Matthew Walker, author of Why We Sleep and other works that misrepresent the published research record:
NPR: I’m not quite sure, but at least 5 or 6, or so it seems from Google
Ted talks: 18
The Joe Rogan Experience: 1
60 Minutes: 1
BBC: At least 4
Alexey Guzey, author of “Matthew Walker’s ‘Why We Sleep’ Is Riddled with Scientific and Factual Errors” and other works in which he is scrupulously clear in his citations of the published research record:
NPR: 0
Ted talks: 0
The Joe Rogan Experience: 0
60 Minutes: 0
BBC: 1
In the anti-reform jargon, Guzey would be considered a “second-stringer,” a “bully” who is “punching down,” a killjoy “Stasi” “terrorist” . . . did I miss anything?
Anyway, my point here is that, yes, the science reform movement has made a lot of progress during the last fifteen years, but the old guard is still dominant in many aspects of our culture. We live in a media environment in which the scientist-as-hero storyline continues to be standard, a world whose boundaries are roughly defined by Malcolm Gladwell, Freakonomics, and the National Academy of Sciences, on one side, and science deniers on the other. It’s not that all or most or even a large proportion of the scientific claims being reported and shared are wrong; it’s that junk science, once established, is just sooo hard to dislodge. There’s a TV series under development based on the paper shredder guy! Every once in awhile there’s an extreme case such as the food-behavior researcher whose errors were so embarrassing that he got memory-holed by the establishment, but it seems like case of the Why We Sleep guy is more standard: he’s out there, he’s the authority, so he stays the authority forever. I have nothing against him personally (let’s avoid tarring me with the Javert paradox); what bothers me is the system.
You may well have seen this article from the Guardian, but thought it worth sending, just in case. It doesn’t deal with the post subject directly, but provides some discussion of how people present as experts and the response to that. Some of the ideas are interesting, particularly the brief discussion of how culture plays into responses to styles of presentation.
‘If you work hard and succeed, you’re a loser’: can you really wing it to the top?
https://
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/16/wing-it-to-the-top-leaders-boris-johnson-elon-musk?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
The fact that Guzey pointed out sloppy, inaccurate data in Walker’s book, doesn’t by any stretch of imagination mean that the overall direction or premise of the book isn’t spot on: deprive someone of sleep and there will be consequences, period. Now, getting into minutia of why he left out the left part of the graph where 5 or so hours of sleep shows fewer accidents than 6 or whatever, is irrelevant. Those self-report measures are useless anyway. Maybe those who slept 5 hrs. only lucked out, as majority do, so didn’t get into an accident…
Why not, instead, look at a body of research by FAA, Army, or any other place where sleep deprivation equals a disaster, to see the direction? I guess the only ‘industry’ that doesn’t take their own advice is health business. Residency rotations and various night shifts come to mind.
Best to put this to sleep (pun intended) and focus on stunningly bad research in bio-medical fields that affects us all much more than ESP, Obama-ovulation connection and such…
Navigator:
Agreed. Just cos Walker misrepresented the research literature, that doesn’t mean his conclusions are wrong. Somebody should write a book about sleep without misrepresenting the literature, and then we can judge for ourselves. Conversely, Walker could write a book about sleep without pretending to be research-based. He can just share his personal opinions.
Regarding your second and third paragraph: Yes, you should feel free to look at this research area. You could start your own blog, even write a book about it!
Andrew –
> In the anti-reform jargon,…
Reading this post, with language such as above, it feels to me like you’re suggesting there’s some kind of coherent entity that is “anti-reform,” something that is uniformly in that mode and not just a mixture of residence to reform and openness to reform.
What is this “old guard” of which you speak, that is “anti-reform?”
Seems to me what you’re describing is a general human tendency towards resistance to change, dislike of being wrong, attraction to shiny objects, etc., that actually are just as likely to affect “reformers” as “anti-reformers.”
In a certain sense it seems to me there is a “the man” or “the establishment” or “mainstream” or in climate wars parlance, “the consensus enforcers” – in that there are some institutions that have a high profile and a kind of power and access to the public’s attention. But, on the other hand, there’s also an overlap between legitimately and usefully questioning the intransigence of the status quo, and the old man yelling at clouds phenomenon or empty contrarianism.
If what I’m asking about makes any sense to you, where are there lines drawn? What makes “anti-reform” some kind of coherent entity? Where does questioning the old guard become counterproductive contrarianism?
Residence = resistance.
Joshua:
By “anti-reform,” I’m referring to the people who are bothered so strongly by change that they don’t just try to wish the problems away, but instead actively make ridiculous statements (for example, “the replication rate in psychology is quite high—indeed, it is statistically indistinguishable from 100%”) and attack people who point out problems (“terrorists,” “Stasi,” etc.). See our ladder of responses to criticism, from the most responsible to the most destructive.