Threat confrontation, provided there's an adaptive outcome, is actually a positive experience for the nervous system

--- Andrew Huberman, in Nature podcast of 3 May 2018 (timecode 14:10 ff.), about his paper "A midline thalamic circuit determines reactions to visual threat" in Nature, 557, pages 183–189 (2018).

See also Nature News & Views, "Connections that control defence strategy," and Nature Video "Fight, Flight or Freeze: Inside the brain of a scared mouse"

Understanding trumps truth

--- Philip Ball, in a New Scientist book review, "Science isn’t everything – and it’s not even after the truth," 28 Feb 2018

Quote in context:

But philosopher Angela Potochnik’s ambitious book Idealization and the Aims of Science is an antidote to the view that the philosophy of science tries to pronounce grandly on what scientists ought to do. Even so, many might still resent her assertion that “science isn’t after the truth”. But she’s right. While our picture of the universe is in some sense truer than it was in the Middle Ages, and science typically does work its way closer to some sort of truth, that isn’t what scientists are trying to achieve.

What they want are useful, comprehensible, workable theories of the world. Understanding trumps truth: scientists will generally settle for a less accurate model if it is more cognitively transparent. They don’t strive to map models perfectly onto reality. This doesn’t seem so controversial. Even Hawking agrees, indulging in a bit of philosophy himself when he states: “There is no model-independent test of reality.”

...

There is no “scientific method”, but there is a collection of tried-and-tested principles: try to use reason, compare theory against experiment, attempt to replicate results, that kind of thing. The precise emphases differ by discipline. Some depend more heavily on statistics. Some are necessarily empirical, with few theories. Some, like chemistry, are as much concerned with making as with understanding. At any rate, science doesn’t do just one thing over and over again in different fields of enquiry. That, says Potochnik, is why there are also no clear boundaries between science and non-science.

Boredom is rage spread thin

--- attributed to theologian Paul Tillich

What forms of psychological manipulation will we consider to be acceptable business models?

--- James Williams, doctoral candidate at the Oxford Internet Institute, speaking on the Talking Politics podcast, April 25, 2018, ahead of the publication of his book Stand Out of Our Light: Freedom and Resistance in the Attention Economy.

“The fundamental question for society to answer is, What forms of psychological manipulation will we consider to be acceptable business models?” (timecode 24:40)

Lots of great stuff in this discussion; for example:

“That’s what’s one of the rhetorical risks in the near term: Political issues will be reframed as design issues.” (timecode 28:10)