing about my situation, and it is my job to decide what measures are required to make sure that he grows up to be able to survive in society to my satisfaction. So, in all honesty, it is time for you to fuck off.

<comment><USER11> Oh, I have a perfectly good idea of how much of an asshole I was being. I'm a total stranger on the Internet and I have no clue about you and your circumstance beyond what you yourself proffer. That is the simple truth.

But look, you put your personal life on the line with this discussion. Did you do that in order to gain sympathy, compassion, understanding .. from an Internet stranger?

Or did you bring your son into this discussion for the sake of winning an argument about social normatives as 'an authority', having read the books, bought the drugs, gotten with the program?

I think you should examine your motives on that.

My personal position is that anyone who drugs their child, for whatever reason, is as much a part of the problem as the perceived 'malady' of the child. Thats my personal opinion - like you have your personal experiences, I have mine too. You can tread on my opinion if you like - after all you are just as much of an internet stranger with the potential to be an asshole as I am. I have absolutely no problems with being called names for having an unpopular opinion (although, careful with the name-calling: you might get us both hell-banned).

>to be able to survive in society to my satisfaction.

So you've chosen your path, as a parent, and I've chosen mine as a parent as well: two boys, neither will ever get anywhere near anyone who might consider industrialized mental health 'solutions' such as drugging them, as a means of imposing society's cultural norms, because my boys don't 'behave' per the standard set for them. Thats just simply not going to happen. I'll live with the consequences of my decision, just as you have lived with yours. To me, your chosen path seems like its more for your sake than theirs, since it is you who is having the communication difficulties, but again: I don't know all the facts. I won't judge you as I have no right..

I urge you, however, to reconsider just how much you truly know about the subject, and how much you've been told to think about the subject without questioning the authorities in power. All humans deserve a chance: drugging children at an early age because they don't meet societys' standards, is in my opinion _worse_ than the so-called symptoms. Not to mention there is a lot of profit being made from legally drugging children in this world today.

Just an opinion from a random internet asshole. Nice chatting with you. I wish you all the best, and your son a happy and productive life, as he sees fit.

<comment><USER9> I brought my son in to provide personal experience demonstrating that your guess about lack of sleep is completely wrong.

Every guess you've made since about how my family resembles your stereotype of a family that would medicate has been laughably wrong. I don't know what you think you know, or why you think you know it, but you've demonstrated a complete inability to acknowledge any experiential input. In light of that grotesque failure, I suggest that you question your own firmly held opinions. Because so far you're batting 0.

Here is another mistake of yours: if I was medicating my son for my sake, I'd medicate him every day, rather than arranging for him to be under the influence of medication only for the periods that he's in the classroom. In fact the main benefit that I have received so far is that I no longer have to comfort him while he's crying about how frustrating school was for him.

I hope for your children's sake that they never require assistance that you're unwilling to consider for them. Luckily most don't, so their odds are pretty good. But I'm sure that if you get the average result, you'll take all of the credit for them doing expectedly well.

<comment><USER11> >I brought my son in to provide personal experience demonstrating that your guess about lack of sleep is completely wrong.

On the basis of a single data point.

>I hope for your children's sake that they never require assistance that you're unwilling to consider for them. Luckily most don't, so their odds are pretty good.

.. but then again, this is groupthink at its finest. Are you religious by any chance?

<comment><USER9> _Are you religious by any chance?_

You continue striking out. I'm an atheist.

But you seem to be the kind of atheist that gives the rest of us a bad name.

<comment><USER11> You want to insult, I want to enlighten. My how times change.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> There is a lot of mumbo-jumbo surrounding sleep and precious little science, but I have found a few things in my own life that have made me feel better (could be placebo, who knows?)

1) Sleeping in multiples of 90 minutes really does work. It takes me very little time to fall asleep, so I can pretty predictably set my alarm to wake myself up in-between sleep cycles. My baby likes to sleep in three hour increments, and with two of those I feel great in the morning, even though I wake up in the middle to feed her.

2) Establishing a comfortable sleep environment. I jack up a humidifier and put on a Breathe-Right strip. I have low-grade allergies half the year and while I can breathe without one, I find myself feeling much more refreshed in the morning when I sleep with one on.

Most of all, sleep is something worth experimenting with. People spend huge amounts of their time sleeping, and sleepiness has a tremendous impact on productivity, but I find that most people don't introspect much with regards to their sleep. Going from not sleeping well to sleeping well is the ultimate life hack in my opinion.

<comment><USER13> >Most of all, sleep is something worth experimenting with.

Yep.

Through experimentation, I've become a believer in ritual to prepare for and wake from bed as well as napping.

My sweet spot seems to be 8 hour sleep with a 40 minute nap round 13:00. If I had to choose, I'd take less sleep overnight before losing the midday nap.

Prior to experimenting, I was "sure" I functioned optimally at about 6 hours per night. Looking back, I expect it wasn't the specific duration that helped, just consistency.

Also, I second the breathe-right strip.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The bit about the 3PM dip is not just about meridian cycles.

Since I gave up carbohydrates, I haven't had that hypoglycaemic productivity dip at a predictable time after lunch. As a contractor, I've sat in different offices and witnessed those around me experience 'the dip', whereas I can now soldier on through the day from morning to evening with consistent alertness and focus levels. Oh, and creatine supplementation helped a lot, too.

Another useful trick is to buy a blackout blind or window cover. I've managed to make my bedroom pitch black from the beginning to the end of my sleep cycle, and I know that my sleep is much better for it. It goes without saying that if the sun rises early where you live, and you happen to go to sleep late one night, it can be impossible to get the full 8 hours you want if the light starts streaming in before you've finished.

<comment><USER15> > Another useful trick is to buy a blackout blind or window cover

+1 to this suggestion. I sleep far better, and am much happier, if I have the ability to properly black out the windows of my bedroom. It's not just the obvious stopping the sun shining in in the morning - it's the second order effects too, like removing the _anxiety_ of not being able to fall asleep before the sun comes up. It makes a big difference, in my opinion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> You know how there's people that can get by on 4-5 hours of sleep each night? I think I'm the opposite. Left to my own devices, I will sleep 10-10.5 hours a day. If I wake up with anything less than 9, I feel pretty horrible. Not sure why, but I sure wish I could get by on less.

<comment><USER17> Have you considered the possibility that you're suffering from sleep apnea?

<comment><USER16> I don't think I am. I'm in shape (was D1 runner) and 22. Who knows though.

<comment><USER18> I've known people who have had it, and were in their twenties and in excellent physical shape.

<comment><USER16> Hmm. Thanks. I will look into it then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The author states earlier in the article that we don't really understand sleep and that there is no one solution for everyone. He then proceeds to make a list of "top three" concrete and (IMO) questionable suggestions that he thinks we should follow. Not a great article.

<comment><USER20> _It seems that finding your optimal sleeping time in between Kripke's finding is a good way to go. It's certainly something I'm giving a go now._

He does say you need to experiment and not take it as gospel. But there's nothing particularly new in that article, I've heard that story of Japanese office workers napping at their desk in the afternoon many years ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> My favorite sleep anecdote is that if you take some rats and force them to not sleep (put them on a treadmill and wire them up to some electrodes that will start the treadmill up and keep them awake whenever they start to doze) the rats will die within a week or so. Shorter than it takes to die of dehydration. Something about the brain overheating.

Sleep is a big deal, and not just because of the memory issue. Brains are expensive!

</comment><comment><USER22> I don't think humans evolved with alarm clocks. In an ideal world, would you not let yourself sleep as long as your brain deems appropriate? I think sunset and sunrise times would end up meaning a lot more.

The post also doesn't seem to account for sleep debt. If you undersleep one night, you may have to sleep longer than normal the next night to make up for it.

<comment><USER23> From other articles I've read, there is some evidence to suggest that without artificial light, humans tend to break sleep into two periods--waking up in the middle of the night for a few hours.

Also drinking water before you go to sleep works as a natural alarm clock.

<comment><USER12> I wonder how much of that is because of babies back in a time before widespread birth control. I break sleep up into two periods too, but it's not because of the lighting situation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> There are plenty of variables that influence "productivity" (however that is defined) but I imagine that the amount of sleep required for maximum productivity varies from person to person.

In my personal experience I've known people who require 3 to 4 hrs/night, and others (myself included) who need between 8 and 9. During times when I'm feeling my absolute best, physically and mentally, I get about 2 hours of rigorous exercise, 8 to 10 hours of productive work, and roughly 8 hours of sleep a day with the rest of the time filled in by preparing and eating food, taking short breaks, hobbies, relaxing, etc.

Wild hypothesis: Most people would agree that the amount of sleep they require to "feel and do their best" (assuming ideal exercise, diet, etc.) falls within a normal distribution with mean 7 hours and standard deviation of +/- 3 hours.

\--- edit: spelling

<comment><USER25> "8 to 10 hours of reproductive work"

Yes, this would tire me out as well. :-)

Seriously, I've found that my normal schedule appears to be 7 hours solid, with a 1.5 hr nap, depending. Without an alarm, I wake up 7 hrs later on the dot (and can't get back to sleep), but then require a nap 8 hrs later to make it through the day. I cannot sustain 6 hrs and a 2-3 hr nap for any length of time (maybe a couple of days before I feel like crap).

I wonder how many different variations of these kinds of cycles there are among the population and how they vary from the 1st to the 3rd world.

<comment><USER24> Hah, thank you for pointing out the spelling error. :)

As for the variations in the sleep cycles, I think it would have to do with the length of time between REM cycles in individuals. I'm sure there's individual variance in both the length of the cycles and how many cycles are needed for "A good night's sleep".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I did some experimenting with this.

According to the UK's NHS website, adults need 7-9 hours a day, and it depends on the individual.

I started with 9 hours, every single night, going to bed and getting up at the same time. After less than a week, I started waking up 30-60 mins before my alarm. So I cut it to 8.5 hours, and then 8 hours etc.

With some refinement, I found somewhere just over 8 works. I really don't think it's any more complicated than that for most people.

The big problem is sleeping well and socialising a lot. The best approach I've found to that is to bank an extra bit of sleep when you can, although this is controversial.

My Dad always reminds me when I'm working hard: "the secret to stamina is sleep." It's a pain, but it's essential if you want to do good work and stay focused.

</comment><comment><USER27> There was an article in NYTimes a little while ago that suggested that getting six hours of sleep a night for two weeks was equivalent to being awake for 24 hours:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sleep-t.htm...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sleep-t.html)

 _All told, by the end of two weeks, the six-hour sleepers were as impaired as those who, in another Dinges study, had been sleep-deprived for 24 hours straight — the cognitive equivalent of being legally drunk._

My personal experience certainly tells me that a solid eight hours a night makes me far more productive than consistently getting six.

</comment><comment><USER28> I'm more intersted in how much work I really need to sleep productively. That is: how little work can I get away with doing and still have a comfortable home and enough free time to sleep as much as I want?

</comment><comment><USER29> There are plenty of observational anecdotes of what works and what does not work.

In order to make the best of your sleep cycle, it requires excellent sleep hygiene.

1\. regularity is important. Going to bed and waking up at the same times weekday and weekend is very helpful.

2\. sleep environment is important. simulating night time including shades, turning off message beeps, comfort, slightly cool temperatures make a big difference

3\. eating - avoiding eating at least 3-4 hours prior to bedtime. Your blood sugar levels are easily disturbed and play a large part in your sleep cycle as glucocorticoids are active in sleep cycle.

The amount you sleep has a lot to do with your daily stress level, physical activity and damage your body takes.

hydrate like crazy, let your body perform its reparative miracles at night including memory consolidation.

I have noticed that people who have constant low-level death-by-a-thousand- cuts stress have many problems sleeping and getting quality sleep than those who have short bursts of high level stress. We are victims of our always-on world.

As another poster pointed out - Sleep is worth experimenting. Physical activity/exercise during the day helps.

</comment><comment><USER30> For me this is really simple, i usually goto sleep at 11pm-12pm and wake up at 7-8am without an alarm or anything and i feel great, so i figure that 7-8hours is optimal for me.

I try to keep that routine during the week, because if i stay up too long only 1 night, it makes it more difficult for the rest of the week. I am more of a morning person anyway, rarely been very productive late at night.

</comment><comment> vingt-2 It's my personal belief that humans need to sleep as long as their body wants too. I'm the "No alarm clock" type of guy, and when I'm very tired from a long week of short sleeps and exhaustive work, I sleep a lot more the first night of the Weekend, and the day after compensate and sleep less, with no planning whatsoever of my sleeping time. So I usually sleep 8 hours before waking up, and I feel great, I don't know why. What I do know, is that if I set up an alarm to wake me up before that time, say 90 minutes earlier, I would feel bad for a good part of the morning. I'm quite sure a lot of people (the average people) are experiencing the same natural time span of sleep. Hence the "myth" that 8 hours are good for you. On a side note, my father sleeps a lot less than I do, and most people do, and I can honestly say that he's more tired than the average person in his surroundings. Now that might be linked to stress, but I'm quite convinced that a lack of sleep induces stress, so...

</comment><comment><USER31> I've noticed that taking a sleep aid, regardless of the amount of sleep I _actually_ get, is actually helpful for feeling rested when I wake up.

For instance, last Saturday night, no sleep aid, I fell asleep around 5am, woke briefly at 10am, and woke completely at 1pm for a total of 7 hours. Last night, I took some AdvilPM (instead of my usual 3mg melatonin) at 10:30p, was in bed by 11p, and woke up this morning around 8a.

This might be because the sleep aid actually pushes me into waking up at the end of a REM cycle; I can't ascertain that. But I've found that the amount of sleep I get basically doesn't matter. Before I started with the sleep aids, it was random and infrequent for me to feel rested. I've been taking them for about a month now and it's sort of amazing how much better I feel.

(Also, as an aside, the first sleep aid I tried a year ago, a tablet of Unisom, did absolutely nothing for me. Also, 5mg melatonin seems to be too much for me. More data points.)

</comment><comment><USER32> Pro sports teams employ sleep doctors. They recommend 8-9hrs of sleep per night uninterrupted.

[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/sleep-doctor- ha...](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/sleep-doctor-has-canucks- peaking-at-right-time/article582351/)

</comment><comment><USER33> I'm always frustrated by suggestions to take a 20-30 minute nap during the afternoon. I just can't do that. Even when I'm fairly tired and I go to bed for the night, it can take me 45-60 minutes to fall asleep. There's no way I'm going to fall into even a light sleep in 20-30 minutes in the afternoon when I'm only vaguely (if at all) fatigued.

Then again, my "sleep hygiene" is fairly bad overall: I regularly go to bed ~4am, I can rarely sleep for more than 5 hours without waking up (and I don't feel fully rested after that), and I usually spend 45-60 minutes snoozing my alarm before I get up (10-11am). Hopefully I'm not typical. I should probably get a sleep study done.

</comment><comment><USER34> Get your sleep. Give up something else.

Four days to a week of severe sleep deprivation has been demonstrated to push the human body into a state of pre-diabetic crisis (per blood chemistry).

Another perspective: We _enjoy_ sleep. There might be a reason for that, eh?

<comment><USER35> a couple months ago i participated in a deadline push where i was deprived of sleep for up to a week at a time.

it felt like my metabolism had completely stopped, and my body was storing anything i ate as fat nearly immediately after i ate it. i was also bloated and gassy all the time. my diet was reasonably healthy (i wasn't eating pizza or anything like that, just normal foods like salads, chicken, occasional steak, some carbs, etc.)

it was obviously not good. btw i'm 30 years old, never felt this way before (haven't done a push like this since college age basically)

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> While I'd be useless for everything when I sleep 5h, my sweet spot is between 6 - 7.5h. I used to try and get 8h+ of sleep and was often tired.

Now I set my alarm for 6h after I go to sleep (leaving 15m to fall asleep), have snooze set to 30m and max 3 times. Additionally I need to solve a simple math equation so I don't mindlessly press snooze. That way my amount of sleep varies on what my body feels it needs. Feeling way better since the change :)

Just an anecdote so take it however you want :)

<comment><USER37> I think you'll like this idea: <http://sefsar.com/the-alarm-clock-as-an-mmo- game/> =)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I take power naps regularly almost every day, and it's true, after 15 mins of nap, I'm much more fresh and awake than before nap. I usually take nap after lunch, so between 13 - 15h.

About sleeping in general, I don't think that sleeping less than 8h per day is a myth. Nikola Tesla was sleeping 3-4 hours per day!

Recently I have found a cool website, which helps you to decide when to wake up or when to go to bed, so you can wake up fresh in the morning - sleepyti.me - bedtime calculator

</comment><comment><USER39> _"Personally, I know that my productivity takes a dip at 3pm every day. This is exactly where I place my nap, and it has been one of the most powerful ways to bring my productivity back to 100% for a good 1,5 hour session after that."_

I'm not sure how much science backs up most points in this post, but I can definitely attest to this point. It's so simple yet so effective. A quick 20-30 minute nap and I am buzzing with energy for the next few hours.

</comment><comment><USER40> Does anyone take into account the kind of activity done during the day?

For example, if I go on cycling trips, I can do perfectly fine with 4-6 hours of sleep per day. On the other hand, during revision times when I try to cram as much as possible into my poor memory, I tend to sleep _a_ _lot_ , i.e. 12-14 hours per day (and work/revise for about 6, tops). Under normal conditions, I still prefer 8-9 hours of sleep (and conversely ~10 of work).

</comment><comment><USER41> During the week I sleep for 4-6 hours. I go to the gym first thing in the morning and after that I feel great. I sleep in a little bit more on the weekend. Occasionally I will sleep a ton, maybe it's sleep debt.

However, prior to exercising regularly I required much more sleep. Not sure this is anything but anecdotal, but I would be interested in seeing if fitness levels and sleep requirements have any correlation.

</comment><comment><USER42> So many comments and noone referenced the ultimate article on sleep subject? <http://www.supermemo.com/articles/sleep.htm> Read at least the first couple of pages before you start using any "pro tips" that can be found on the web. It's too easy to harm yourself, your productivity and learning ability.

</comment><comment><USER43> Why do people ask such questions? There's no one right answer. It varies from person to person. Everyone should experiment and find what's optimal for them. If I'm not working out, I'm fine with 4-6hours. If I workout and stay active. I need 8 hours.

</comment><comment><USER44> There is a very informative talk on youtube [1] by Dr. William Dement, often referred to as the father of sleep study. He founded the Sleep Research Center @ Stanford University.

[1]<http://youtu.be/8hAw1z8GdE8>

</comment><comment><USER45> Google Sleep is coming out with a new method to make people get more sleep utilizing their multiple platforms: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c40V1bCvLAs>

It's called "bedtime guard."

</comment><comment><USER21> It's common sense that 8 straight hours per day is not ideal in general, nevermind for everyone. If you check out your sleep rhythms (and with exercise and without stimulants like alcohol, coffee, nicotine, etc.) the ideal is usually something like:

1) sleep 5.5ish hours. 2) wake up at like 3am, work for an hour or two 3) sleep for another 1.5ish hours 4) wake up at dawn and somewhere in the early afternoon take a brief nap

The knowledge that 8 hours straight isn't ideal isn't the issue, it's fitting it into your daily schedule that's the problem, for the same reason everyone knows that 5 small meals per day is much better for you than 2.5 huge meals.

So you try to compromise, which usually means adjusting your sleeping block to hit your REM rhythms well (i.e. 6.5 or 9 hours, give or take each way).

<comment><USER46> The ideal is waking up at 3am to do work? I can't think of many things that seem less like common sense than that. In the absence of an alarm or anything to wake me up sooner, I sleep straight through to the morning. I much prefer it that way, to be honest.

<comment><USER21> There's a term for it that I forget right now... morning sleep maybe? Second sleep?

Whether you call that time when you're awake "work" or not is irrelevant---I just meant that you're up doing something, even if its just reading or thinking or writing or whatever.

It seems counterintuitive but when you're properly rested, fit, and not using any real stimulatives/depressants, and you get in that rhythm, it works very well and comes naturally. Instead of 1 time per day of sleeping and waking up feeling great you get 3 times (pre-dawn, after dawn, then after your afternoon nap).

You just have to be able to do all 3 regularly to make it work, otherwise you skip a nap and you get screwed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> _Quick last fact: Women need more sleep than men... Why? This is because women's brains are wired differently from men's and are more complex_

Now this is something we have known for a long time! :-p

</comment><comment><USER47> Noone ever mentioned that your muscles need sleep for proper functioning. Try sleeping 6 hours a day and working out 4 times a week. I give you two weeks.

</comment><comment><USER48> The 8 hours "myth" seems to come from the fact that most people sleep about that long when they don't set an alarm clock.

We are tuned by evolution.

<comment><USER49> That's not entirely correct, actually. Before artificial lightning got introduced, people slept in two phases, and woke up in the middle of the night to do things. There were even books that suggested things to do in the time before the two sleeps (besides having sex and praying, that is).

More here: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segmented_sleep> and I apologize for not finding a better source.

<comment><USER48> Very interesting. I'd have thought exactly the opposite - that without artificial lighting, it would make more sense to sleep off all the dark hours.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Sleeping an extra hour is 4% of your day. If a 4% decreese in your time makes you 8% more productive then it is a good deal.

</comment><comment><USER51> Depends upon during which period you sleep. E.g. if you sleep between 10/11pm to 6/7am, which is the best period to sleep IMHO, then 7-8 hours is very good.

But even if you sleep 10 hours from 2am to 12 in the afternoon, it's far from enough or healthy.

A siesta is a nitro pack. Don't miss that in the game; especially if you live in a hot climate. I feel like blessed with a lot of bliss after I rise form my nap in my office sick bay(dorm/resting room/whatever) (I'm already smiling :-) ). My manager doesn't appreciate my 30-45 min nap everyday after lunch, I don't give a damn!

>> _will be sleeping 24 years in our lifetime._

Indeed. So will we be peeing. So, what about recycle the water and keep it in our system itself. Will save the time of drinking water and then peeing. Double bonanza! This is absurd. You can't live life by remaining awake for longer period. For one, your life shortens and number and period of sunsets, sunrises and rains will not shift towards more if you start remaining awake more.

>> _"Sleeping 8.5 hr. might really be a little worse than sleeping 5 hr."_

Now, either my biological clock needs a fix and everybody I know around me or his. Really.

My personal sleeping habit: I sleep at 11/12pm and almost everyday wake up at 6/7am. _I never set an alarm_ unless either I've a VVI appointment - like with a doctor, a meeting or a flight to catch.

<comment><USER52> > But even if you sleep 10 hours from 2am to 12 in the afternoon, it's far > from enough or healthy.

Why? Are you suggesting that the later in the day I fall asleep, the less healthy the sleep becomes?

<comment><USER51> Yes. That's what I am suggesting.

Look, I am not a doctor or neuro _something_ and what I have said above in that statement is based upon my experience, other's and articles I've read. Besides, it's a well known fact that you need to rest your body and mind by sleeping at night at the _right_ time and not just anytime.

<comment><USER53> This is not a well-known fact. What makes it the "right" time besides your opinion?

<comment> j-kidd According to ancient Chinese wisdom, a day is divided into twelve 2-hours slices, and one is supposed to be:

\- falling asleep during the slice from 9pm to 11pm

\- remaining sound asleep during the slices from 11pm to 1pm and from 1am to 3am

\- waking up during the slice from 3am to 5am

<comment><USER54> I feel if this ancient Chinese wisdom were accurate, you could substantiate it with some kind of study, and the "Ancient Chinese wisdom" part would be merely an amusing anecdote relevant to the data.

<comment> j-kidd Feel free to get one of this <http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/黄帝内经> and knock yourself out.

<comment><USER54> While 我一点儿回看中文 I hope you appreciate that a poorly referenced Chinese wikipedia article isn't really a contribution to this conversation.

<comment> j-kidd The article is about how little study has been done about sleep:

> One of the biggest problems I've discovered is that sleep is such an over > talked topic. We get the general idea that we know all about it: how much we > need of it, how it impacts us and why this or that happens when we sleep. > Once I took a step back to really think about where our knowledge about > sleep comes from, I realized that nearly all of it is based on hear-say or > what my mom told me when I was in elementary school.

I was merely quoting some well-known wisdom (among Chinese) (but not well- followed) from an old book [1] written based on actual clinical experiences. And it also happens to support fakeer's suggestion. If that's not up to some scientific standards, at least it is one step above "hear-say" and "what my mom told me", don't you think?

This is such a complicated subject, and I doubt there has been any concrete study that can conclusively prove anything. For me, the point of the article is to provoke exactly this kind of discussion.

[1] That's what the wikipedia article is about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> And we have come to age when we stop trusting our bodies. We need papers and researchers saying how much we should sleep, how to sleep best and when not to sleep.

We stopped trusting in ourselves what to eat, how to sleep, how to walk and how to breathe, and when to go and relieve ourselves.

Everything must be boxed and timed.

Disconnected we are.</comment>


YC wants to build a city - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/25/challenges-face-former-cheezburger-ceo-joining-y-combinators-new-cities-project/ <comment><AUTHOR> They are even boldly requesting locations: [https://cities.ycr.org/request- for-locations](https://cities.ycr.org/request-for-locations)</comment>