I too am a night owl - but we need light in the morning more than later into the evening. A lot of kids have weird school start times which leads the morning commute being a lot more distributed than the evening one. Walking to the bus alone on dark streets isn't safe for a good chunk of the population.
That'd be the same benefit that forces sugar and caffeine dependencies on adults so they can maintain unnatural working schedules and has contributed heavily to the obesity epidemic, right?
Rising with the sun is much more natural than getting up when it's dark. Most people need time before work, so we need the sun to rise a few hours before work. I learned some discipline and started getting up early without sugar and caffeine, if the young people today would rather complain than do the same that's not my problem.
It didn't come across as sarcastic, but I hoped it was. As it stands, though I can imagine arguments for or against the current school set-up, the idea:
> The benefit of forcing the discipline of getting up early on children is greater than any health impact or inconvenience.
that a particular arbitrary method of instilling a particular arbitrary form of discipline is more important than any health impact or any inconvenience is horrifying to me, and I hope it doesn't find many adherents.
They're fine if they go to bed early. That's the actual discipline part, going to bed early and getting up early is harder than going to bed late and getting up late. But overindulgent parents let kids stay up so they never learned good habits and now they're entering the workforce and whining about it.
Obviously we can't control this, so I see no evidence that "chronotypes" are formed by nature and not by nurture. Lots of other stuff we do is influenced by our social structure and we could probably fix most teenagers and young adults by changing that.
As stated above, I'm a night owl myself and tend to have a pretty off kilter sleeping schedule. A bunch of things have contributed to that - I've got ADD and have been on stimulants for most of my life, I worked as a game dev for a few years which involved months of overtime where we'd often work 12hrs three times a week that played absolute hell with my sleeping schedule and still plagues me to this day - lastly, I'm light sensitive, I can't comfortably see and operate in full daylight.
I can't say for certain where my night-owlish self comes from, but it predates taking stimulants and working at a game dev company - so maybe it's a side effect of light sensitivity or maybe it's a neurological thing... or maybe it's just a natural clock thing.
> Obviously we can't control this, so I see no evidence that "chronotypes" are formed by nature and not by nurture.
Here’s why: The Hadza are hunter-gatherers whose lifestyle is very similar to that of early humans.
The observations were found in people with lifestyles that represent that of early humans. What part of nurture would affect those people? They have no concept of a clock...
It's not wasted then, it's quite useful. Having kids walk to school or to the bus in the dark is ridiculous. In northern areas the Sun won't come up until 8:30AM.
> Having kids walk to school or to the bus in the dark is ridiculous.
I agree. The solution to that is not to have kids go to school stupid early. Studies show that kids prefer to learn later in the day.
Besides, after school activities continue into the dark in the winter. Better to let the kids be able to be outside/playing/doing band/whatever in the evening instead of stuck inside because it's dark with their free time.
I know a kid in middle school that wasn't allowed to literally walk across the street to school (wasn't even a busy road). The bus would pick up the kid, move about 10 feet, and turn into the parking lot.
Supervision and legalities related to it can be boarderline oppressive in some places.
Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of this shift? If we are trying to give workers more daylight in the evening, then we shift the work and school day later, the impact would be nil.
Fundamentally, for this change to satisfy its mandate, the kids have to to to school in the dark during the winter.
Fwiw, I think it's a fine thing. I always found it very romantic to go to school when it is still dark when I was young.
No, we should get rid of any shift of the clock, and then set schedules for work and school based on the sun. The start and end times of school and work should change during certain parts of the year if there is concern about daylight.
I understand you feel that way, but that's more or less the purpose and effect of the daylight savings time shift. That's the status quo. It's exactly what many of us want to see eliminated.
No, changing school and work times only changes school and work systems. Changing the entire clock time adds endless complexity to computer systems and society as a whole. It's like global vs local vars, the scope is too much.
Each school and business choosing a different time to change (and half of them choosing not to at all) is far more complex than changing which timezone a specific lat/long translates to twice a year.
Now, I favor never changing the time of each place and keeping on daylight time, but that's just me.
Okay, but most folks who want to change to permanent DST don't care about the effect on computer systems. They want more light in the evening.
Your proposal would not satisfy the primary goal of the proponents of this policy. It would also still require one or more coordinated, discrete shifts in the schedules of schools and workplaces, which would likely be more complicated for computers and other systems than the status quo.
We shouldn't satisfy their goal. It's not their business to impose this on all of society. We should stick to a standard time and let individuals or groups do whatever they need at the local level. Most other countries do this and they are fine. YAGNI. No need for additional complexity.
The status quo is more complex than what the senate has voted for (it requires transitions, the shifting of schedules twice a year, etc.). The new approach is less complex.
The assertion that the time is "not someone's business" is incorrect. The time is everyone's business. We are going to stick to a standard time after this policy -- it's going to be daylight savings time all the time, although we will probably stop calling it that after we all get used to the policy. Individuals or groups will be equally free to adopt their own schedules both before and after this policy change -- this policy is not a change on that front.
> The assertion that the time is "not someone's business" is incorrect. The time is everyone's business.
You misunderstood my meaning. I understand that everyone is concerned and affected by time. What I meant is it's not in their purview to push such things on the public.
Once again, the rest of the world works perfectly fine without the added complexity, so it should be proven with strong evidence rather than vague arguments that the added complexity is worth it. The rest of the world works perfectly well without DST.
> it's not in their purview to push such things on the public
It is, in fact, in the purview of the public to change the status quo as it pertains to time. We did it in when daylight savings was established, and we are going to do it again now that we are moving to permanent DST. The status quo affects people who don't like it, and they have every right to try to see it changed. There is no reasonable theory of politics that privileges the status quo to the point you seem to be contemplating.
> The rest of the world works perfectly well without DST.
Maybe we are talking past each other. You say the rest of the world does fine without DST. That's not actually true, most countries do have daylight savings. But you're certainly right that many countries do fine without it. For example it is not observed in South Korea. And after this law passes, so will the United States (i.e. the effect of this law is to abolish daylight savings time, by moving the clock permanently to the DST configuration).
We’ve tried this before 70 years ago and within a year we changed it back. It’s a bad idea and we haven’t had a national discussion about it. Once everyone on the east coast and Midwest sees it’s dark until 8:30AM it will be reversed if it even passes.
It’s a silly idea that once thought out becomes clear.
Okay, then see you in three years when this policy is actually enacted to see if that's how it plays out, and until then there's no need for all of the kvetching.
Virtually no parents have to get the kids dropped off at all. The vast majority, afaik, can rely on a school bus to pick them up.
And IMHO, beyond elementary school (and perhaps earlier) there's no reason most kids can't be unsupervised briefly before letting themselves out to get to the bus, or after being dropped off by the bus.
See the whole thing about free range kids, helicopter parents, and so forth.
Because schools don't pick up kids at 8:30. If you look up that stupid article whining about kids waiting for the bus in the dark (which is a non-issue), they were waiting at 7 am
What's wrong with starting at 8? Starting much later than that doesn't leave a lot of time nor night for other activities. And really just pushes back the rest of their schedule and bed time.
Care to add something to that? That link doesn't have any of the data or methods used. It also completely ignores the realities of childcare, normal work schedules, etc as it only evaluated one angle (systems thinking analysis would be preferable) and did not look into the feasibility of it or n-order effects.
Again, anything that looks at this from a systems thinking standpoint? It's just focused on sleep and they don't take a n-order impacts into consideration like burden on parents, loss of job/income, etc. Not to mention some of the links are done by an industry group - the Nation Sleep Foundation (potential for bias). Some of the articles are pure anecdotes and opinions too.
It says as late as 11pm. Another one says some of the later time can be explained by other things like light exposure. This seems to indicate that a 10pm bed time could be attainabke with a wake up time of 6 or 6:30 providing adequate sleep. Some of the studies show that even on weekends without the waking constraint teens are getting 7-8 hours or less. It's also indicative of weak influence when we see the remote learning being called a disaster yet these articles are touting the benefits of the extra sleep associated with them - where is the mitigating impact then?
Also from the articles, “As I often phrase it, multilevel interventions are needed,”. Why not start with the less intrusive interventions? Not all kids require a later start time, and could even be hurt by it. A later start time would have hurt me, for example. We need to make sure we aren't hurting some people in an effort to help others.
Perhaps the strongest evidence is that adults are not affected by the hormone related shift and yet they too do not get the recommended sleep. This points to the idea that environment and habit could be factors.
So far I see no absolute evidence of societal net benefit, largely because the studies ignore n-order impacts and fail to fully explore alternative explanations and remedies.
Don't forget, a lot of this is psychology and is just towing the line. They don't even know why bi-phasic sleep disappeared. I would love to see the data for adolescent sleep times and duration for the past 150 years, but it appears the studies completely ignore this. For knowing so little, they certainly are pushing hard for a specific change (a change that some of the studies don't believe will fix the issues, such as achievement gap, hormone altering light exposures, etc).
Parents have to get their kids off to school before work. Most people wake up by 7:30AM (you may not but the rest of the functioning world does) and need the Sun in the morning.
I went to school in the dark during winter my entire childhood. We played out after dark after getting home too, because otherwise there'd be no opportunity to play outside during winter. It worked just fine.
Where I am, it's light out from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. during the shortest days of the winter. The thing is a lot of people aren't even awake at 7 a.m. and if they are (I am), they're doing indoor things like making breakfast/showering/etc. So for a lot of people, that hour or two of morning light is really just wasted. In the afternoon though, everyone can take advantage of the daylight.
I wonder what the actual percentages are. It's probably a thing where each group can't believe that there's a significant number of people in the other.
"that hour or two of morning light is really just wasted."
Only for people who wake up late. There could also be benefits to aligning one's circadian rhythm to morning light.
Go out and watch the highways at 7:30AM. They're packed. Most people start work at 8AM. Which means they're probably on the road by 7:30 and probably awake by 6:30.
Thanks! A lot of people here I assume can make their own hours more or less, don't have kids, and sleep until 8AM or so. But the vast majority of people have to be to a workplace by 8AM and wake up at 6AM so they can get themselves and their kids ready. They don't want 2.5 hours of darkness in the morning. Some light before and after work is ideal.
Neither option is great. Permanent standard time might be better, although I assume blackout curtains will be popular with twilight starting around 4am in the summer. There's really not going to be light both before and after work in the winter for many places. Current twilight is about 630am now, so it would be more like 1.5 hours, not 2.5.
I was going to the bus stop in the dark even with DST and I didn't even live in the north. First bell was generally 8 AM and you needed to be at the bus stop well before then obviously, especially if you lived in the earliest parts of the route.
This is a problem of schools and other organizations being stuck to a particular time/number, rather than using the sun to determine when they should start. It's a perfect example of confusing the map with the territory.
Ok, but any situation where you start your day with light in the mornings in winter in the North will necessarily mean that you end your day with darkness in the evenings. Whether we call the time the day starts "7AM" or "8AM" doesn't change this.
The fundamental trade-off is: sunlight when you wake up and you're going to school/work, or sunlight when you're coming back from school/work? Unless you reduce the school/work day, this is unavoidable.
I don't disagree with you at all, I think you missed my point. We should decide when we want people to be in light and dark, and not shift numbers on a clock to match that.
Sure, but it's functionally impossible to make this choice without changing the clocks. Too many events are coordinated - shop opening times have to account for other business start times that have to account for school start times.
Changing the clock is, realistically, the only way to coordinate all the necessary actors.
Otherwise, if schools decided to start at 9AM, they would put a huge burden on parents starting work at 9AM, who no longer have time to drop their kids off and still make it to their workplace.
How is changing the clock the only way to coordinate? Plenty of businesses have different hours at different times of the year. Also other countries do completely fine without DST.
It's functional and deliberate. Many people have to work and commuting, getting the kids ready, getting yourself ready means you need to be up early so you can get to work by 9AM. Sunlight in the morning is far more useful for the functioning world.
Most people don't have this problem though. Most functional people have to wake early to get everything ready for the day. So although there isn't a perfect system, for the vast majority of people having daylight in the morning would be ideal.
Most people begin work at 8AM. I know that probably isn't the norm on this Website of younger skewing skewing people that can make their won hours (that includes me!) but it's true for most the country. Also people with kids - you need to get them ready and off before you go to work. Sunlight is really useful for this.
Computer people probably skew heavily towards night owls and young people. They also probably go outside a lot less than average so I don't really care what their preference is. This is basically an argument of everybody wanting their preferred schedule to line up with maximum sun.
Cool, then show a study which shows what everyone's preference is, or stop antagonizing people-- whose opinions you yourself said you don't care about-- for having an opinion which differs from yours.
Preferably both, but the study which shows you are in the majority would be a great start.
There's your study. Having sunlight when people wake up is good. And if people pass stupid laws that make my life harder for it, I will bitch about it and antagonize them until they change them. Just like pretty much everybody else on this comment page.
I asked for a study which shows people would prefer more daylight in the mornings rather than evenings. Not everyone who gets to work early prefers daylight in the mornings. Some would like later evenings but also happen to get to work early, my mom being an example of it.
Once again, your opinion is just that, your opinion. It doesn't mean everyone else shares it.
Most people arrive at work between 7:45AM and 8:00AM. Which means they are up at 6-6:30 probably. Having some Sun during this time is nice for most people.
> Having some Sun during this time is nice for most people.
Is there a study that actually proves this? That people prefer daylight in the mornings when they're an early riser? I don't think they're as correlated as you and the other person are making it seem to be.
I think it’s the difference between high energy and low every people. Hugh energy people want to start the day actively and early. Low every and low-t people are looking for comfort and relaxation later in the day.
I don't really "get everything ready for the day". I need to take a shower, brush teeth and make coffee. It's your problem if you push everything to the morning.
Move south? Even in winter, there's some time with light left after 5. I guess this is washington catering to yankees again. I shouldn't lose light to accomodate some northerner.
Then shouldn't twilight be starting around 5:30am-6:15am? It seems this would contradict your claim that waking up at 5-6 requires you to spend a few hours in darkness every morning, right?
Huh, I lived in a suburb of Cleveland a few years back where everyone still was walking. Thought it would be more common in densely populated areas. Guess not.
Common in my Bay Area suburb. People will even sell their houses when their kids get to elementary school and pay half a million more to move a mile away, so that they don't have to deal with drop-off.
