|
|
|
|
|
by kbajorin
4638 days ago
|
|
You've missed the point. This is not about those that live healthy lives as nightowls, but those that do not. Can we attenuate the differences among the owls to figure out why some are unhealthy and others are not. Furthermore, can we figure out the attributes that larks have, that on the whole seem to make them healthier than owls. Then, maybe we can adjust the lifestyles of the unhealthy larks to have them lead a healthier life. |
|
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?