Posts Tagged ‘sex’
“Touch has a memory”*…
… and, as Ariel Bleicher explains in her report on the work of neurobiologst David Ginty, so much more…
Like many proud parents, David Ginty (opens a new tab) has decorated his office with pictures of his genetic creations. There’s the prickly one sporting a spiked collar and the wannabe cowboy twirling a lasso. There’s the dramatic one, always reacting to the slightest provocation; the observant one that notices every detail; the golden child Ginty loves to boast about. “They’re like a family,” he said. “Each one has its own quirks and individual characteristics.”
They’re not really a family and, anyway, they’re not his children. They have evolved over millions of years to give humans and other mammals an interface with the physical world around us. But Ginty, who heads the neurobiology department at Harvard Medical School, has been studying this quirky cast of characters — the sensory neurons of touch — for more than two decades, and has gotten to know them better than anyone else ever has. He has learned their electrical language and what forces excite them, and charted their intricate paths into the skin and up to the brain. And, through feats of genetic engineering and chemical labeling, he has produced the colorful portraits on his walls.
“David Ginty is the emperor of touch,” said Alexander Chesler, a sensory neuroscientist at the National Institutes of Health…
… Beyond the technical breakthroughs and the discoveries fit for biology textbooks, it’s the images that stick in his colleagues’ minds. They’re otherworldly, like deep-sea creatures — not at all what you might imagine neurons could look like. These strangely shaped cells are the reason why the experience of touch is so rich and multifaceted — why a buzzing cell phone feels different from a warm breeze or a lover’s caress, from raindrops or a mother’s kiss. To realize that your body is covered in them — that they are a part of you — takes your breath away.
“Each one of these neurons tells a story,” Ginty said. “Each one has a structure that is unique and responds to different things. It’s all about form underlying function. That’s where the beauty is.”
Scientists and philosophers have been enamored with touch for centuries. Aristotle believed that humans’ tactile abilities eclipsed those of all other species, which partially accounted for our superior intelligence. However, we now know that creatures as diverse as sea lions, spiders and star-nosed moles can feel features of the physical world that are imperceptible to us. Yet Aristotle wasn’t wrong to view touch as exceptional.
Of all the senses, the somatosensory system is the most complex, and therefore touch, some researchers argue, is the most difficult to study. Vision and hearing, for instance, are confined to the retina and the cochlea — parts the size of a postage stamp and a pea, respectively. Touch, however, is diffuse: The neurons that relay touch signals reside in clusters outside the spinal cord, from which they extend a vast web of axon fibers, like jellyfish tentacles, into the skin and internal organs. Each axon forms an ending just beneath the skin’s surface; the different types of endings are mechanisms for picking up and interpreting the variety of touch sensations.
While our eyes and ears each process information related to light or sound, touch concerns a smorgasbord of stimuli, including pokes, pulls, puffs, caresses and vibrations, as well as a range of temperatures and chemicals, such as capsaicin in chili peppers or menthol in mint. From these inputs arise perceptions of pressure, pain, itchiness, softness and hardness, warmth and cold, and the awareness of the body in space.
But how?…
[Bleicher recounts the history of exploration of touch, and unpacks Ginty’s pioneering work…]
… Over the past five years, Ginty and other scientists have analyzed the genetics of thousands of individual touch neurons. Sorting these cells according to the genes they express, Ginty’s team has so far come up with 18 distinct types, maybe more — it’s hard to tell, given the limited resolution of their sorting tools. That total includes the six or seven gentle-touch neurons on which Ginty’s research has primarily focused, as well as six neurons for stronger mechanical stimuli (some of which also respond to temperature and chemical irritants), one neuron for painful heat, one for cold, three or more for sensing body position, and a few whose functions are unknown.
As more touch neurons are analyzed, the count will likely increase. And each genetically distinct type can be further subdivided based on its axon endings. Genetically identical neurons that form Meissner corpuscles for picking up vibrations in glabrous skin, for example, also form lanceolate endings for detecting hair movement in hairy skin. In a 2023 study, Ginty’s team showed that these same touch neurons also innervate the colon, where their axons branch and curl around motor neurons in the gut, enabling us to sense bowel distention. “So you might say there are actually 50 or 60 different touch neuron types,” he said, if you count both genetic and physical variations. “We don’t know how many there are.”
Ginty will keep counting them. Today he’s asking the same fundamental questions he set out to answer more than a decade ago: Where do the various touch neurons go, what are their end structures, and how do they capture the richness of the physical realm? “We’ve gotten a pretty good handle on who’s who in the skin and what their response properties are,” Ginty said. But what about the heart, lungs, larynx, esophagus, stomach, intestines and kidneys? What are the neurons that make muscles ache and fatigue, or trigger migraines, or cause milk to flow in a mother’s breast when her baby suckles?
Ginty also wants to know how all these neurons connect to the brain to generate perceptions. How does pressure and vibration across millions of nerve endings become a hug? How do we feel wetness, slipperiness or elasticity? “Think about squeezing a balloon,” he said. “Presumably no one sensory neuron type is going to encode squeeziness.”…
Cataloging the neurons beneath everyday sensations: “Touch, Our Most Complex Sense, Is a Landscape of Cellular Sensors,” from @quantamagazine.bsky.social.
* John Keats
###
As we celebrate the senses, we might recall that on this date in 1927 a sensory expert in a different domain, Mae West, was sentenced to jail for obscenity.
Her first starring role on Broadway was in a 1926 play entitled Sex, which she wrote, produced, and directed. Although conservative critics panned the show, ticket sales were strong. The production did not go over well with city officials, who had received complaints from some religious groups, and the theater was raided and West arrested along with the cast. She was taken to the Jefferson Market Court House (now Jefferson Market Library), where she was prosecuted on morals charges, and on April 19, 1927, was sentenced to 10 days for “corrupting the morals of youth.” Though West could have paid a fine and been let off, she chose the jail sentence for the publicity it would garner. While incarcerated on Welfare Island (now known as Roosevelt Island), she dined with the warden and his wife; she told reporters that she had worn her silk panties while serving time, in lieu of the “burlap” the other girls had to wear. West got great mileage from this jail stint. She served eight days with two days off for “good behavior”.
Wikipedia
“This place is weird as f*ck”*…
In an excerpt from his book, The F-Word, Lexicographer Jesse Sheidlower on the f-bomb, its origins and development, and its illimitable uses…
In all of English there are few words rich enough in their history and variety of use to warrant a dedicated dictionary that runs to hundreds of pages and multiple editions. That fuck is at the same time one of the most notorious, popular, and emotive words in the language makes it all the more fascinating…
… How has this word, which has been around for many hundreds of years, maintained both its intense interest and its uncommon power?
There is no simple answer to this question; too many factors come into play. Sex is certainly one factor. The vast majority of uses of fuck in modern English are nonsexual, but it has retained its sexual meanings and connotations across many centuries, and sex is something that’s always hovering around our consciousness. The word has amassed a great many other uses, though, and so the reasons for its singular force and appeal are likewise diverse and complex.
Fuck has an enormous range of uses across many parts of speech, as this dictionary details: sexual and nonsexual, positive and negative, literal and figurative, funny and violent. For any situation, there’s probably some sense, some expression or catchphrase, some proverb, some intonation that can be brought to the table.
And it just feels good to say. It feels good in the mouth, giving shape to catharsis; it can also feel good in the brain, satisfying a strong emotional need or a desire for personal expression. It can help us bond with peers, gain or direct attention, persuade listeners, and establish or test intimacy.
Psycholinguistic research shows that using certain kinds of swear words can even improve the body’s physical strength and resistance to pain. (But the more you swear in daily life, the smaller the analgesic effect.)
Words such as fuck are often criticized for being “bad,” or we are told that we should avoid them. But what is appropriate depends on context—and sometimes we want to be inappropriate. This word is an important part of our culture, our vocabulary, and our heritage, and that is always something worth knowing more about…
[Sheidlower explores its etymology (where it’s from), its cultural history (especially its taboo status), and its current status…]
… In its recent reports, older people are more likely to rate the F-word as a strong swear, while middle-aged people consider it moderate, and young people see it as becoming more acceptable in public use. Equivalent research in New Zealand shows “significant declines in unacceptability of fuck– words” even from 2018 to 2022.
While a few publications still refuse to print fuck regardless of the circumstances, most have no such qualms. The more literary magazines have printed the word for some time, and by the early 2000s even Newsweek and Time had started to do so; the publication of the Starr Report in the New York Times, and a notable comment from Vice President Dick Cheney in the Washington Post, has meant that even the proper papers consider fuck fit to print.
Even commercial television, though still subject to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations, is becoming more open in its use…
Eminently worth reading in full: “A Brief History of the Most Famous Swear Word in the World,” from @jessesheidlower in @lithub.
Vaguely related (but interesting in any case): “Ouch! Study investigates pain vocalizations and interjections across 131 languages.”
* Margaret Atwood
###
As we ponder profanity, we might spare a thought for Albert Francis Blakeslee; he died on this date in 1954. A botanist, he is best remembered for his discovery (while still a graduate student) that Mucors (bread molds), thought at the time to be homothallic (that’s to say, had a single “mating type” that replicated asexually) actually had two mating types and reproduced sexually. His findings revolutionized the understanding of the sexual reproduction of the lower plants. In fact, his discovery was so influential that the fungi Phycomyces blakesleeanus and Blakeslea trispora were named after him.
“Why does a public discussion of economic policy so often show the abysmal ignorance of the participants?”*…
… It could, Walt Frick suggests, have to do with the way in which economics has been taught for decades, centering zombie ideas from before economics began to become an empirical disciple. Happily, he suggests, that may be changing…
What happens to the job market when the government raises the minimum wage? For decades, higher education in the United States has taught economics students to answer this question by reasoning from first principles. When the price of something rises, people tend to buy less of it. Therefore, if the price of labour rises, businesses will choose to ‘buy’ less of it – meaning they’ll hire fewer people. Students learn that a higher minimum wage means fewer jobs.
But there’s another way to answer the question, and in the early 1990s the economists David Card and Alan Krueger tried it: they went out and looked. Card and Krueger collected data on fast-food jobs along the border between New Jersey and Pennsylvania, before and after New Jersey’s minimum wage increase. The fast-food restaurants on the New Jersey side of the border were similar to the ones on the Pennsylvania side in nearly every respect, except that they now had to pay higher wages. Would they hire fewer workers in response?
The prediction from conventional economic theory is unambiguous,’ Card and Krueger wrote. It was also wrong. Fast-food restaurants in New Jersey didn’t hire fewer workers – instead, Card and Krueger found that employment slightly increased. Their paper set off a hunt for other ‘natural experiments’ that could rigorously test economic theory and – alongside other research agendas like behavioural economics – transformed the field.
Over the past 30 years, PhD-level education in economics has become more empirical, more psychological, and more attuned to the many ways that markets can fail. Introductory economics courses, however, are not so easy to transform. Big, synoptic textbooks are hard to put together and, once they are adopted as the foundation of introductory courses, professors and institutions are slow to abandon them. So introductory economics textbooks have continued to teach that a higher minimum wage leads to fewer people working – usually as an example of how useful and relevant the simple model of competitive markets could be. As a result of this lag between what economists know and how introductory economics is taught, a gulf developed between the way students first encounter economics and how most leading economists practice it. Students learned about the virtues of markets, deduced from a few seemingly simple assumptions. Economists and their graduate students, meanwhile, catalogued more and more ways those assumptions could go wrong.
Today, 30 years after Card and Krueger’s paper, economics curriculums around the world continue to challenge the facile view that students used to learn, in which unfettered markets work wonders. These changes – like spending more time studying market failures or emphasising individuals’ capacity for altruism, not just selfishness – have a political valence since conservatives often hide behind the laissez-faire logic of introductory economics. But the evolution of Econ 101 is not as subversive as it may sound. Instead, it reflects the direction the wider discipline has taken toward empiricism and more varied models of economic behaviour. Econ 101 is not changing to reflect a particular ideology; it is finally catching up to the field it purports to represent….
[Frick describes the recent evolution– or revolution– in curricula…]
… It’s tempting to judge [open-source text project] CORE and even Harvard’s [recently-overhauled introductory economics course] Ec10 in ideological terms – as an overdue response or countermeasure to a laissez-faire approach. But the evolution of Econ 101 is about more than politics. (Despite its focus on traditionally more progressive topics, CORE has been criticised for being insufficiently ‘heterodox’, according to Stevens.) By elevating empiricism and by teaching multiple models of the economy, students in these new curriculums are learning how social sciences actually work.
“A model is just an allegory,” says the economist David Autor in his intermediate microeconomics course at MIT. For decades, Econ 101 taught one major allegory, in which markets worked well of their own accord, and buyers and sellers all emerged better off. Government, when it was mentioned at all, was frequently portrayed as an overzealous maintenance man – able to solve some problems but also meddling in markets that were fine on their own.
That is not how most contemporary economists think. Instead, they see the competitive market as one model among many. ‘The multiplicity of models is economics’ strength,’ writes the Harvard economist Dani Rodrik in Economics Rules (2015). ‘[W]e have a menu to choose from and need an empirical method for making that choice.’ As the Econ 101 curriculum catches up, economics students are finally getting a taste of the variety that the field has to offer.
As much of an improvement as the new curriculums are, they raise a puzzle. The traditional Econ 101 course was, for all its flaws, coherent and memorable. Students came away with a clear framework for thinking about the world. What does the new Econ 101 leave students with, other than an appreciation that the world is complicated, and that data is important?
[UCL economist and CORE co-creator Wendy] Carlin’s answer is that “the workhorse [of Econ 101] is that actors make decisions.” Modelling those decisions remains a central part of economics. What’s changed is the way decision-makers are represented: they can be selfish, but they can also be altruistic. They can be rational, but they can also be biased or blinkered. They are social and strategic, and they interact with one another not just with the faceless market. Models help approximate the most salient features of these interactions, and students learn several different ones to guide their understanding. They also learn that models must fit the facts, and that a crucial part of economics is leaving the armchair and observing what is going on in the world…
On the importance of recognizing the mutability of models and re-emphasizing learning in an essential discipline: “Economics 101,” from @wfrick in @aeonmag.
* economist (and Nobel Laureate) Robert Solow
###
As we revise, we might recall that it was on this date in 1963 that President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law. Aimed at abolishing wage disparity based on sex, the legislation was part of Kennedy’s New Frontier Program. On the one hand, since it’s enactment, the wage gap has narrowed; on the other, it is still large: in 1963, women were on average paid about 60% of a man’s income for the same job; today, that figure is roughly 80%.
Opponents of the Act (including, of course, many economists) suggested that higher wages for women would discourage employers from hiring them; in fact, female participation in the workforce has grown– the gap between their participation and that of prime-age men has shrunk to less than one-third of its previous size. Some of those critics also argued that higher wages for women would a drag on economy; to observe the obvious, the economy has, by myriad measures, grown materially over the period– indeed, beyond the “no EPA” projections of those opponents.
“Never call an accountant a credit to his profession; a good accountant is a debit to his profession.”*…
The estimable Henry Farrell on accountancy as a lens on the hidden systems of the world…
When reading Cory Doctorow’s latest novel, The Bezzle [which your correspondent highly recommends], I kept on thinking about another recent book, Bruce Schneier’s A Hacker’s Mind: How the Powerful Bend Society’s Rules and How to Bend Them Back [ditto]. Cory’s book is fiction, and Bruce’s non-fiction, but they are clearly examples of the same broad genre (the ‘pre-apocalyptic systems thriller’?). Both are about hackers, but tell us to pay attention to other things than computers and traditional information systems. We need to go beneath the glossy surfaces of cyberpunk and look closely at the messy, complex systems of power beneath them. And these systems – like those described in the very early cyberpunk of William Gibson and others – are all about money and power.
What Bruce says:
In my story, hacking isn’t just something bored teenagers or rival governments do to computer systems … It isn’t countercultural misbehavior by the less powerful. A hacker is more likely to be working for a hedge fund, finding a loophole in financial regulations that lets her siphon extra profits out of the system. He’s more likely in a corporate office. Or an elected official. Hacking is integral to the job of every government lobbyist. It’s how social media systems keep us on our platform.
Bruce’s prime example of hacking is Peter Thiel using a Roth IRA to stash his Paypal shares and turn them into $5 billion, tax free.
This underscores his four key points. First, hacking isn’t just about computers. It’s about finding the loopholes; figuring out how to make complex system of rules do things that they aren’t supposed to. Second, it isn’t countercultural. Most of the hacking you might care about is done by boring seeming people in boring seeming clothes (I’m reminded of Sam Anthony’s anecdote about how the costume designer of the film Hackers visited with people at a 2600 conference for background research, but decided that they “were a bunch of boring nerds and went and took pictures of club kids on St. Marks instead”). Third, hacking tends to reinforce power symmetries rather than undermine them. The rich have far more resources to figure out how to gimmick the rules. Fourth, we should mostly identify ourselves not with the hackers but the hacked. Because that is who, in fact, we mostly are….
…
… Still, there are things you can do to fight back. One of the major themes of The Bezzle is that prison is now a profit model. Tyler Cowen, the economist, used to talk a lot about “markets in everything.” I occasionally responded by pointing to “captive markets in everything.” And there isn’t any market that is more literally captive than prisoners. As for-profit corporations (and venal authorities) came to realize this, they started to systematically remake the rules and hack the gaps in the regulatory system to squeeze prisoners and their relatives for as much money as possible, charging extortionate amounts for mail, for phone calls, for books that could only be accessed through proprietary electronic tablets.
That’s changing, in part thanks to ingenious counter hacking. The Appeal published a piece last week on how Securus, “the nation’s largest prison and jail telecom corporation,” had to effectively default on nearly a billion dollars of debt. Part of the reason for the company’s travails is that activists have figured out how to use the system against it…
…
… In other sectors, where companies doing sketchy things have publicly traded shares, activists have started getting motions passed at shareholder meetings, to challenge their policies. However, the companies have begun in turn to sue, using the legal system in unconventional ways to try to prevent these unconventional tactics. Again, as both Bruce and Cory suggest, the preponderance of hacking muscle is owned by the powerful, not those challenging them.
Even so, the more that ordinary people understand the complexities of the system, the more that they will be able to push back. Perhaps the most magnificent example of this is Max Schrems, an Austrian law student who successfully bollocksed-up the entire system of EU-US data transfers by spotting loopholes and incoherencies and weaponizing them in EU courts. Cory’s Martin Hench books seem to me to purpose-designed to inspire a thousand Max Schrems – people who are probably past their teenage years, have some grounding in the relevant professions, and really want to see things change.
And in this, the books return to some of the original ambitions of ‘cyberpunk,’ a somewhat ungainly and contested term that has come to emphasize the literary movement’s countercultural cool over its actual intentions…
One word that never appears in Neuromancer, and for good reason: “Internet.” When it was written, the Internet was just one among many information networks, and there was no reason to suspect that it would defeat and devour its rivals, subordinating them to its own logic. Before cyberspace and the Internet became entangled, Gibson’s term was a synecdoche for a much broader set of phenomena. What cyberspace actually referred to back then was more ‘capitalism’ than ‘computerized information.’
So, in a very important sense, The Bezzle returns to the original mission statement – understanding how the hacker mythos is entwined with capitalism. To actually understand hacking, we need to understand the complex systems of finance and how they work. If you really want to penetrate the system, you need to really grasp what money is and what it does. That, I think, is what Cory is trying to tell us. And so too Bruce. The nexus between accountancy and hacking is not a literary trick or artifice. It is an important fact about the world, which both fiction and non-fiction writers need to pay attention to…
Eminently worth reading in full: “Today’s hackers wear green eyeshades, not mirrorshades,” from @henryfarrell in his invaluable newsletter Programmable Mutter.
###
As we ponder power, we might recall that on this date in 1927, a “counter-hacker” in a different domain, Mae West, was sentenced to jail for obscenity.
Her first starring role on Broadway was in a 1926 play entitled Sex, which she wrote, produced, and directed. Although conservative critics panned the show, ticket sales were strong. The production did not go over well with city officials, who had received complaints from some religious groups, and the theater was raided and West arrested along with the cast. She was taken to the Jefferson Market Court House (now Jefferson Market Library), where she was prosecuted on morals charges, and on April 19, 1927, was sentenced to 10 days for “corrupting the morals of youth.” Though West could have paid a fine and been let off, she chose the jail sentence for the publicity it would garner. While incarcerated on Welfare Island (now known as Roosevelt Island), she dined with the warden and his wife; she told reporters that she had worn her silk panties while serving time, in lieu of the “burlap” the other girls had to wear. West got great mileage from this jail stint. She served eight days with two days off for “good behavior”.
Wikipedia
“In a free market the people are free, the ideas are locked up”*…
Back when I first studied gift exchange, I dismissed its economic importance—after all, it reflects only a tiny portion of all our transactions. Perhaps it might interest an anthropologist, but only as a kind of curiosity item, a refreshing but impractical alternative to the real substance of economic life. But as I see it now, the gift economy is much larger than I realized—in fact, it’s almost as large as the transaction-based economy. For a start, I’ve seen its predominance in my own life. My wife and I don’t charge my children for their meals or the hours of service we provide them. My friends dealing with elder care or community service or church activities operate off-the-grid, so to speak—at least from a conventional economic perspective. These are gift exchanges, pure and simple, and they are everywhere you look, even in a modern capitalist society.
But I’m concerned here with a different class of activities, ones that straddle these two spheres—and are hard to classify for that very reason. Artistic or creative pursuits, endeavors that are typically pursued for the intrinsic joy of sharing one’s gifts, are also frequently commoditized and placed on the market. Are they part of the gift economy or the transaction economy?…
The estimable Ted Gioia explores: “Gratuity: Who Gets Paid When Art Is Free.”
[image above: source]
* Lewis Hyde, The Gift: Creativity and the Artist in the Modern World
###
As we share and share alike, we might recall that it was on this date in 1927 that Mae West was sentenced to 10 days in a workhouse on Roosevelt Island (known then as “Welfare Island”) and fined $500 for obscenity for her play Sex… despite the fact that the play had run over a year before the police raided, and had been seen by 325,000 people– including members of the police department and their wives, judges of the criminal courts, and seven members of the district attorney’s staff.
In the event, she served eight days of her sentence, receiving two days off of time for “good behavior”– and the resulting publicity did great things for Ms. West’s notoriety nationwide.
You must be logged in to post a comment.