That's not what the article is suggesting, and attenuating differences to figure out the differences makes absolutely no sense, not even semantically. The attenuation of differences in this context means that the intent is to standardize the populace, nothing more, nothing less.
> Furthermore, can we figure out the attributes that larks have, that on the whole seem to make them healthier than owls.
And I'm pretty sure I said I don't believe certain points the article claims at face value. I don't think you can call this incredulity "missing the point". This assertion that larks are healthier than owls, which seems to be at the bottom of all this, should at least have more empirical data behind it (preferably gathered by people with less bias).
> Then, maybe we can adjust the lifestyles of the unhealthy larks to have them lead a healthier life.
Now you're just contradicting your own comment. Did you maybe mean to say "owls" there?
2. I'm unsure how this scientific research shows bias. Small sample size, perhaps, but not much in the way of bias. You on the other hand are taking a scientific study as a personal assault on your lifestyle. The article doesn't even claim that the changes in white matter have adverse health effects.
here is an excerpt: It's also not clear whether the structural changes have any implications for people's health.
3. Yes, I did mean to type owls there.
> "Rosenberg suggests that people's work schedules should change to fit in with their natural sleep patterns"
I realize there's some of what you're talking about going on here (e.g. the very next phrase mentioning that there's an 'easier way'), but I think there's far less intent than you're implying.
The attenuation of differences in this context means that the intent is to standardize the populace, nothing more, nothing less.
It sounds to me like you came to this article with the feeling that owls are mistreated relative to larks and you're layering that previous sentiment over the article so that it says things to you that it doesn't literally say.
Are you arguing that your physiology represents the whole of humanity? This may have enormous implications for cancer research and neuroscience if so - you should get in touch with your local research university.