John's blog

Genetic disease or infectious disease?

Matt Ridley, writing in the Wall Street Journal, reports on the increased focus on pathogens as a cause of disease:

"The virus implicated in multiple sclerosis is called HERV-Fc1, a bizarre beast called an "endogenous" retrovirus. What this means is that its genes are part of the human genome. For millions of years, they have been integrated into our own DNA and passed on by normal heredity. It was one of the shocks of genomic science to find that the human genome contains more retroviral than "human" genes: some 5% to 8% of the entire genome.

Normally, the genes of endogenous retroviruses remain dormant, but—a bit like a computer virus that springs into action on a trigger—something wakes them up sometimes, and actual viruses are made from them, which then infect other cells in the body. The Danish scientists suggest that this is what happens in multiple sclerosis. Bjørn Nexø of Aarhus University writes that "retroviral infections often develop into running battles between the immune system and virus, with the virus mutating repeatedly to avoid the immune system, and the immune system repeatedly catching up. One can see the episodic nature of multiple sclerosis as such a running battle."

The possibility that you can inherit the genes of a virus blurs the distinction between a genetic and an infectious disease. 

The viruses have embedded themselves in our DNA.  Kind of freaky, right?

On the other hand, when was it ever different?  Mitochondria, the power plant of the cell, has its own DNA.  Before it got swallowed by a cell and played nice, it used to be independent bacteria a long, long, long time ago.

The difference between ancient and modern warfare

A long-time reader and member of the Army sent me an email on PTSD, and I'm including it in full because it's quite thoughtful.

John,

First I would like to say that I am a huge fan of Hunter-Gatherer. I found your blog when I first got into a paleo lifestyle over a year ago, and have always found your perspective on health and social issues to be informative and thought provoking. Recently, however, I was concerned by your post concerning Alexander the Great.

I found your dismissal of the possibility that Alexander was psychologically affected by his wartime experience to be troubling. I am an Infantry officer in the Army, and am currently preparing for my first deployment to Afghanistan. In the past 4+ years of training, both in ROTC and on Active-Duty, there has been a considerable focus on the effects of war and trauma on soldiers' mental function. The Army has spent considerable time preparing its newest leaders to deal with those effects both personally, and to help their soldiers. One of the biggest lessons they have given us is that PTSD can affect anyone, no matter their experience level. Yes, habituation and training can prepare the individual, and in fact the Army uses highly realistic training to inoculate soldiers to horrific wounds (http://www.militarymoulage.com/). However, nothing can prepare an individual for the reality of a combat situation, a fact which causes nervousness in all us unblooded soldiers. Also, previous experience of combat cannot inure someone to future stress. You need only to look at the currently developing story of the recent tragic killings in Afghanistan to see that. The accused Staff Sergeant was on his fourth combat deployment, and had received training as a sniper (traditionally a job that requires dissociation from emotion in combat) Link here. The specific events which can trigger PTSD, or other psychological trauma, are not always foreseeable.

In regards to the warriors of Greece I suggest you look at the Sophocles play Ajax. It has been performed recently around the country as part of a project called The Theater of War (Ajax). This play, written by a former Greek General, in the 5th Century B.C. depicts the psychological breakdown of a legendary Greek of the Trojan War after his friend Achilles dies. The project puts this play on in front of military audiences, and then opens a dialogue about the effects of war on the psyche which include the audience. Even in the era of perennial warfare faced by the Greeks at the time of Sophocles' writing the great warriors seem to have had psychological problems stemming from their combat experience. 

I am motivated to write to you because I believe your blog is an important resource with an audience who listens to your viewpoints. I think it is dangerous, and even irresponsible, to broadcast such a broad dismissal of the possibility that experienced warriors can have PTSD. The stigma of mental health problems, and the unwillingness to seek help, are obstacles the military is working hard to overcome since we have been at war these past eleven years. Anyone can be affected by PTSD, and simply being aware of that fact makes our armed forces better prepared to deal with the fallout of their experiences.

Thank you for your time. I hope that you will consider what I have written. I continue to enjoy your writing, and I believe you are doing a good job of showing new perspectives on important issues of psychology, health, fitness and society.

Respectfully,

Lane Pratt

I agree with Lane on a lot of points, so let me clarify my stance.  I'm not saying that great warriors can't be affected by violence.  I'm not saying that "real men" don't get PTSD.  I was trying to make a specific point to illustrate a general point.

The specific point was that Alexander the Great's change in mood has a far simpler and more coherent explanation than PTSD.  Alexander wanted to keep killing his enemies.  His soldiers mutinied.  Then he got vindictive and irritable.  Sounds like he wanted to keep killing his enemies.

I'm reminded of this quote by Genghis Khan:

“The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.”

I see no reason to doubt him.

The broader point I was attempting to convey is that PTSD is probably more common today than it was in the past precisely because we have increasingly deactivated some of the key psychological adaptations that make humans so murderous.

Homo sapiens is a naturally violent species.  Hunter-gatherers kill a lot.  Herder-farmers kill a lot.  Heck, chimpanzees kill a lot.  It would be odd if humans didn't have psychological adaptations to be fully capable of killing.  As I mentioned in my Alexander post, two of those faculties are exposure and dehumanization.  I'm sorry, but playing Call of Duty, watching Transformers, or even undergoing basic training just aren't the same as actually hacking off people's limbs with a sword from a fairly young age -- and being encouraged to revel in it.  Furthermore, it's just not acceptable to dehumanize our enemies as much as was done in the past.

That's moral progress.

At the same time, we've made it psychologically more difficult for soldiers to deal with combat because they aren't as accustomed to violence, know that they're fighting other humans (not vermin), and face unprecedented constraints on their behavior towards the enemy (a tacit acknowledgement of their humanity).

Lane's reply:

"I think that today's society is in many ways preferable to the violent lives of our ancestors. Being more susceptible to PTSD might be one of the costs our society pays for a generally peaceful existence."

I agree.

For (star) dust you are...

The most astounding fact about the universe, as told by Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

Thanks to Bryan for the link.

Trends and predictions

I pay close attention to social trends, and you've probably noticed many of these themes in my links and posts.  Anyhow, I thought I would share some trends and predictions a bit more explicitly.  Note that I'm not claiming these are novel observations.

Health

  • More and more mysterious conditions will be tied to pathogens.
  • The rise in antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria and new viruses will be the most serious threats to human health over the coming decades.
  • The rise in resistant or virulent strains of disease will cause a political shift in favor of conservative politicians and values.  Their decline will cause a shift in favor of liberal politicians and values.
  • The rise in personal measurement (and genomics) will continue to disappoint, as people realize that motivating good behavior is a harder problem than understanding bad behavior.

Education

  • There is an enormous bubble in higher education.  Students have been incurring huge debt, completing relatively worthless majors, and generally don't seem to be working very hard or learning very much.  Much of the value of higher education comes from signaling to employers your IQ and personality traits (diligence, conformity).  The biggest bubble is in law school.  Unless you really want to be a lawyer or can get into a good law school, don't go.
  • Schools, curriculum, and teaching methods have been structured in a way that don't motivate men.  You will eventually see a new type of male-focused instruction that uses more examples from war and sports, is more team-oriented, and encourages competition between teams.  Those who do not thrive under this approach will have plenty of alternatives.
  • Homeschooling will continue to rise, particularly as online learning improves.

The Environment

  • We are rapidly shifting from a world in which many people feared over-population, to a world in which many people fear shrinking populations.  As the population shrinks and new technologies create more digital goods, developed economies will hit "peak stuff".  We will realize that our social structures evolved to work well under conditions of consistent growth, but work poorly during population contraction.  Talk of over-population will seem as quaint and silly as Y2K (actually, it already is).
  • While concentrations of C02 have risen over the last few hundred years, as has the temperature by a modest amount, this in no way suggests that cutting carbon emissions is the cost-effective way to save human lives or protect the environment.  Solar, nuclear, and maybe some unforeseen technology will eventually be cost-effective if we motivate austistic and semi-austistic minds to work on the problem and don't burden them with regulations.

The Economy

  • The long-term success of our economy will depend on a relatively small number of major breakthroughs in technology, and these will come from a relatively miniscule number of autistic and semi-autistic minds.  (This was not as true in the past.)
  • We will eventually force monopolistic rules systems (called "governments") to compete more aggressively on the quality of their rules.

Sexual Dynamics

  • We are nearing peak misandry (hatred of men or boys).  More people are waking up to the fact that our nation's divorce and custody laws are wildly biased in favor of women, create incentives for women to divorce, and cause men to douse themselves in gasoline and light themselves on fire in protest.  Men will increasingly choose to opt out of a raw deal.  People will start to notice misandry in a lot of places.  For example, Obamacare -- a remarkably sexist bill that shows consistent favoritism towards women -- has an entire section devoted to breast cancer, but not a single mention of prostate cancer.
  • Female hypergamy and the nature of female sexuality will be understood as the driving force of sexual dynamics.  Women are the gate-keepers of sex, and so whatever type of men women reward, that's the type of men society is going to get.
  • Women's bargaining power in the sexual marketplace -- on the rise for half a century -- will be undermined by the rise of even more realistic forms of pornography, and more men will find the infinite variety of electronic "girlfriends" to be more satisfying than engaging with real women -- unless they want to have kids.  Other forms of changes in norms, technology, laws will keep the sexual marketplace from attaining an equilibrium for the foreseeable future.

Where am I wrong?  What did I miss?

Act of Shame

After recent posts praising Act of Valor for its portrayal of American soldiers and ridiculing the notion that Alexander the Great had PTSD  -- both positions that I stand by -- I feel that I should also post about the recent massacre in Afghanistan.

"Sixteen Afghan civilians, including nine children, were shot dead in what witnesses described as a nighttime massacre on Sunday near a U.S. base in southern Afghanistan, and one U.S. soldier was in custody."

They are looking into what may have caused the American soldier to go on the rampage, including PTSD or some other kind of traumatic brain injury.

While individual soldiers may snap and do terrible things, I tend to take a slightly different point of view.  I view massacres as the historical norm during wartime, not the exception.  As the Milgrim experiment showed, ordinary people are quite capable of inflicting harm on innocent people.  I view brutal massacres as a reversion to the norm.

War is a terrible thing.

Frosting shots and a fight to the death

Long-time reader Pablo sends me this article on a little-known menu item at Sprinkles: frosting shots.

"The shots come in mini-paper cups, and are pretty hefty — about 2-3 ounces. The frosting is, in fact, so thick that you can hold the shot upside without anything falling out— kinda like a Dairy Queen Blizzard.

It is the perfect size for frosting addicts..."

Yes, kinda like a Dairy Queen Blizzard.  Or the filling of a Twinkie.  Of course, no upper class person would be caught dead eating a Twinkie or coo'ing over a Dairy Queen Blizzard.

Sprinkles is the same evil mastermind behind the 24-Hour Cupcake Machine, which threatens the very fabric of Western Civilization.  Perhaps Project Cupcake Batter will get more respect if I model it on the efforts of José Bové, the French farmer who attacked the corporatist incursion of McDonald's into France and went to jail for actually destroying a McDonald's.  Lesson learned: I was being too nice.

I don't think people realize how deadly serious I am.  I have a mortal enemy for all eternity: gourmet cupcakes.  And it is a fight to the death.

Here's the final duel from Rob Roy.  I'll let you figure out which character represents me and which one represents gourmet cupcakes, lethal beneath its frippery.

"No quarter will be asked."

"Or given."

Crows, ravens, and sardines

Commenter "jay jay" adds some background on the etymology of "as the crow flies":

I’ve been reading your blog for close to a year, and I thoroughly enjoy it!  First time to comment, though.  ... First, the “as the crow flies” thing.  I’m a bit of a bird nerd, and a lot of folks think that saying originated in describing the differences between ravens and crows.  Looking at them side by side, it is extremely difficult to tell them apart.  Ravens have slightly larger beaks, and shorter tails, but that’s it.   But when they fly, it is immediately obvious.  The crow does indeed fly in near straight lines, with little wasted effort.  Ravens, however, dip up and down, circle, twist, turn, and basically do anything BUT fly in a straight line.

You learn something new every day.

And one other thing I wanted to thank you for.  I was inspired by your Sardine Sunday post to finally try some. I struggled looking at them for a few days until I finally took the plunge. I had my first meal for lunch today.  I dumped them in a salad with vinaigrette and some Greek olives.  And you know what, they were awesome!  Not very fishy at all, and quite satisfying.  They are going into my weekly rotation!

A profitable exchange.

As the crow flies

"As the crow flies" is an idiom used to indicate the direct linear distance between Point A and Point B.  The implication is that this crow-distance is shorter and more direct than the human-distance, the distance a human would have to travel to get from point A to point B due to hills and gullies, mountains and valleys.  Of course, crows don't fly in exactly straight lines.  Birds ride the wind, which has its own topography -- just one that is invisible to us.

Each species has its own geography, its own topography, its own shortest routes from Point A to Point B, its own species-distance.  An island may only be a mile away from me, but if I can't cross the water to get to the island, its human-distance is infinite.  But its bird-distance is short.  I would expect that bird brains evolved to experience near and far in a very different way than human brains.

Imagine a set of geographical maps organized by proximity according to how that species moves: humans, crows, fish, insects, flying squirrels.  These maps get really weird when you start thinking about pathogens.  Pathogen-distance creates completely alien topographies that our minds are not well-designed to grasp.  The entire universe changes shape.  What is near and far to a microbe?

Perhaps it should come as no surprise that most people can't conceptualize the topography of our actual universe, which lies outside the realm of human evolutionary experience.

Did Alexander the Great suffer from PTSD? No.

It was 4 AM the other night -- naturally, I found myself reading about Alexander the Great on Wikipedia.  I started to read about Cleitus the Black, one of Alexander's commanders who saved his life in an early battle.  After many of the conquests, Alexander gave Cleitus an assignment that he didn't want, Cleitus gave Alexander a piece of his mind, they got into a drunken fight, and Alexander stuck a lance threw Cleitus and killed him.

Then I read this:

"In all of the four major texts we possess, it is shown that Alexander grieved greatly for the death of Cleitus. His grief could be genuine or contrived. Cleitus was a member of the generation of Philip II and Alexander had been systematically killing off that generation to keep his generation in power. Alexander may have genuinely not wanted to kill Cleitus, making it possible that this was one of many examples of post-traumatic stress disorder."

Say what?  So I google PTSD and "Alexander the Great" and find this site (full article here):

"Alexander the Great (356-323 BCE): At the age of 22, Alexander crossed the Hellespont with an army of just over 30,000 men to conquer the “known world.” After 10 years of bloody battle, enduring near-fatal wounds and seeing legions of comrades perish, Alexander subjugated the Persian Empire of Darius III, becoming “Lord of Asia.” Upon reaching Western India, Alexander’s exhausted troops refused to march further, forcing him to return to his new capital at Babylon. During his return from India, Alexander began to experience disturbing changes in his character. The once brave, adventurous, adaptable, ingenious and considerate leader drove his army through the Gardosian Desert, where two-thirds of his troops perished from dehydration, starvation and hypothermia. Alexander then began executing lieutenants and satraps who had served him as middle managers of the empire during his conquests to the east.  Alexander spent the last months of his life drinking heavily and had become pathologically suspicious and easily alarmed."

You can't possibly be serious.  PTSD in Alexander the Great?  Spare me.  Are you to have me believe that one of the most militaristic, aggressive, and successful warriors of all time was...traumatized by his conquests?

If Alexander was unhappy or anxious, it's probably because his conquering days were over.  That is to say, his symptoms were the result of too little violence, not too much.  A life of not subduing your enemies is just soooooo boring.  Look, if someone is used to regular surges of status and prestige -- from, say, conquering every enemy you've ever faced -- and suddenly that goes away, then you probably get a little irritable.  It's widely known that Alexander wanted to keep conquering, but he faced a mutiny by his soldiers, who wanted to party, have sex, and be rich.

You also probably don't take it kindly when subordinates disagree with you publicly, especially when you're drunk.  And if that subordinate also happens to be someone who saved your life in battle, then you probably mourn him heavily when you sober up.  As for paranoia -- powerful alphas have always been paranoid, and justifiably so!  They usually faced repeated challenges to their power.  Alpha male mustangs get far less sleep than non-alphas during their season or two in charge, since they are guarding the females and fending off threats.  It takes a physical toll.

What this author doesn't seem to realize is that Homo sapiens is a naturally violent species, particularly the males.  Needless to say, that doesn't make it morally right -- but it doesn't make a lot of sense to pathologize species-typical behavior.  And if your goal is to reduce violence, then you're probably better off having a realistic view of human nature and actually try to understand how it works.

Here's an alternative hypothesis for PTSD.  Imagine you're a pig farmer -- you probably don't lose any sleep from slaughtering those pigs.  Now imagine you've never seen anything die in your entire life and you step into a slaughtering house -- pretty traumatizing, right?  People in past ages were completely desensitized to violence and death.  Plus, here's how the human mind copes with violence: by dehumanizing enemies to the point where they are vermin or inhuman, and thus can be wiped out without losing any sleep.  If you deactivate this dehumanizing mental module, it probably becomes more traumatizing to kill other people.

The author also describes alleged symptoms of PTSD in Captain James Cook, Florence Nightingale, and Emily Dickinson.  What a list.  Here is the entry for Emily Dickinson, the great poet:

"Emily Dickinson spent virtually her entire life in Amherst, Massachusetts, sheltered from the outside world among her socially prominent family. As a child, she was "one of the wittiest girls in [her] school, a self-proclaimed free spirit," and by the time she reached her middle teens, she was brimming with self-confidence, exclaiming, "I am growing handsome very fast indeed! I expect I shall be the belle of Amherst when I reach my 17th year. I don't doubt that I shall have perfect crowds of admirers at that age." However, in <2 years, she underwent a striking metamorphosis, retreating into the world of a recluse. An accumulation of PTEs coincided with her withdrawal from society and might have precipitated the change in behavior.

During her 14th year, there were the deaths of four intimates in rapid succession, whose funerals she was forced to attend. One of these deaths was that of a cousin of the same age, Sophia Holland, into whose room Dickinson stole moments after the girl died; Dickinson reportedly remained staring transfixed into her dead cousin's face "until others pulled her away." During this same time, Dickinson developed intermittent fever, cough, and possibly hemoptysis, which would plague her for decades and force her to withdraw from Mount Holyoke College at age 17. Her mother had a similar illness that relatives feared was hereditary. Emily was her mother's primary caregiver for nearly three decades.

In the late 1850s, Dickinson began secluding herself from most social contact, refusing to come downstairs even to meet close friends, no longer attending church, fleeing from the room or from the garden at the approach of outsiders, meeting visitors at the foot of the backstairs by moonlight alone, conducting conversations from behind an ajar door or screen, and permitting her doctor to examine her only by observing while seated in the next room as she walked by an open door. At age 35, she began to recover, to become more interactive socially, and to write poems less morbid than the earlier ones for which she is remembered. She died at age 56, most likely of hypertension complicated by a massive stroke."

Alexander the Great and Emily Dickinson.  PTSD.  You've got to be f***ing kidding me.  This is probably the dumbest social science that I have ever read in my entire life.  I find it hard to imagine how someone with a functioning brain could actually believe this drivel.

Act of Valor

I recently saw Act of Valor.  Thought it was awesome.

Since it's shot with active duty Navy SEALs, not professional actors, the dialogue is a little stilted in places.  But that's more than made up for by the use of real military language.  A lot of the scenes could only be shot once, so it's cool to watch it from a "live action" perspective.  And they're all based on real missions, and they string them together in a plausible fashion.

A few observations:

  • The end of the river mission is just awesome...that overwhelming firepower...and those shots from above -- so, so cool
  • Notice the insult to Hollywood -- a brief shoutout to alleged confessed pedophile-rapist-director Roman Polanski
  • If I were a hedge fund experimenting with funding movies, I would fund movies like this one.  Hollywood is so insular and ideological (I say that dispassionately, as a matter of fact) that it blinds itself to massive profit potential in movies that do not denigrate America and American values.  If you don't think this could happen, imagine if hipster indie rockers controlled the entire music industry.  Do you think any country albums would get made?  No. They'd be constitutionally incapable of doing it.
  • It was awesome to see a portrayal of American soldiers that did not portray them as mentally disturbed or sadistic, which is how Hollywood usually portrays them.
  • Check out the difference between the critics rating and the moviegoer rating at Rotten Tomatoes.  25% of critics liked it; 85% of the audience liked it.  Again, imagine if a bunch of hipsters rated one of the top country music albums. It would be like fingernails on a chalkboard.  Different personality traits.
  • Can't say that I'm the crying type, but this is the type of movie that brings me close.

Then I came home to one of my roommates watching The Real Housewives of Orange County.  I don't recommend that.

Anyhow, if you think you might like Act of Valor, you most likely will.

Project Cupcake Batter

The other day I linked to a 24-hour gourmet cupcake machine opening in Beverly Hills.  Long-time readers know why gourmet cupcakes are evil, and are aware of my long-standing war on gourmet cupcakes.

Well, it's time for some special ops.  Here is the facebook page for 24-Hour Sprinkles.  It's time to ridicule, shame, and ostracize these high-end sugar-holics.  So go to their page and let 24-Hour Sprinkles know what you think.  

Here was my first comment:

John - "This is a harbinger of the End of Days."

James - "Yep"

24 Hour Sprinkles - "We can't wait to see you in a few days when 24-Hour Sprinkles starts dispensing freshly baked cupcakes!"

Apparently, they're going to kill us with kindness.

A few ground rules:

  • No vulgarity or profane language
  • Don't insult people
  • Don't spam (such as posting 50 comments in a row)
  • Be funny, teasing, honest, mocking....stuff like that
  • I recommend teasing the women and teasing/shaming the men (there's a double standard when it comes to shaming)
  • The funnier you are, the more you can get away with
  • The facebook page probably has low traffic, so it may be better to comment on existing threads of the most obnoxious commenters
  • Don't forget to like the comments of people on our side

Here are some ideas:

  • So this is like a cigarette machine for cupcakes, right?
  • Twinkies for rich people!
  • OMG, I think I have a GF who got mugged there!!!
  • Is it true that you stock the machine with your day-old cupcakes?
  • I hope there's a 24-hour toothbrush dispenser
  • Decadence.  [They'll think it's a positive comment]
  • Dude, get a grip [to a man]
  • [Post a study on oxytocin and comfort food]
  • Could you please talk about the hygiene of the machine?
  • I heard the machine is a old retrofitted 24-hour kielbasa dispenser
  • If only they had a 24-hour cat dispenser!  LOL!!!!!!!!
  • If only they had a 24-hour boyfriend dispenser!  LOL!!!!!!!!
  • If only they had a 24-hour husband dispenser!  :(
  • Does your employer know you post comments in gourmet cupcake forums during company time?
  • Gourmet cupcakes go right to my hips, but I luv them anyway! haha LOL!!! [to a girl]

Honor, respect, and status for the funniest messages you post.  They're probably going to take them down at some point, so make sure you remember what you said or take screen shots if it's really that good.

Have at it.

Syndicate content