Has this evidence been examined sceptically? I've heard this theory a few times, but it always sounds like one person's obsession, and I struggle to credit it.
But what he's found in literature is pretty consistent, and biphasic sleep was once quite normal in a specific context: the siesta.
It's dying out in continental Europe alas -- a lost cultural touchstone -- and in the contemporary West, a siesta is short (literally a nap). But a traditional Spanish siesta is the best part of a sleep cycle -- a good couple of hours, with an hour's rest spread either side. More than enough that you could have four hours sleep overnight throughout the longer days and not be incompetent the next day.
My sleep is currently polyphasic, which is not a great time. But it has taught me that sleep in the absence of natural light (or the presence of consistent artificial light) does have a habit of going polyphasic.
I woke up at 4:15am after about five hours of sleep. I just cleaned a grill pan. I may go back to sleep again.
Sleep scientists seem pretty sure that polyphasic sleep is bad.
(I suspect that the long cultural stability of the Spanish long siesta has a lot to do with the cultural stability of mealtimes -- and meal types/sizes -- that developed around it.)
The other day I felt queasy, suddenly, after lunch at a normal time -- so queasy I had to write off the day. I then proceeded to sleep for the best part of 24 hours, because all the phases seemed to merge. A literal 24 hour period, useless. Other people lived normal lives in that period; for me it just vanished.
I think blood sugar had a lot to do with that, as well as the time of year (winter in Britain) and it has definitely unnerved me.
I cope by just accepting it; trying to do things when awake. But there are things you can't really do in the middle of the night if you live in a close, quiet neighbourhood; hoovering, running laundry, shredding documents, even some printers are noisy.
I'm trying to watch it from blood sugar perspective, I'm pretty good at extending periods between meals due to intermittent fasting, but there may be connections since Im not fasting all the time.
Bigger, and well built dwellings help, as do earbuds and soft shoes.
So some tasks you do in that period of time are done with a kind of lower level of objection, easier "starting", and in a contemplative start, and you're not actually tired.
Which is what also gives this "cleaning fairy" sense that nobody in particular did it.
I do not. And no, it isn't.
My dad, I think, had occasionally polyphasic sleep, and he often took on-call rota slots as a result. He'd be in the kitchen cleaning, or in his study, but since the house was big, it was rarely a problem. Sometimes he'd be napping in his study, and I know he slept easily on the train to and from work (with an efficiency that meant he woke up a minute before his stop on the way home).
When I was a student I just forced my polyphasic sleep periods into normal sleep as best I could, which typically manifests a bit like delayed sleep phase; by the middle of the week I was two hours behind everyone else, and I actually did worse in the courses that had early Friday lectures. But when you're a student, being awake or asleep at odd hours is normal enough not to be remarked upon.
As a programmer, polyphasic sleep is sometimes unnoticeable to others. These days probably more apparent in git commit logs.
I tried it and it worked, but I have a family and no, it didn't work for them, so I stopped. Couldn't get a schedule right that allowed me to be with the family for normal social interaction times, AND be at work when THEY expected me to be available for the work-team.
So I had to go to a socially acceptable "norm".
It wasn't bad. I did like waking up at 4:30 on the weekend, rolling over, and going back to sleep.
The article outlines multiple examples of references to first and second sleep periods in official court documents, and points to sleep studies of farmers in rural areas who still 'almost wake' not long after midnight.
As a pre industrial habit it makes sense - in colder areas fires don't last all night and rising after midnight to stoke fires, check animals, etc. fits right in with rural life.
The parent post means the study of the practice, not the practice itself.
It might make sense -- I think it probably does -- but that doesn't mean that it's not true, when you dig into it, that the major study here is Ekrich and all the articles about it, articles about Ekrich.
Making intuitive sense isn't really enough. It's difficult to study the habits of the long dead, but the parent poster is right to be skeptical of the nature of coverage.
Which leaves what I first raised - a thousand years of documented broken sleep by monks in monestaries getting up to pray late at night and again early in the morning.
Some might write that off as hair shirt behaviour by religuous fanatics intent on punishing themselves, others might take it as evidence that people of those times were living with punctuated sleep cycles and those that went to serve their God took to praying when they woke as a matter of course.
There's also the evidence of sleep in Spain and other warmer climes, with additional sleeping during the hottest parts of the day, staying up later, sleeping less during the night and rising earlier before the sun.
It's Ekrich's hobby horse, many niche areas have few champions, but it's not exactly the case that he is drawing on forged entries with no other examples to be found.
Did anyone suggest this? I think it is rude to suggest that the comment you are replying to did any such thing.
(I have noted the long Spanish siesta elsewhere)
> (Has this) evidence been examined sceptically?
The implication there is that the "evidence" quoted might not exist, might be a stretch of translation, misreading of spidery handwriting, or spun whole from new cloth to fit a narrative.
I personally read "sceptically" to imply the idea of seeing whether the study falls victim to significance bias -- e.g. once you see it, you see it a lot, but is it an indicator of a widespread habit, or just a not-particularly-unusual one?
Edit: And indeed if you read on a bit about Ekrich, he suffers from sleep disorders for which he takes medication. That's a potential risk factor for significance/confirmation bias here, I'd have thought. But there's no reason to jump to the conclusion that fabrication is being suggested.
Many times, of course, researchers are supported in their claims by skeptical examination.
It's of interest that you personally chose a limited reading of "skeptical examination", whether that's due to limited experience or an innate tendancy to only imagine the best behaviour in people I wouldn't speculate.
OK, now you're being a bit silly.
I assume error over malice. It's not only imagining the best, it's also statistically and ethically a better way.
But I'm not entirely sure; how much can you do awake if it's dark?
But then, it's rare for it to be truly dark, with moonlight and the like.