Blog

Some feet. Original drawing is shown in upper left over Midjourney’s version.

The dangerous rift between open and classified research. #

By Kate Brown

In 1987, a year after the Chernobyl accident, the US Health Physics Society met in Columbia, Maryland. Health physicists are scientists who are responsible for radiological protection at nuclear power plants, nuclear weapons plants, and hospitals. They are called on in cases of nuclear accidents. The conference’s keynote speaker came from the Department of Energy (DOE); the title of his talk drew on a sports analogy: “Radiation: The Offense and the Defense.” Switching metaphors to geopolitics, the speaker announced to the hall of nuclear professionals that his talk amounted to “the party line.” The biggest threat to nuclear industries, he told the gathered professionals, was not more disasters like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island but lawsuits. After the address, lawyers from the Department of Justice (DOJ) met in break-out groups with the health physicists to prepare them to serve as “expert witnesses” against claimants suing the US government for alleged health problems due to exposure from radio­activity issued in the production and testing of nuclear weapons during the Cold War. That’s right: the DOE and the DOJ were preparing private citizens to defend the US government and its corporate contractors as they ostensi­bly served as “objective” scientific experts in US courts.

What is the debate? 🥊 #

According to epidemiological studies,¹ the threshold for BMI is 20–21 kg m^-2.

💥 yet 💥

We envision a world where BMI does not exist, and is not replaced with another size-based, anti-fat measure of health.²

What is the impulse behind movements like Health At Every Size² and Intuitive Eating³?

Shape of the motivating story 🎭 #

Suppose I have depression 😟. The only thing that fills that void in my heart is ice cream 🍨. If I don’t eat ice cream, I will kill myself 🪓. On the other hand, if I do eat ice cream, I might gain weight 🎈. Which option would you rather I pick? 🗳️

...

Introduction #

A complex array of motivations drives dishonesty. They include: financial gain, self-preservation, social approval, ethical dilemmas, cognitive biases, and fear of punishment. Men are often more dishonest than women.¹ Cultural and social factors also shape attitudes towards honesty.²

Dishonesty in a relationship creates several challenges:

• Erosion of trust: Trust is a fundamental building block of any healthy relationship. When one party in the relationship is dishonest, it erodes the trust that the relationship has amassed over time. Rebuilding trust can be a long and difficult process.
• Emotional toll: Being lied to or discovering dishonesty can be emotionally devastating. It can lead to feelings of betrayal, hurt, anger, and insecurity. Coping with these emotions can be exhausting and challenging, making it difficult to move forward in the relationship.
• Communication breakdown: Open and honest communication is essential in any relationship. When dishonesty is present, it disrupts communication because it is hard to know what to believe or how to address the issue.
• Questioning reality: When someone is consistently dishonest, it can make their partner question their own perception of reality. This gaslighting effect can be mentally and emotionally destabilizing.
• Fear of recurrence: Once dishonesty shatters trust, a lingering fear may remain that it will happen again. This fear can be a barrier to true emotional intimacy and can lead to ongoing stress and anxiety in the relationship.
• Decision-making dilemmas: When dishonesty comes to light, individuals in the relationship may face difficult decisions. They must consider whether they can forgive, rebuild trust, and move forward, or if it’s best to end the relationship altogether. These decisions can be complex and emotionally fraught.

To explore different ways to address dishonesty, imagine a fictional scenario. Suppose Alice and Bob are in a relationship. Alice got pregnant via Bob but tells Bob that she isn’t pregnant. Carlos is Alice’s platonic friend. There are a variety of ways that Bob and Carlos can address Alice’s dishonesty.

The math is way over my head, but I appreciate hearing from the guy that proposed Twistor theory.

Start with this short version:

Or

Here’s a longer interview:

This article was published in PARTS & SELF magazine and is reprinted here verbatim.

Richard Schwartz derived the Internal Family Systems (IFS) method through clinical experience. While many reports of positive outcomes attest to the method’s validity, IFS is seen by some as a somewhat separate and niche approach within the broader field of psychology. One way of placing IFS in a historical context is to look for theories of psychological evolution that hinge on the differentiation of Parts from a mono-mind. The Bicameral Mind Theory, advanced by Julian Jaynes, is one such theory. This controversial and unconventional theory is outlined in his book “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind” (published in 1976).

Original in de Volkskrant published 21 Oct 2023

By Anneke Stoffelen

A message from ‘ice man’ Wim Hof, this spring on Instagram: ‘Don’t worry about your fears. Embrace them!’ In the video you see the 64-year-old wellness guru stepping into an apparently icy lake in front of a brown rock. His gray hair drips in wet strands over his shoulders. “The fear of cold is logical,” says Wim Hof’s voice in the voiceover, while on screen he blows out short bursts of air above the water surface. “But if you do the breathing first, you will see that the fear disappears.”

I did a live demo of Internal Family Systems for the Church of Sacred Synthesis.

You may need to be a member to view the recording.

I wish I had known this in the 1990s.

Sapolsky, R. M. (2023). Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will. Penguin Press.

The Origins Podcast interview