It's very common. Studies on sleep deprivation report that subjects do not feel their cognitive abilities decline. However, measuring cognition using objective tests does show a significant decrease in these abilities.
Nowadays... not so much.
...but I started leaving typos in everything.
That really doesn't sound like much, right? Honestly, though, it genuinely freaked me out a little, existentially, the first time I noticed. I was one of those nerds who got to a state spelling bee as a kid, and I've always been a voracious reader. I've had spell-check turned off since forever because it would inevitably be the spell-check that was wrong about niche terms.
But without enough sleep, all of that competence that I usually just take for granted vanishes. I end up with 'good moerning' and 'how are yoiu' and 'paass the salt', and I don't even notice I'm doing it until I look back at what I've written and double-take.
And that's just with casual writing, probably one of the lowest-overhead mental tasks possible for many people. God only knows what kind of disaster would result from me trying to drive or operate heavy machinery in that state.
I stop reading what I've written and introducing a large number of typos; the grammar becomes weird; etc.
This is why it's important to allow yourself to be exhausted and to notice exhaustion: your little mental model of yourself is incredibly inaccurate. You need to be constantly alert to keep it updated, and if you don't, you will collapse.
"--as judged by things I build and people I interact with."
I mean, I agree that sleep deprivation seems to induce temporary cognitive performance problems, but you're reinforcing a point that the parent seems to already understand -- that self perception is useless without objective performance metrics.
Parent gave their opinion, reinforced by anecdotal evidence that they believe is an objective measure of their performance.
Perhaps what should really be mentioned is that perhaps the metrics by which they are judging their cognitive performance are not as broad a test of those characteristics as one might believe.
Not entirely an American thing, given the the common sight of a salaryman asleep on a train or cafe all over Japan. But given those 2 were the Largest Economies in the World for the last decades, and only recently JP was surpassed by CN in the middle of the last one, it makes sense.
Having done it myself, I think its definitely an experience people should have in their Lifetime outside of University or raising a child it really makes you more empathetic towards other people in difficult situations later on in Life. We on HN may choose startup life for one reason or another, but I know left with a better understanding of the Human condition afterward and come to see that its worth encouraging people who want to strive at something and actually put the work in.
That's overstating the Work culture in either situation, in my opinion; in Japan its typical to have to stay only until the boss leaves, and the drinking culture that follows is mainly to curry favour with the higher-ups to climb the corporate latter. If that counts as 'abstraction' to you, I'm not sure what to make of your 'post industrial' POV.
In the US corporate World, which is the only one I have any experience with, 'playing the game' is often more important than actual skill or merit. Which is why I despised my time within it.
I'm not hired to be your drinking buddy or be a confidant, I'm a hired-gun for your project and only really there to offset my living expenses and bootstrap the more cool and interesting things I do in my Life.
Making work be or seem anything other than 'work' requires a lot of de-compartmentalization for me and encumbering a person to a do so seems hardly 'abstract' to me and the more it becomes remote the better. That isn't to say I don't drink the Kool-aid for the things I'm passionate about, but that is hardly, if ever, found in the Corp World--this is pretty much how I left so disillusioned at IBM, despite being a Thinkpad fanboy.
It’s amazing that often times in the reports, which are generally done a day later, the pilots will state that they probably shouldn’t have continued. However, in the moment where they made that decision, they didn’t feel all that tired. We ask the pilots to make a critical decision about themselves at precisely the time where they may not have the best judgment.
Here's one from the FAA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSrGfElyfVE
"Why We Sleep" is everything wrong with "science" today, and as a person who also isn't a huge fan of sleeping, I'm desperate to understand the real drawbacks to a lack of sleep. That dumpster fire of a book has set back honest research on the subject by years.
Just venting, as I know you agree. Thanks again for your contributions to sanity.
As far as I remember he cited peer reviewed articles. Anyway a quick search turned up this:
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(19)...
(Disclaimer - I'm not. I found much of the content interesting and compelling.)
I think the criticism seems valid, and it probably means I shouldn't use the book as a reply to people asking for scientific evidence (like the comment I replied to). That said, I don't think it detracts from the main argument of the book, or the main revelation for me, which is that most people don't realise how damaging lack of sleep is. I would still recommend it to a lay friend on that basis.
>That said, I don't think it detracts from the main argument of the book, or the main revelation for me, which is that most people don't realise how damaging lack of sleep is.
I don't get this. You find that the book you believe provides the arguments for the damaging effects of sleep and based on which you dramatically changed your life is bullshit but somehow this fact doesn't detract from its main argument and you are still going to recommend it to your friends?
Reading (most of) the book caused me to change my priorities from basically "I don't care about how much sleep I get" to "getting enough sleep is an important priority for me". Presumably you would agree that that is a positive effect.
Oh, looks like it was by the same author as the article we're discussing: https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/
People driving while high are especially frustrating, because they’ve convinced themselves that there better drivers.
Take something that requires more mental focus but do not rely on reaction times, like pool, I definitely play better when I’ve been drinking as I get less distracted when going down on a shot and less anxious about my performance. And pool is a small enough table where the negative effects of drinking tend not to overcompensate (unlike snooker where more than 1 pint will hamper my game).
For some activities it’s more about mental focus on that single activity where as driving is about multitasking and reactions. Qualities drugs tend to hamper rather then enhance.
Yeah, no you're not.
Jokes aside, fully agreed. You just gotta get enough alcohol that your confidence and peacefulness are up (which would cause you to play better), but not to the point where negative effects of alcohol overpower the positive ones. And that's a tricky one to balance.
After three beer, I still suck at pool, but I don't care.
So yeah, I play better.
I will admit it helps with conversation if you don’t normally talk and you’re around equally drunk people, but a few beers plus a crowd of sober people doesn’t work as well as most people think it does.
No, it doesn't. It eliminates the anxiety. It doesn't enhance performance. It modifies your perception of your performance.
Edit: Don't just take my word for it. https://www.wired.com/2015/05/big-question-booze-help-play-b...
> In a 1993 study, he found that hand-eye coordination deteriorated immediately after a player's first drink, but balance and accuracy improved at a BAC of 0.02 (beyond that, performance fell off).
A BAC of 0.02 is like, I dunno, less than half a beer? (And even then the article suggests a mixed bag.) I have no trouble believing that very small doses of alcohol could relax the imbiber in a way that's useful. But I suspect most of the people here who think I'm wrong are referring to larger doses not measured in fractions-of-a-single-beer.
And, again, I very much doubt it.
Your ability to do almost anything falls off beyond the 0.02 point mentioned in the article. What's actually on display here is that people are very bad at evaluating how alcohol affects them. None of the claims here would survive unbiased testing.
They've already consumed enough alcohol to move past the sweet spot but it isn't yet affecting their performance.
I suspect part of it was state-dependent practice. I'd practice throwing darts in a bar, much of the practice was after drinking several pints, so I practised my release timing with alcohol.
I also suspect that part of it was the muscle relaxant effect of a moderate amount of alcohol probably does help improve the consistency of motion in releasing the dart.
When sober, when things don't go well, the stress leads me to trying to take stupid shortcuts (like braking later and later before the corners) that don't work. With a bit of alcohol, it seems there's a bit less stress and I'm better at doing things the right way.
With more alcohol, the negative effects start to dominate. Slower reflexes, too aggressive driving.
With sufficient effort I can focus on driving the right way while sober, which works even better of course.
To be clear: the only racing in real life I do is the occasional karting session, which I do only when sober!