Maggie Doherty in Harper’s Magazine:

On the morning of February 2, 2023, I exited the subway at 57th Street to find the air growing colder. It had been a warm winter. But the first proper cold front was moving in, and I already felt underdressed. I propelled myself toward the warmth of the Midtown Hilton, where the American Psychoanalytic Association (APsA, as it’s styled) was gathering for its winter meeting.

APsA has long been the institutional center of psychoanalysis in the United States. Founded in Baltimore in 1911 by, among others, Ernest Jones, Freud’s first biographer, its goals were to consolidate the profession and to standardize both training and treatment. Since then, the organization has overseen virtually every aspect of mainstream psychoanalysis in this country—research, education, and practice—and has resisted changes to many of its standards, casting a suspicious eye on analysts who proposed new ideas. In Psychoanalysis: The Impossible Profession, Janet Malcolm described APsA as having an “iron hold” over psychoanalysis in the United States.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Laura Tran in The Scientist:

Atrip to the grocery store is a sensory adventure, with aisles brimming with eye-catching packages designed to tempt shoppers. Each display promises a delicious and memorable food adventure. “We’ve all experienced this moment where we crave a specific food, even if we’re not physically hungry,” said Guillaume de Lartigue, a neuroscientist at the Monell Chemical Senses Center, who studies how the brain controls food intake.

Even a single whiff of fresh bread from a nearby bakery can evoke mouthwatering memories, instantly sparking hunger. This connection between memory and appetite led de Lartigue to wonder how memory centers in the brain influenced eating behavior and whether they contributed to obesity risk.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek and Peter Singer in the New York Times:

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Eric Drexler at AI Prospects: Toward Global Goal Alignment:

Today’s AI technologies are based on deep learning, yet “AI” is commonly equated with large language models, and the fundamental nature of deep learning and LLMs is obscured by talk of using “statistical patterns” to “predict tokens”. This token-focused framing has been a remarkably effective way to misunderstand AI.

The key concept to grasp is “latent space” (not statistics, or tokens, or algorithms). It’s representation and processing in “latent space” that are fundamental to today’s AI and to understanding future prospects. This article offers some orientation and perhaps some new perspectives.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Nicholas Smyth in The Hedgehog Review:

In recent decades, a paradox has haunted American political life. Given that political progressives wielded considerable political, economic, and cultural influence, how is it possible that our actual social order was so resistant to real change? Why did the black-white wealth gap remain unchanged, and why did economic inequality steadily increase?  Why did basic access to affordable housing plummet? And why has higher education become a nightmarish debt sentence for poor and underprivileged people seeking a better life?

Enter sociologist Musa Al-Gharbi and his important and troubling book, We Have Never Been Woke, which provides a startling answer: Too many self-described progressives aren’t actually progressive. Rather, their progressivism is simply a means to power and social status, conveniently forgotten when it conflicts with those real aims.  For those on the left seeking to formulate a positive vision in the wake of Trump’s recent victory, Al-Gharbi’s book may offer a valuable form of self-understanding, a guide to a less hypocritical and more socially effective politics.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Charlie English in The Guardian:

Mishra is a relative latecomer to the Palestinian cause. It was Israeli heroes, not Arabs, with whom he was infatuated as a boy growing up in India: he even had a picture on his wall of Moshe Dayan, Israel’s defence minister during the Six Day War. Conversion came during a 2008 visit to Israel-Palestine, where Mishra was shocked to witness the humiliations heaped on the inhabitants of the West Bank. “Nothing prepared me for the brutality and squalor of Israel’s occupation,” he writes, “the snaking wall and numerous roadblocks … meant to torment Palestinians in their own land … the racially exclusive network of shiny asphalt roads, electricity grids and water systems linking the illegal Jewish settlements to Israel.”

Crucially, he felt a strong racial bond with the Arabs. “Here,” he writes, “was a resemblance I could not deny.” They were “people who looked like me”. It is in this connection – their shared presence on the darker-skinned side of what WEB Du Bois identified as the “colour line” – that Mishra locates both his credentials and the origins of his critique. India had freed itself of western white supremacism, but the Palestianians “now endured a nightmare that I and my own ancestors had put behind us”.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Blake Morrison at The Guardian:

You’d think a sleep room would be cosy, but the one on Ward 5 of the Royal Waterloo hospital in London, back in the 1960s, was dark and airless, a twilight zone where up to six patients – almost always young women – would lie comatose on grey mattresses for weeks, even months on end. They had come in with schizophrenia, anorexia or, in a few cases, a youthful waywardness that their parents hoped could be cured. For William Sargant, the psychiatrist in charge, the cure lay not only in prolonged narcosis but insulin shock therapy, ECT and, if need be, lobotomy. Afterwards, the patients had no memory of what had been done to them. The Sargant method was to wipe their minds clean.

Celia Imrie, later a famous actor, was admitted to Ward 5 in 1966, when she was 14. To her it was “like being in a prison camp” and her recovery “owed nothing” to the “truly horrifying” Sargant and his “barbaric treatments”. Sara (not her real name) was a year older, just 15, and remembers the “hideous cocktail of drugs” that kept her in a zombified state.

more here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Dwight Garner at the NYT:

Once upon a time, during the last quarter of the 20th century, it was possible to argue that one person was America’s best novelist and best literary critic. I am talking about John Updike, whose long and elegant reviews in The New Yorker set reading agendas. Such was Updike’s influence that readers paid heed when, in the mid-1980s, he developed a sustained literary man-crush on the Peruvian writer Mario Vargas Llosa, who died on Sunday at 89.

More than once in his reviews of Vargas Llosa’s novels, Updike took note of the author’s handsomeness and urbanity. He was more impressed by Vargas Llosa’s substantial intelligence, his learning, his versatility and his imagination, which could conjure the comic fussiness of a tiny left-wing splinter group in solemn session, or the nauseated feelings of a young wife who discovers that her husband is gay, or the mixed feelings of a citified idealist engaging in a gun battle in the Andes while beset with altitude sickness. Vargas Llosa “has replaced Gabriel García Márquez” as the South American novelist North American readers must catch up on, Updike wrote in 1986, four years after García Márquez received the Nobel Prize in Literature and 24 years before Vargas Llosa himself would.

more here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Huang Yiping in Project Syndicate:

US President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” announcement of sweeping new tariffs on imports from more than 180 countries will be remembered as a man-made economic tsunami. Many are already comparing it to President Herbert Hoover’s 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which slashed global trade by 66% in five years and deepened the Great Depression. Trump’s tariffs – most of which have been abruptly paused for 90 days – have rattled financial markets, prompting analysts to warn that the United States could enter a recession in 2025.

The global implications can hardly be underestimated. As the world’s largest economy, the US has an outsize impact on other countries’ exports and growth. Adding to the uncertainty is Trump’s erratic approach to policymaking, which is nurturing doubts about the US dollar’s viability as a global reserve currency.

Even more alarmingly, as the US withdraws from its international commitments, the world risks falling into the “Kindleberger trap” – a scenario reminiscent of the 1930s, when no major power was able or willing to provide the global public goods necessary to sustain the world economy. If current trends persist, the international economic architecture the US helped build 80 years ago could unravel.

How should other economies respond to Trump’s tariffs?

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Quinn Slobodian in Boston Review:

In 2013 Charles Murray traveled to the Galápagos Islands to deliver an address to the Mont Pelerin Society—that font of neoliberalism, founded in 1947 by Friedrich Hayek. But Murray’s talk didn’t run through the usual neoliberal script: economic liberty, free trade, the genius of the entrepreneur. Instead, his subject was “the rediscovery of human nature and human diversity.” New discoveries in genetics, he argued, would induce “reversions to age-old understandings about the human animal” and undo “the intellectual eclipse of human nature and human diversity in the United States.” He welcomed these developments not only to fight the pernicious effects of what he called the “equality premise” but to better recognize and organize patterns of aptitude in a changing economy.

Though it’s not part of conventional wisdom about the ideological core of neoliberalism, this appeal to nature was a central part of neoliberal thought in the aftermath of the Cold War. Communism had died, but neoliberals feared Leviathan would live on. The poison of civil rights, feminism, affirmative action, and ecological consciousness—forged in the social movements of the 1960s and ’70s—had suffused the body politic, emboldening what they saw as an overbearing state and breeding an atmosphere of political correctness and “victimology,” which in turn stultified free discourse and nurtured a culture of government dependency and special pleading.

Neoliberals sought an antidote to all that, and they found one in hierarchies of gender, race, and cultural difference, which they imagined to be rooted in genetics as well as tradition. Meanwhile, changing demographics—an aging white population matched by an expanding nonwhite population—led some of them to rethink the conditions necessary for capitalism. Perhaps cultural homogeneity was a precondition for social stability, and thus the peaceful conduct of market exchange and enjoyment of private property?

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Kyle Chan over at his Substack High Capacity:

The ”China Shock” paper (actually a set of papers)1 sent shockwaves through the US political world when it was first released by a team of high-profile economists in January 2016. It estimated the US lost nearly 1 million manufacturing jobs from 1999 to 2011 due to a surge in Chinese imports starting around the time of China’s accession to the WTO in 2001.

The paper seemed to provide support for a growing narrative that trade—and specifically trade with China—was to blame for the decline of American manufacturing jobs. While this is not what the paper actually argued, its more nuanced findings were lost in much of the political debate. In November of that year, Donald Trump won the US presidential election for the first time and the rest is history.

Many American manufacturing jobs have indeed been lost to China. And many American families and communities have been devastated by the losses of these jobs. But the paper’s impact went far beyond its intended scope and illustrates the dangers of how research can be oversimplified and misused in public debates.

Even if you accept the paper’s estimate of nearly 1 million US manufacturing jobs lost to Chinese imports, this needs to be seen in the context of a much bigger structural shift in the US economy that has been taking place since the end of World War II. For decades, the US has been moving away from manufacturing jobs and toward service sector jobs. While rising Chinese imports did contribute to the loss of some US manufacturing jobs, it was far from the main cause.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Corey Robin in Sidecar:

Tariff, Donald Trump has said, ‘is the most beautiful word in the dictionary’. He won’t be pleased to learn that it comes from Arabic. Ta‘rīf is a notification; ‘arrafa means to make known. Despite his many notifications, Trump hasn’t really made known why he’s imposing the tariffs – or why, as of Wednesday, he has put a pause on them. Trumpologists believe they know. Trump hates the rules-based international order. He loves the masculinity of manufacturing. He hopes to trade access to American markets for devaluations of the dollar. He needs revenue to pay for his tax cuts. He wants better deals and lower trade deficits. Cruelty is the point. With Trump, anything is possible, so everything is plausible. What’s undeniable is that he has tapped a vein, long thought buried, that can still explode with a force like no other.

Tariffs occupy an outsized place in the American imagination. The first proposal entertained by Congress was a tariff. The slaveholding South first pondered secession, in 1832, over a tariff. After the Civil War, Republicans declared the tariff ‘the foundationstone’ of their crusade against the Democrats. In 1896, William McKinley ran on the slogan ‘Protection and Prosperity’. In 1930, Herbert Hoover destroyed whatever chance he had at reelection for the sake of the tariff. Teddy Roosevelt caught the crazed drift of the country when he declared that, in any discussion of the tariff, ‘I am not meeting a material need but a mental attitude.’

The tariff is a proxy for other people’s poison.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Liam Shaw in LRB:

The pain​ of toothache arrives long after the damage has been done. The process begins when bacteria in the mouth turn sugars from our food into acid, which etches the tooth’s enamel, allowing the bacteria to penetrate further. Only when they hit the nerve bundles at the tooth’s pulpy core does the sufferer become aware – all too painfully aware – of their predicament. Dental pain comes in pulsing waves, seemingly synchronised with every beat of the heart. Once bacteria have penetrated into the tooth, they release gases that swell the pulp, compounding the pain. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy cites toothache as one of two examples of natural evil (the other is hurricanes).

Many ancient cultures blamed tooth worms. The Roman physician Scribonius recommended fumigation with smoke from poisonous henbane seeds placed on hot coals. Any worms that succumbed to the treatment were to be spat out. In his history of teeth, Bite, the zoologist Bill Schutt tells us that the fumes would at least have dulled the patient’s pain by giving them a noxious high. Belief in tooth worms persisted across the centuries. A carved ivory tooth from 18th-century France opens to reveal a battle being waged within: club-wielding humans fighting a demonic worm on top of a pile of skulls.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Rafia Zakaria in Dawn:

THE world is angry — and in most places, women bear the brunt of this anger. This International Women’s Day, the latest report by UN Women states that one in four countries in the world reported a backlash on gender rights in 2024.

Over the past decade, the number of women living in conflict zones has surged by 50 per cent, while women’s rights defenders face daily threats, violence, and even death. In the US, the backlash has taken the form of laws restricting reproductive healthcare and banning diversity and equality programmes that could enhance women’s representation. In India, violence against women has risen from 56.3 cases per 100,000 women in 2014 to 66.4 in 2022. Unsurprisingly, the numbers from Pakistan — ranked second to last in the Gender Gap Index 2024, just above Sudan — are dismal. A 2024 report by the Sustainable Social Development Organisation (SSDO) reveals that while globally 30pc of women face violence, in Pakistan, 90pc of women have experienced violence in their lifetime.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.