The lack of scientific evidence given in defense of the 8-hour nightly sleep model is common. Those who make these laxidasical arguments often don't directly argue against polyphasic sleep models and don't even seem to realize what they're doing. Instead, what they commonly argue is that sleep deprivation is bad. Well, of course, but no one is proposing that one follow Uberman in order to become sleep deprived; the idea is that one can get by with less sleep if that sleep is taken in little snacks instead of as one big meal. Although the metaphor may not hold here, this is the best way I have come up with for describing the difference between monophasic and polyphasic sleep. I think of sleep as being like eating. It is possible to comfortably live on one large meal a day, provided that this meal is large enough; however, it is not necessary, and one can get by with eating less if one eats more frequently and only when one is hungry. If you try to eat just one meal and make it last the entire day for you, you may end up eating more than you need.
Back to common arguments I've found against polyphasic sleep: they seem to make the assumption that one is choosing between two alternatives, either getting 8+ hours of sleep at night, or being sleep deprived. These arguments don't seem to consider whether it's possible to survive on naps, and indeed, this could be because there is so little research on this subject. Most sleep studies I've read about set about proving that one cannot live without sleep or that sleep deprivation is bad or that one will suffer the effects of sleep deprivation if one sleeps monophasically for less than 6 hours a night. The subject of alternative sleep patterns is hardly broached at all, and most seem to assume that there is no viable alternative.
In fact, one report aired on Sixty Minutes that I've seen referenced a lot, and which I just recently re-watched, starts out making the logical fallacy that 8-hour monophasic sleep is necessary because we do it. I'm not kidding; a sleep researcher went on national television and said that something is necessary because we did it. Now, a statement like that might be acceptable if one were talking about the philosophy of Fatalism, but this sort of argument is not something that one wants to be making in the field of empirical science. Of course, he's not alone. My biggest gripe with contemporary evolutionary theory is that it often seems to rely upon such arguments, in short saying that because we can use X for Y purpose, then X necessarily evolved to serve this purpose. One can talk about something serving a function in evolutionary theory, but unless one is arguing for some kind of deist evolution, where one believes that we evolved according to some sort of plan, there shouldn't be any talk of purpose or necessarily evolving one way or another in evolutionary theory. Belief in atheistic evolution is predicated upon the idea that we evolved from chaos and without design or purpose, so anything that we evolved could just as well be incidental and indifferent or even dysfunctional as it could be functional. To assume that something evolved in the best possible way or to serve a certain purpose is a very wrong-headed way to approach evolution, but this is what many people seem to do. They work backwards by looking at what function something serves in our lives, and then speculating about what factors could have caused it to evolve to serve this function. The assumption is that this function is necessary or good and that we must have evolved to be just this way, when a more plausible truth would be that X evolved incidentally and we adapted it to function Y, or created function Y in order to use X. Humans walk because they have feet; they don't have feet because they walk. This is a distinction which I think is important and which I often see others failing to make. This is purely speculation on my part, but I believe many people are adapting the idea of evolution to the framework which creationism used, and failing to notice that they are doing so. Basically, they are replacing the role of God in creationism with the word evolution. Creationism makes statements like, "We were created with feet so that we could walk;" some evolutionists say things like, "We evolved with feet so that we could walk," not realizing that they are just taking the old framework and inserting a new word.
Anyway, I am critiquing the application of evolutionary theory here, and not the theory itself. I don't really believe one theory is better than another, as any theory about the origin of life seems to be impossible to prove or disprove under our current understanding of the universe. It is just as well to me to say that we were created by a being we can't possess knowledge of as to say we appeared by way of a process we don't possess knowledge of. In the olden days, people kind of explained things they didn't understand by attributing it to the gods anyway. I'm only pointing out that there is a logical fallacy in saying that we appeared incidentally and without design while at the same time saying that we evolved a certain way for a certain purpose. Besides, any speculation on how we evolved and why is merely speculation.
Back to sleep research: The report which I watched starts out with a very encouraging twist of logic in which some scientist (I assume he's a scientist, but evolution help us if he is), says that 8-hour periods of nightly sleep must serve some important purpose, because being unconscious for that period of time at night puts us in a very vulnerable position. Well, this is true that it does makes us very vulnerable, but saying that we do it does not prove that is necessary, nor does it explain why we do it. And the question of the necessity of this sleep pattern is not addressed. He goes on to simply say that, 1) sleep is necessary, 2) sleep deprivation is bad, 3) we function better on adequate sleep, as opposed to undersleeping, and 4) sleeping for 8-hours nightly works. The report does not delve into whether this sleep pattern is instinctual or necessary. It doesn't even appear to consider the question of whether frequent, short periods of sleep are better than long, monophasic periods of sleep. But such reports of this seem to be held up as proper proof that polyphasic sleep is wrong, when the matter isn't even directly addressed.
As far as I know, the 8-hour monophasic sleep is simply a cultural convention. Although I've not yet found anything academic on this matter, I've heard people say that the conventional way we sleep is nothing more than convention, and there have existed cultures that did things differently. The gist of the theory is that it became ingrained in our culture to sleep 8 hours during the darkest period of the night in order to make the most of daylight work hours and to be able to work long shifts without a nap break. In short, it's like eating a huge breakfast so that you don't have to eat the rest of the day. Because we are trained from infants to adapt to monophasic sleep, and our whole culture functions on this style of sleeping, it's something that is ingrained in us -- but not necessary.
Even if we evolved to sleep a certain way and it's instinctual, this does not mean that it must be so. I can imagine reasons why we might incidentally evolve to sleep this way. In the days before electric light and 24-hour stores, there was really little advantage to staying up and working during the night. It was a time to socialize and rest, because you couldn't really do anything else. And, when your alternatives are trying to work by candle-light or rest, it makes sense to aggregate all of your resting time into one monophasic period that fills the darkest hours of night. Again, this would allow you to wake at dawn and take the best advantage of daylight hours, working through them without any sleep. But this does not mean we must be this way today, unless there's just some mechanism in humans which causes them to suffer and die if they deviate from the schedule sleeping 8 hours in the dark of night, sort of like how a Vulcan will die if he doesn't return home on a regular basis. And claims that we have to sleep a certain way or else seem just as odd as that. I've been looking for research that proves this, and I'm not finding it. All I'm finding is that sleep deprivation is bad for you -- but proponents of alternative sleep patterns claim that they aren't sleep deprived, and that there are ways to function well, perhaps better, without one long chunk of sleep.
For the reasons outlined above, I'm willing to believe that their claim is plausible, unless I see evidence otherwise. I will continue to search for it, but right now, I'm willing to conduct my own experiments in sleep, because I'm convinced that there's at least a strong possibility that I can change my schedule without suffering serious consequences. Because sleep seems to be an individual and subjective thing, this may be the only way to find out what works for me and what doesn't. So, here is the frame of mind I'm in as I've been conducting my experiment. Next time, I'll write more about the beginnings of my experiment, and my current schedule.
No comments:
Post a Comment