Gasp! Two blogs in one day? Unheard of. But, dear audience, I felt like some words needed to be said.
I've been reading around the web for more studies into polyphasic sleep cycles, and I came across someone who decided to take it upon themselves to debunk the myths and present sheer facts as to how it works, and whether or not it can in the long run. The only problem was, the page was so full of bias and skepticism, I could hardly find a straightforward sentence in the entire thing. He spent his time talking at large about how the polyphasic sleep cycle is popularized by young, optimistic, testosterone charged males with ambitions to take the world by storm and show that they were masters of their own bodies. While I don't dispute the truth of that, he dedicated an entire section to mocking their efforts, and pointed out that the most common words in their blogs about their personal experiments were "I", "nap", and "tired".
Coming from an objective standpoint as to whether or not the sleep works, I find it hard to believe that this page was written without blatant bias against the sleepers. Though I don't know everything about sleep cycles or how the body determines its circadian rhythms, I must also point out that scientists don't either. Studies into sleep have been ongoing for decades and longer as scientists try to determine why we sleep, why there are different phases, what happens in each phase, and whether or not these phases are absolutely necessary to proper growth or not. A lot of the studies I have read about determined that sleep is still mysterious, but that the phases do seem to have some specific purpose, though humans can live without them in large amounts as long as they get some form of regular sleep. Sleep deprivation is dangerous and is not to be toyed with in the long term.
It seems my biggest problem with the webpage is that the author seemed set to prove that a bunch of stupid teenagers on the internet didn't know what they were talking about, and that no scientist in their right mind would put test subjects through the kind of torment that polyphasic sleep supposedly inflicts upon the body. My response to this: OF COURSE A BUNCH OF TEENAGERS ON THE INTERNET DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. They're teenagers, none of which have a doctorate of any kind, nor have they done mass research on sleep. They heard that they could get more out of their days with less sleep and wanted to put it to the test. And in my opinion, that makes them more a scientist than the guy who said that it would be unethical to try. In line with that, of course a JOURNAL about the experiment from the test subject's perspective is going to have the words "I" and "nap" show up a lot. The entire experiment revolves around naps. Don't attribute it to their egocentrism and their longing for more sleep on a constant basis.
The point of science is to put things to the test, to experiment, and to reveal unknown things through the pursuit of knowledge. For hundreds of years, the higher intelligence of the human race has been dedicated to discovering new things through the field of science, and we've come an incredible distance. Scientists have had thousands of experiments of all different kinds in order to find answers to their questions. Deciding that one specific subject is unethical because it results in someone being drowsy and having a clouded mind for portions of the day is ridiculous and idiotic.
Here's some honesty for you: On the large scale, individual polyphasic sleep experiments end in failure. The test subjects end up oversleeping and taking extra naps, or compromising their schedules because it gets in the way of their social life. I read one blog about a group who embarked on the experiment together, and the poster had a very passive attitude about the whole thing. He claimed dedication to the experiment, but passed it off when he overslept his alarm by four hours multiple times throughout the first two weeks. Success won't come if you let your mistakes lie and hope for better results in the future. He eventually gave up and went to a biphasic schedule of sleeping through the night and taking a single afternoon nap, which is not polyphasic by any means. That's called taking a siesta, a practice that's been around for quite a long time.
At the end of this whole rant, it really comes down to one simple thing for me: Don't knock it till you've tried it. Honestly, if the idea of being a bit foggy at points throughout the day offends you that badly, then by all means, sleep your little heart out, Rip Van Winkle. But if you don't care that you might be tired sometimes and that it gets a little rough in places, and still decide that the extra time everyday is worth it, then give it a shot. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. My personal goal is to remain polyphasic as long as I feasibly can, because I'm tired of sleeping my days away when I could be using the time to do so much more.
I intend to be serious about this and make it work, regardless of being a little drowsy in the opening stages. That's called a side effect, and considering the side effects of some drugs these days, a little drowsiness could be considered an extremely low cost for the benefit. For the benefit of 5-6 more hours available to me every single day, and the calculated 11 extra years added to the total conscious period of the average expected western lifespan, a little drowsiness is nothing to be worried about.
So sweet dreams, audience. Enjoy your long stretches of beautiful, restful sleep. I'll be taking the shortcut, and at the cost of sleeping in on weekends or curling up for 12 to 14 hours of sleep when you have a day off, I'll be reading and writing and playing guitar and thinking and enjoying life for a few extra hours each day. To each his (or her) own.
No comments:
Post a Comment