| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Losing Andrew Lange | Main | David Blaine: How I held my breath for 17 min »

January 24, 2010

Bed sharing 'drains men's brains'

From the BBC:

ScreenHunter_02 Jan. 24 09.33 When men spend the night with a bed mate their sleep is disturbed, whether they make love or not, and this impairs their mental ability the next day.

The lack of sleep also increases a man's stress hormone levels.

According to the New Scientist study, women who share a bed fare better because they sleep more deeply.

Professor Gerhard Kloesch and colleagues at the University of Vienna studied eight unmarried, childless couples in their 20s.

Each couple was asked to spend 10 nights sleeping together and 10 apart while the scientists assessed their rest patterns with questionnaires and wrist activity monitors.

The next day the couples were asked to perform simple cognitive tests and had their stress hormone levels checked.

More here.  [Thanks to Kris Kotarski.]

Posted by Abbas Raza at 03:34 AM | Permalink

Comments

What I find interesting is that the author of this article (and, presumably, the head scientist) wait until the end to indicate that couples do get accustomed to sleeping together. Essentially, they are testing people who are sleeping alongside someone relatively new to their lives. I'm not sure why this is such a striking idea: it is disruptive to sleep alongside someone you do not know that well, especially for the men in this study. The term "couples" seems (strategically) misleading. I'd be curious about same-sex couples.

Also, I don't trust the accuracy of this statement: "'Historically, we have never been meant to sleep in the same bed as each other. It is a bizarre thing to do.'" Since when? Catullus writes about sharing his "little bed" with his lovers. What on earth does the scientist mean by "historically" and "meant to." He's trying to back up a moral claim with a statement of historical fact that has no basis in human history.

This study and its reporting are the only things that seem bizarre to me.

Posted by: Maeve Adams | Jan 24, 2010 1:36:45 PM

Maeve, I have to admit, it looks like a pretty shady study. Sorry, I was in a rush this morning...

Posted by: Abbas Raza | Jan 24, 2010 2:27:02 PM

"What on earth does the scientist mean by "historically" and "meant to." He's trying to back up a moral claim with a statement of historical fact that has no basis in human history."

Maeve, welcome to the brave new world of Evolutionary Psychology! Here you can make sweeping generalizations about human prehistory based on no actual evidence. So you see back in the day when men hunted and women gathered--you know that precise period from like a million years ago to yesterday--humans didn't sleep next to each other. How do I know? Because it would have been maladaptive to, because you know, "not sleeping together" was selected for its fitness advantage .... So, therefore, our modern sleeping together doesn't comport well with our Pleistocene, cave men genes. QED. Now give me a grant and publish my research in your newspaper.

Posted by: Jonathan | Jan 24, 2010 2:53:44 PM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

3QD ADVERTISING

Find the best prices on Las Vegas Show Tickets at Best of Vegas and Orlando Theme Parks at Best of Orlando!

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Al on Franzen, Wallace and the Question of Realism

aguy109 on Reacting to Reactionary Muslims

aguy109 on The Pathology of Stabilisation in Complex Adaptive Systems

Ken Pidcock on How to win a fight against twenty children

Erich on How to win a fight against twenty children

reader on How to win a fight against twenty children

Carlos on Franzen, Wallace and the Question of Realism

Janet Kerr on Olivia Chaney -Aupres de ma Blonde

omar on Reacting to Reactionary Muslims

j_93 on Sanctions Don’t Promote Democratic Change

droog on How to win a fight against twenty children

Mike Cope on Sanctions Don’t Promote Democratic Change

Dredd on Sanctions Don’t Promote Democratic Change

Louise Gordon on How to win a fight against twenty children

Seyma on Snowboarding at Night

aguy109 on Whitney Houston: Didn't we almost have it all

aguy109 on Matzo ball memories

j_93 on Reacting to Reactionary Muslims

Mike H. on Whitney Houston: Didn't we almost have it all

Jim on the tyrant's wife

Evert Cilliers on Why Is the Amazing Movie Directed by Angelina Jolie not on the Oscar List?

modernguy(NeanderthalGuy) on Why Is the Amazing Movie Directed by Angelina Jolie not on the Oscar List?

aguy109 on Reacting to Reactionary Muslims

Orla Schantz on Bubbles: Spheres, Volume I: Microspherology

Kabir on Reacting to Reactionary Muslims

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed