All this post says is that some people can maintain a polyphasic sleep cycle. Why is it being upvoted? At first I guessed the votes were just coming from the clique that participated, but the number keeps rising. Does a picture of a rooster elevate a comment in the open thread to a post in Main?
I upvoted out of gratitude for doing an experiment that involves personal sacrifice and has a high potential payoff for all of us, and to suggest that I eagerly await the cognitive battery results.
If adopting a weird sleep schedule has a high cost for the experimenter, that also offsets any potential payoff of adopting one on the experiment’s basis. The experiment so far hasn’t yielded any valuable results, because we already knew that a mild polyphasic schedule can be maintained (siestas), and that only running on naps is difficult (college students). Sleep deprivation is interesting and cognitive test results are fun to read; other than that novelty I don’t see the VoI, because we already know with confidence what to expect from the test: slowed reactions and limited attention, with more extreme impairment for more deviant sleep schedules.
we already know with confidence what to expect from the test: slowed reactions and limited attention
This is indeed what I expect, but I think you are more confident about it than I am—I’m interested in seeing what’s causing the difference. Can you link/cite the resources that caused you to update the most? (If you have a very strong prior against this sort of thing, that’s fair game too.)
If, in fact, a (strongly) polyphasic schedule did provide considerable advantages to a monophasic schedule, this would be very valuable information, if only because it could be used to the benefit of a large number of people. I’m sort of puzzled at why you dislike other people spending their resources on things that might help you, even if the chance of it doing so is small; even if you were purely a selfish agent, I don’t see why you would discourage this. (One possibility is that alternative uses of the time of the people involved would help you more. Is this likely?)
No, I don’t dislike that Brienne et al. ran the experiment. They can spend their time how they like, and quantitative self-help is admirable. But we didn’t get to the quantitative part yet, so I’m very confused that this post was so well received. It reflects a problem more severe than community standards falling because individuals are unwilling to bear the cost of speaking out; individuals are actively encouraging low standards. Or that’s how it seemed before people responded to me. Now my probability mass is mostly split between my values being weird or some cynical explanations about unconscious motivations producing exceptional support/inclusion toward this one post. At this point my complaining has exceeding my gripe, so whatever, ignore me.
I made the post despite not having detailed quantitative information yet because people are curious. I made a post before promising the results of a very high VOI experiment, so people kept sending me messages along the lines of, “Ok, the month of the experiment is over! What happened?” and I didn’t want them to lose interest or think the whole thing had been abandoned. I think this post was fairly well received because it was effective at reassuring people that the good thing they care about continues to exist and be good. Further, it’s provided evidence that I’m the kind of person who does things when she says she will (I said I’d do the experiment, and I did it), which raises their confidence in eventually seeing the full results (because I’ve said I’d provide those in somewhere around three months).
It reflects a problem more severe than community standards falling because individuals are unwilling to bear the cost of speaking out; individuals are actively encouraging low standards.
The community standard that get’s promoted is that people get credit for taking action instead of creating credit for specific results that the action produced.
Moving from theoretical anaylsis to real empirics is good.
If adopting a weird sleep schedule has a high cost for the experimenter, that also offsets any potential payoff of adopting one on the experiment’s basis.
If we see people who do those experiments as cool that pays in some sense of the costs involved in doing the experiment.
If someone sees that you get positive attention in this community for doing experiments that have the potential to produce valuable insights and that involve personal sacrifice that’s a good thing.
I sincerely appreciate the support! I actually took a very long time to finally get this post up because I was embarrassed about not having orchestrated things anywhere near as well as my personal standards demanded. I’m reluctant to do things mediocrely and I really, really need to reinforce the notion that it’s a very good thing that it got done. Period.
All this post says is that some people can maintain a polyphasic sleep cycle. Why is it being upvoted? At first I guessed the votes were just coming from the clique that participated, but the number keeps rising. Does a picture of a rooster elevate a comment in the open thread to a post in Main?
I upvoted out of gratitude for doing an experiment that involves personal sacrifice and has a high potential payoff for all of us, and to suggest that I eagerly await the cognitive battery results.
If adopting a weird sleep schedule has a high cost for the experimenter, that also offsets any potential payoff of adopting one on the experiment’s basis. The experiment so far hasn’t yielded any valuable results, because we already knew that a mild polyphasic schedule can be maintained (siestas), and that only running on naps is difficult (college students). Sleep deprivation is interesting and cognitive test results are fun to read; other than that novelty I don’t see the VoI, because we already know with confidence what to expect from the test: slowed reactions and limited attention, with more extreme impairment for more deviant sleep schedules.
This is indeed what I expect, but I think you are more confident about it than I am—I’m interested in seeing what’s causing the difference. Can you link/cite the resources that caused you to update the most? (If you have a very strong prior against this sort of thing, that’s fair game too.)
If, in fact, a (strongly) polyphasic schedule did provide considerable advantages to a monophasic schedule, this would be very valuable information, if only because it could be used to the benefit of a large number of people. I’m sort of puzzled at why you dislike other people spending their resources on things that might help you, even if the chance of it doing so is small; even if you were purely a selfish agent, I don’t see why you would discourage this. (One possibility is that alternative uses of the time of the people involved would help you more. Is this likely?)
No, I don’t dislike that Brienne et al. ran the experiment. They can spend their time how they like, and quantitative self-help is admirable. But we didn’t get to the quantitative part yet, so I’m very confused that this post was so well received. It reflects a problem more severe than community standards falling because individuals are unwilling to bear the cost of speaking out; individuals are actively encouraging low standards. Or that’s how it seemed before people responded to me. Now my probability mass is mostly split between my values being weird or some cynical explanations about unconscious motivations producing exceptional support/inclusion toward this one post. At this point my complaining has exceeding my gripe, so whatever, ignore me.
I made the post despite not having detailed quantitative information yet because people are curious. I made a post before promising the results of a very high VOI experiment, so people kept sending me messages along the lines of, “Ok, the month of the experiment is over! What happened?” and I didn’t want them to lose interest or think the whole thing had been abandoned. I think this post was fairly well received because it was effective at reassuring people that the good thing they care about continues to exist and be good. Further, it’s provided evidence that I’m the kind of person who does things when she says she will (I said I’d do the experiment, and I did it), which raises their confidence in eventually seeing the full results (because I’ve said I’d provide those in somewhere around three months).
The community standard that get’s promoted is that people get credit for taking action instead of creating credit for specific results that the action produced.
Moving from theoretical anaylsis to real empirics is good.
If we see people who do those experiments as cool that pays in some sense of the costs involved in doing the experiment.
If someone sees that you get positive attention in this community for doing experiments that have the potential to produce valuable insights and that involve personal sacrifice that’s a good thing.
I upvoted because somebody on the Internet said they were going to do something and then actually did it.
I sincerely appreciate the support! I actually took a very long time to finally get this post up because I was embarrassed about not having orchestrated things anywhere near as well as my personal standards demanded. I’m reluctant to do things mediocrely and I really, really need to reinforce the notion that it’s a very good thing that it got done. Period.
Just so you know, this cute panda would like to salute you for your right action.
It doesn’t seem to be a post in Main but in Discussion.