We sleep less well when we sleep together: Our collective weariness is the subject of several new books, some by professionals who study sleep, others by amateurs who are short of it. David K. Randall’s “Dreamland: Adventures in the Strange Science of Sleep” belongs to the latter category. It’s a good book to pick up during a bout of insomnia. …
Hmm. Never mind the methodological problems due to disruptive, uncomfortable sleep studies. Consider this question: given the choice, would you rather be sleep-deprived or lonely?
At times like these (where I read of your experimental suggestion in your final paragraph) I wish there was a Kickstarter-like tool for an interested layperson to coalesce support around a simple (or complex) research topic, attract enough interested people to pledge their monetary support, and then attract a researcher of enough skill and time to engage in the desired research.
“[O]n average they’d spent thirty minutes more a night inthe deeper stages of sleep when they were apart.” The obvious question (already brought up in the comments by cd): is thirty minutes more in the deeper stagesof sleep *better*? If not, then the study does *not* show that sleeping alone produces better sleep.
In my own experience, sleeping alone has been generally lesspleasant. (My wife doesn’t read thisblog, so in saying this I am *not signaling*.)
More sex but worse sleep? Certainly seems like a reasonable tradeoff both rationally and evolutionarily, without invoking signalling.
At first sight, this seems to miss the point: the signaling explanation isn't to explain the willingness to forgo some sleep but to believe that we aren't forgoing it.
But on second thought, it does suggest an alternative explanation: the cognitive dissonance of the belief that we have to endure bad to obtain good, an extensively demonstrated effect obtaining even when no deception of others is involved. (For my theory of cognitive dissonance as cognitive disfluency, see "Uncomfortable ideas and disfluent expression affect us similarly" — http://tinyurl.com/8m65wry )
This issue of discriminant validity applied to theories invoking signaling highlights the dangers of exploring a field with several pet mechanisms — without considering alternative explanations.
This comment propels your reply to Prof. Hanson from the domain of merely creepy into the outstretched arms of "CPS' involvement required immediately."
YES! His body curves around you and suddenly you forget your guilt about screaming at the kids, that you're exhausted, that you haven't seen him all week and sort of think he's a jerk. He feels great and your turned on. After the sex the endorphin remind you that he's actually so amazing and supportive and aren't those babies just so cute? Sleeping together is important.
I say "yes" and in regards to watching children rather than a mate. I never understood why all the "civilized" cultures make their children sleep alone. We all sleep together as a family and have many restless nights but I wouldn't sleep at all if I couldn't be where my children had immediate access to me.
The self reports are not necessarily incompatible with the research results. There's a difference between sleeping alone as part of an experiment and sleeping alone in real life. The latter often involves troubling/stressful circumstances: maybe the partner is in the hospital, or you just had a fight or broke up, or you work the night shift and your partner doesn't and you're both fed up with that but your employment options are limited, etc. In brief, the usual "correlation != causation" story.
I always wake up a few times in the middle of the night. When I'm alone I find this quite unpleasant, but when I'm with my partner it's very enjoyable to lie half-awake with him until I get back to sleep. I might get more or deeper sleep alone, but it's just less pleasant. I don't think we need to invoke signalling; people are just using two different definitions of "better."
"Why do we choose to sleep together, and claim that we sleep better that way, when in fact we sleep worse? This seems an obvious example of signaling aided by self-deception."Yup, sleeping alone makes you feel better rested when you wake up, I never had delusions about that, but I understand that it may be hard to tell your partner they're keeping you awake so you chose to lie about it and since your partner has the same problem he/she knows you're signalling devotion. That said, it does also depend on other factors. In the study the average sleep disturbance is probably increased because a fraction of people snor/sleep with their mouth open, a fraction of people share a blanket (which is a bad idea) and a fraction of people are literally clingy. So if you leave each other alone during the night, breath through your nose, don't snor and have separate blankets your sleep disturbance won't be as extreme as what they found in this study.
I tend to agree, and I'm male.
Hmm. Never mind the methodological problems due to disruptive, uncomfortable sleep studies. Consider this question: given the choice, would you rather be sleep-deprived or lonely?
At times like these (where I read of your experimental suggestion in your final paragraph) I wish there was a Kickstarter-like tool for an interested layperson to coalesce support around a simple (or complex) research topic, attract enough interested people to pledge their monetary support, and then attract a researcher of enough skill and time to engage in the desired research.
“[O]n average they’d spent thirty minutes more a night inthe deeper stages of sleep when they were apart.” The obvious question (already brought up in the comments by cd): is thirty minutes more in the deeper stagesof sleep *better*? If not, then the study does *not* show that sleeping alone produces better sleep.
In my own experience, sleeping alone has been generally lesspleasant. (My wife doesn’t read thisblog, so in saying this I am *not signaling*.)
More sex but worse sleep? Certainly seems like a reasonable tradeoff both rationally and evolutionarily, without invoking signalling.
At first sight, this seems to miss the point: the signaling explanation isn't to explain the willingness to forgo some sleep but to believe that we aren't forgoing it.
But on second thought, it does suggest an alternative explanation: the cognitive dissonance of the belief that we have to endure bad to obtain good, an extensively demonstrated effect obtaining even when no deception of others is involved. (For my theory of cognitive dissonance as cognitive disfluency, see "Uncomfortable ideas and disfluent expression affect us similarly" — http://tinyurl.com/8m65wry )
This issue of discriminant validity applied to theories invoking signaling highlights the dangers of exploring a field with several pet mechanisms — without considering alternative explanations.
This comment propels your reply to Prof. Hanson from the domain of merely creepy into the outstretched arms of "CPS' involvement required immediately."
It's kinda hard holding down a job and not cause accidents at it if you don't sleep well. If you have a full time job explain to us how you do it.
YES! His body curves around you and suddenly you forget your guilt about screaming at the kids, that you're exhausted, that you haven't seen him all week and sort of think he's a jerk. He feels great and your turned on. After the sex the endorphin remind you that he's actually so amazing and supportive and aren't those babies just so cute? Sleeping together is important.
I say "yes" and in regards to watching children rather than a mate. I never understood why all the "civilized" cultures make their children sleep alone. We all sleep together as a family and have many restless nights but I wouldn't sleep at all if I couldn't be where my children had immediate access to me.
If you intended to guard the mate, you obviously wouldn't allow her to sleep in another room.
The mate-guarding explanation suggests that males are more affected by the presence of another.
On the margin? Yes, absolutely
Does anybody actually do that? Have sex *because* they are already in the same bed anyway?
The self reports are not necessarily incompatible with the research results. There's a difference between sleeping alone as part of an experiment and sleeping alone in real life. The latter often involves troubling/stressful circumstances: maybe the partner is in the hospital, or you just had a fight or broke up, or you work the night shift and your partner doesn't and you're both fed up with that but your employment options are limited, etc. In brief, the usual "correlation != causation" story.
I always wake up a few times in the middle of the night. When I'm alone I find this quite unpleasant, but when I'm with my partner it's very enjoyable to lie half-awake with him until I get back to sleep. I might get more or deeper sleep alone, but it's just less pleasant. I don't think we need to invoke signalling; people are just using two different definitions of "better."
Right. Plus, for a big chunk of history people had 10-12 hours to get in 8 hours of sleep.
"Why do we choose to sleep together, and claim that we sleep better that way, when in fact we sleep worse? This seems an obvious example of signaling aided by self-deception."Yup, sleeping alone makes you feel better rested when you wake up, I never had delusions about that, but I understand that it may be hard to tell your partner they're keeping you awake so you chose to lie about it and since your partner has the same problem he/she knows you're signalling devotion. That said, it does also depend on other factors. In the study the average sleep disturbance is probably increased because a fraction of people snor/sleep with their mouth open, a fraction of people share a blanket (which is a bad idea) and a fraction of people are literally clingy. So if you leave each other alone during the night, breath through your nose, don't snor and have separate blankets your sleep disturbance won't be as extreme as what they found in this study.