Larry Young just published his Tedx talk on pair bonding. It’s very accessible to the so-called intelligent layman; it sets out the current dogma on the reward/addiction framework for thinking about attachment (addiction) and separation/grief (withdrawal).
Page 2 of 20
As a follow up to my paranoia about Obama’s BRAIN initiative last month, I thought I’d compile some cool robot videos showing that DARPA is moving us closer to Star Wars – the movie – every day; that’s why allowing them to be the majority funder of BRAIN should have elicited a tad more cynicism from the mainstream press than it did.
If the results stand up, they provide intriguing evidence that “emotional eating” binges may be just the opposite – efforts to turn off emotion. Have people who binge eat after distressing experiences stumbled upon a hypothalamic emergency brake?
The NYT has a loving and heart-warming replica of Watson’s letter describing the discovery of DNA to his 12 year old son in 1953. To say something nice about it, it’s amazing to see what a good teacher Watson was – he describes the double-helix, first-time out, from a standing start, better than it is usually described by professional educators in high school and college. What’s even more amazing and heart-warming is that Watson completely forgets to mention Rosalind Franklin to his son. You know, Rosalind Franklin…the Jewish woman chemist who took the x-ray diffraction picture of DNA that led directly to Watson’s theory? Never heard of her? Riiiiiiiiiight.
As I brought up last week, we should watch the merging of DOD and NIH monies in the pursuit of neuroscience research. Here’s an article on one use the Pentagon may want to put all this research to: “Pentagon to build robots with real brains.” As a side note, this seems far-fetched.
If you don’t think there aren’t a few neocons salivating at the thought of future fleets of American neurosoldiers cutting through the Mongol hordes, you haven’t been watching enough House of Cards. DARPA’s got skin – big skin – in this game for a reason. Visions of neuroweaponry are dancing through at least some of their heads. Isn’t it time to ask some questions about it? America’s just flubbed two wars, at incredible expense, in which overconfidence in DARPA weaponry played a huge role. Let’s find out exactly what their thinking about the BRAIN initiative is, and how this military-scientific collaboration is supposed to play out. And let’s hope that we don’t have a new challenge on our hands – to keep not only weapons out of the wrong hands, but the wrong heads. And let’s follow their mission statement and funding patterns closely over the years. NYT, what do you say? Want to give cynicism a shot? I’ve heard it’s something that reporters – and even Presidents – used to do.
Yesterday I posted that the White House’s upcoming BRAIN initiative was conceptually incoherent, and I snarkily implied the NYT needed some science-fiction checkers for its overly credulous reporting of what we could expect out of the initiative.
What a difference a day makes! In an article today they write: “the new initiative… has, as yet, no clearly defined goals or endpoint. Coming up with those goals will be up to the scientists involved and may take more than year.”