Podcasts about Basic Books

Chris Boyer and Reed Smith run a forensic walk through five dated, citable moments where the future of healthcare consumerism was sitting in published research before the industry moved. The Pew health-seeker data in 2000. ePatient Dave's "Gimme My Damn Data" keynote in 2009, which took twelve years to reach the Information Blocking Rule. Mobile crossing into everyday health behavior by 2012. Apple, Amazon and Haven all declaring healthcare a priority inside twelve months in 2018 and 2019. Peer-reviewed AI matching dermatologists in 2017, three years before most people had heard of ChatGPT. The signals were never really about the technology. Each one was a permission a consumer gave themselves. Permission to research without asking. Permission to demand their data. Permission to expect everywhere and anytime. Permission to compare a hospital to Apple. Permission to skip the front door. Name the permission and you have found the signal. Five artifacts, each with a date and a source, and the same defensive industry response to all of them A six-marker test that tells you whether you are inside a signal while it is still a signal, not after Why the permission shift is the marker most teams miss, and the permission patients are taking right now The scoreboard for today: agentic AI as the new front door, the death of click-through, the restructuring of primary care, and voice The one current signal that breaks the pattern, and why ambient documentation moved fast when nothing else did The honest finding is uncomfortable. Three of today's four signals score 5 or 6 out of 6 on the same markers that flagged every past miss. The fourth, voice, scores about 3, and it shows what breaks the pattern. Ambient documentation moved quickly because it helps clinicians and patients in the same motion, so the internal politics line up instead of fighting. If you can name the permission your patients are taking right now, you have found the signal. The only question left is whether you act inside the window or wait for the deadline. Mentions from the Show: Pew Research Center, The Online Health Care Revolution, Rainie and Fox, November 2000: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2000/11/26/the-online-health-care-revolution/ Pew Research Center, Health Online 2013, Fox and Duggan, January 2013: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2013/01/15/health-online-2013-2/ deBronkart and Eysenbach, Gimme My Damn Data (and Let Patients Help!): The #GimmeMyDamnData Manifesto, JMIR, November 2019: https://www.jmir.org/2019/11/e17045/ Esteva et al., Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks, Nature, January 2017: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21056 Tom Ferguson and the e-Patient Scholars Working Group, e-Patients: How They Can Help Us Heal Healthcare, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2007: https://participatorymedicine.org/e-Patient_White_Paper_with_Afterword.pdf Tim Cook on CNBC's Mad Money, full transcript, January 8 2019: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/08/apple-ceo-tim-cook-interview-cnbc-jim-cramer-transcript.html Kyndryl, Healthcare Readiness Report, March 2026 (76% report more AI pilots than they can scale): https://www.kyndryl.com/in/en/about-us/news/2026/03/healthcare-readiness-report-findings Dave deBronkart, Meet e-Patient Dave, TED: https://www.ted.com/talks/dave_debronkart_meet_e_patient_dave Eric Topol, Deep Medicine, Basic Books, 2019: https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/eric-topol/deep-medicine/9781541644649/ Eric Topol, The Patient Will See You Now, Basic Books, 2015 Clayton Christensen, Jerome Grossman, Jason Hwang, The Innovator's Prescription, McGraw-Hill, 2009 Dave deBronkart, Let Patients Help!, 2013 Society for Participatory Medicine: https://participatorymedicine.org/ TP483, The Market That Competition Forgot: https://touchpoint.health/podcast/tp483-the-market-that-competition-forgot/ TP478, The Journey Nobody Told Operations About: https://touchpoint.health/podcast/tp478-the-journey-nobody-told-operations-about/ TP457, The Patient Maze: Smarter Tools, Same Old Problems: https://touchpoint.health/podcast/tp457-the-patient-maze-smarter-tools-same-old-problems/ Reed Smith on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/reedtsmith/ Chris Boyer on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chrisboyer/ Chris Boyer website: http://www.christopherboyer.com/ Chris Boyer on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/chrisboyer.bsky.social Reed Smith on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/reedsmith.bsky.social Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Can an IQ test comprehensively define an individual's intelligence? Are there aspects of human capability that tests fail to take into account?In the latest episode of A Book with Legs, Smead Capital Management CEO and Portfolio Manager Cole Smead is joined by professor, psychologist, and author Howard Gardner to discuss his book, titled "Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences.”Cole and Howard explore how we measure and think about intelligence, highlighting that there is a spectrum of abilities beyond a single test score. They discuss the origins of intelligence testing, why an individual's role in society should not be conflated with their intelligence, and some of the less-often-considered forms of intelligence, such as musical and interpersonal skills intelligence.Howard Gardner is the Hobbs Research Professor of Cognition and Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. He is an expert on intelligence, creativity, leadership, and professional ethics; former Co-Director of Project Zero; and co-founder of The Good Project. Both a memoir (A Synthesizing Mind) and a study of higher education co-authored with Wendy Fischman (The Real World of College) were recently published by MIT Press. In 2024, Teachers College Press published a two-volume collection of his work, The Essential Howard Gardner on Mind and On Education.An updated edition of his book Frames of Mind was published by Basic Books in Spring 2026 with a new preface. Purchase "Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences” here: https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/howard-gardner/frames-of-mind/9781541608528/?lens=basic-booksVisit Howard Gardner's Website and Blog - https://www.howardgardner.comSign up to be notified about new A Book with Legs episodes: https://hubs.ly/Q0452Lh70

W tym odcinku opowiadam o tym, dlaczego słowo „seksbomba” nigdy nie było tylko niewinnym komplementem. W epoce atomowej kobiecą seksualność zaczęto opisywać językiem wybuchu, siły rażenia, zagrożenia i kontroli. Po II wojnie światowej Ameryka próbowała wrócić do „normalności”, czyli do modelu stabilnej rodziny, mężczyzny-żywiciela i kobiety zamkniętej w domu. Problem w tym, że wojna już zmieniła społeczne role, a kobieca niezależność zaczęła budzić lęk. Przyglądam się temu, jak popkultura połączyła bombę atomową z ciałem kobiety: od pin-up girls, przez Ritę Hayworth na bombie „Gilda”, po stój kąpielowy nazwany od atolu Bikini. Będzie też o Miss Atomic Bomb, Marilyn Monroe w „Niagarze”, filmach noir i gospodyni domowej jako „bezpiecznej” wersji kobiecości. To opowieść o kulturze, która próbowała oswoić własny strach przed atomem, zamieniając go w obraz pięknej, seksualnej kobiety. Tylko że ten obraz nigdy nie był neutralny, bo fascynacja bardzo szybko przechodziła w potrzebę kontroli. Seksbomba miała przyciągać, ale jednocześnie miała zostać rozbrojona: przez małżeństwo, dom, mężczyznę i społeczne normy. Zapraszam. Źródła: 1. Elaine Tyler May, „Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era”, Basic Books, 20082. Allan M. Winkler, „Life Under a Cloud: American Anxiety About the Atom”, Oxford University Press, 19933. Kristina Zarlengo, „Civilian Threat, the Suburban Citadel, and Atomic Age American Women”, 19994. Traci Brynne Voyles, „Anatomic Bombs: The Sexual Life of Nuclearism, 1945–57”, „American Quarterly”, 2020

In the world's top research labs and universities, the race is on to invent the ultimate learning algorithm: one capable of discovering any knowledge from data, and doing anything we want, before we even ask. In The Master Algorithm: How the Quest for the Ultimate Learning Machine Will Remake Our World (Basic Books, 2018), Pedro Domingos lifts the veil to give us a peek inside the learning machines that power Google, Amazon, and your smartphone. He assembles a blueprint for the future universal learner--the Master Algorithm--and discusses what it will mean for business, science, and society. If data-ism is today's philosophy, this book is its bible. Pedro Domingos is a professor emeritus of computer science at the University of Washington. He is a winner of the SIGKDD Innovation Award, the highest honor in data science. A fellow of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, he lives near Seattle. Gregory McNiff is a Managing Director in the New York office of the Blueshirt Group, an IR firm focused on technology; he has a strong interest in literature, culture, religion, science and philosophy (translation: he's an eclectic reader who is constantly missing deadlines for book review). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In the world's top research labs and universities, the race is on to invent the ultimate learning algorithm: one capable of discovering any knowledge from data, and doing anything we want, before we even ask. In The Master Algorithm: How the Quest for the Ultimate Learning Machine Will Remake Our World (Basic Books, 2018), Pedro Domingos lifts the veil to give us a peek inside the learning machines that power Google, Amazon, and your smartphone. He assembles a blueprint for the future universal learner--the Master Algorithm--and discusses what it will mean for business, science, and society. If data-ism is today's philosophy, this book is its bible. Pedro Domingos is a professor emeritus of computer science at the University of Washington. He is a winner of the SIGKDD Innovation Award, the highest honor in data science. A fellow of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, he lives near Seattle. Gregory McNiff is a Managing Director in the New York office of the Blueshirt Group, an IR firm focused on technology; he has a strong interest in literature, culture, religion, science and philosophy (translation: he's an eclectic reader who is constantly missing deadlines for book review). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science

In the world's top research labs and universities, the race is on to invent the ultimate learning algorithm: one capable of discovering any knowledge from data, and doing anything we want, before we even ask. In The Master Algorithm: How the Quest for the Ultimate Learning Machine Will Remake Our World (Basic Books, 2018), Pedro Domingos lifts the veil to give us a peek inside the learning machines that power Google, Amazon, and your smartphone. He assembles a blueprint for the future universal learner--the Master Algorithm--and discusses what it will mean for business, science, and society. If data-ism is today's philosophy, this book is its bible. Pedro Domingos is a professor emeritus of computer science at the University of Washington. He is a winner of the SIGKDD Innovation Award, the highest honor in data science. A fellow of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, he lives near Seattle. Gregory McNiff is a Managing Director in the New York office of the Blueshirt Group, an IR firm focused on technology; he has a strong interest in literature, culture, religion, science and philosophy (translation: he's an eclectic reader who is constantly missing deadlines for book review). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

In the world's top research labs and universities, the race is on to invent the ultimate learning algorithm: one capable of discovering any knowledge from data, and doing anything we want, before we even ask. In The Master Algorithm: How the Quest for the Ultimate Learning Machine Will Remake Our World (Basic Books, 2018), Pedro Domingos lifts the veil to give us a peek inside the learning machines that power Google, Amazon, and your smartphone. He assembles a blueprint for the future universal learner--the Master Algorithm--and discusses what it will mean for business, science, and society. If data-ism is today's philosophy, this book is its bible. Pedro Domingos is a professor emeritus of computer science at the University of Washington. He is a winner of the SIGKDD Innovation Award, the highest honor in data science. A fellow of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, he lives near Seattle. Gregory McNiff is a Managing Director in the New York office of the Blueshirt Group, an IR firm focused on technology; he has a strong interest in literature, culture, religion, science and philosophy (translation: he's an eclectic reader who is constantly missing deadlines for book review). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/technology

In the world's top research labs and universities, the race is on to invent the ultimate learning algorithm: one capable of discovering any knowledge from data, and doing anything we want, before we even ask. In The Master Algorithm: How the Quest for the Ultimate Learning Machine Will Remake Our World (Basic Books, 2018), Pedro Domingos lifts the veil to give us a peek inside the learning machines that power Google, Amazon, and your smartphone. He assembles a blueprint for the future universal learner--the Master Algorithm--and discusses what it will mean for business, science, and society. If data-ism is today's philosophy, this book is its bible. Pedro Domingos is a professor emeritus of computer science at the University of Washington. He is a winner of the SIGKDD Innovation Award, the highest honor in data science. A fellow of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, he lives near Seattle. Gregory McNiff is a Managing Director in the New York office of the Blueshirt Group, an IR firm focused on technology; he has a strong interest in literature, culture, religion, science and philosophy (translation: he's an eclectic reader who is constantly missing deadlines for book review). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In America today, police enjoy unmatched power. On the streets, officers employ violence at their own discretion. Behind closed doors, they are even more powerful. In city halls, police strong-arm local leaders and nullify attempts at public oversight. And in state legislatures and Washington, DC, police lobbyists and union leaders zealously uphold a bipartisan consensus against even mild reform. Yet as recently as fifty years ago, police still served at the pleasure of democratically elected politicians, not the other way around. In Blue Power: How Police Organized to Serve and Protect Themselves (Basic Books, 2026), Stuart Schrader narrates the rise of a bottom-up movement of rank-and-file officers who lifted policing above the law. Organizers launched their campaign in the 1960s, courting a public backlash to urban uprisings and civil rights. City by city, county by county, they formed unions and other organizations and won control over working conditions, impunity from oversight, and insulation from lean budgets. By the 2000s, this movement had triumphed nationally, shoring up the power of the police to overrule the public interest in the name of law and order. Through deep archival detective work, Blue Power reveals how police forced American democracy to back the blue. Stuart Schrader is an associate professor of history at Johns Hopkins University, where he is the director of the Chloe Center for the Critical Study of Racism, Immigration, and Colonialism. Michael Stauch is an associate professor of modern US history at the University of Toledo, specializing in policing and incarceration, urban studies, and social movements. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

In America today, police enjoy unmatched power. On the streets, officers employ violence at their own discretion. Behind closed doors, they are even more powerful. In city halls, police strong-arm local leaders and nullify attempts at public oversight. And in state legislatures and Washington, DC, police lobbyists and union leaders zealously uphold a bipartisan consensus against even mild reform. Yet as recently as fifty years ago, police still served at the pleasure of democratically elected politicians, not the other way around. In Blue Power: How Police Organized to Serve and Protect Themselves (Basic Books, 2026), Stuart Schrader narrates the rise of a bottom-up movement of rank-and-file officers who lifted policing above the law. Organizers launched their campaign in the 1960s, courting a public backlash to urban uprisings and civil rights. City by city, county by county, they formed unions and other organizations and won control over working conditions, impunity from oversight, and insulation from lean budgets. By the 2000s, this movement had triumphed nationally, shoring up the power of the police to overrule the public interest in the name of law and order. Through deep archival detective work, Blue Power reveals how police forced American democracy to back the blue. Stuart Schrader is an associate professor of history at Johns Hopkins University, where he is the director of the Chloe Center for the Critical Study of Racism, Immigration, and Colonialism. Michael Stauch is an associate professor of modern US history at the University of Toledo, specializing in policing and incarceration, urban studies, and social movements. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In America today, police enjoy unmatched power. On the streets, officers employ violence at their own discretion. Behind closed doors, they are even more powerful. In city halls, police strong-arm local leaders and nullify attempts at public oversight. And in state legislatures and Washington, DC, police lobbyists and union leaders zealously uphold a bipartisan consensus against even mild reform. Yet as recently as fifty years ago, police still served at the pleasure of democratically elected politicians, not the other way around. In Blue Power: How Police Organized to Serve and Protect Themselves (Basic Books, 2026), Stuart Schrader narrates the rise of a bottom-up movement of rank-and-file officers who lifted policing above the law. Organizers launched their campaign in the 1960s, courting a public backlash to urban uprisings and civil rights. City by city, county by county, they formed unions and other organizations and won control over working conditions, impunity from oversight, and insulation from lean budgets. By the 2000s, this movement had triumphed nationally, shoring up the power of the police to overrule the public interest in the name of law and order. Through deep archival detective work, Blue Power reveals how police forced American democracy to back the blue. Stuart Schrader is an associate professor of history at Johns Hopkins University, where he is the director of the Chloe Center for the Critical Study of Racism, Immigration, and Colonialism. Michael Stauch is an associate professor of modern US history at the University of Toledo, specializing in policing and incarceration, urban studies, and social movements. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

In America today, police enjoy unmatched power. On the streets, officers employ violence at their own discretion. Behind closed doors, they are even more powerful. In city halls, police strong-arm local leaders and nullify attempts at public oversight. And in state legislatures and Washington, DC, police lobbyists and union leaders zealously uphold a bipartisan consensus against even mild reform. Yet as recently as fifty years ago, police still served at the pleasure of democratically elected politicians, not the other way around. In Blue Power: How Police Organized to Serve and Protect Themselves (Basic Books, 2026), Stuart Schrader narrates the rise of a bottom-up movement of rank-and-file officers who lifted policing above the law. Organizers launched their campaign in the 1960s, courting a public backlash to urban uprisings and civil rights. City by city, county by county, they formed unions and other organizations and won control over working conditions, impunity from oversight, and insulation from lean budgets. By the 2000s, this movement had triumphed nationally, shoring up the power of the police to overrule the public interest in the name of law and order. Through deep archival detective work, Blue Power reveals how police forced American democracy to back the blue. Stuart Schrader is an associate professor of history at Johns Hopkins University, where he is the director of the Chloe Center for the Critical Study of Racism, Immigration, and Colonialism. Michael Stauch is an associate professor of modern US history at the University of Toledo, specializing in policing and incarceration, urban studies, and social movements. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In America today, police enjoy unmatched power. On the streets, officers employ violence at their own discretion. Behind closed doors, they are even more powerful. In city halls, police strong-arm local leaders and nullify attempts at public oversight. And in state legislatures and Washington, DC, police lobbyists and union leaders zealously uphold a bipartisan consensus against even mild reform. Yet as recently as fifty years ago, police still served at the pleasure of democratically elected politicians, not the other way around. In Blue Power: How Police Organized to Serve and Protect Themselves (Basic Books, 2026), Stuart Schrader narrates the rise of a bottom-up movement of rank-and-file officers who lifted policing above the law. Organizers launched their campaign in the 1960s, courting a public backlash to urban uprisings and civil rights. City by city, county by county, they formed unions and other organizations and won control over working conditions, impunity from oversight, and insulation from lean budgets. By the 2000s, this movement had triumphed nationally, shoring up the power of the police to overrule the public interest in the name of law and order. Through deep archival detective work, Blue Power reveals how police forced American democracy to back the blue. Stuart Schrader is an associate professor of history at Johns Hopkins University, where he is the director of the Chloe Center for the Critical Study of Racism, Immigration, and Colonialism. Michael Stauch is an associate professor of modern US history at the University of Toledo, specializing in policing and incarceration, urban studies, and social movements. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In America today, police enjoy unmatched power. On the streets, officers employ violence at their own discretion. Behind closed doors, they are even more powerful. In city halls, police strong-arm local leaders and nullify attempts at public oversight. And in state legislatures and Washington, DC, police lobbyists and union leaders zealously uphold a bipartisan consensus against even mild reform. Yet as recently as fifty years ago, police still served at the pleasure of democratically elected politicians, not the other way around. In Blue Power: How Police Organized to Serve and Protect Themselves (Basic Books, 2026), Stuart Schrader narrates the rise of a bottom-up movement of rank-and-file officers who lifted policing above the law. Organizers launched their campaign in the 1960s, courting a public backlash to urban uprisings and civil rights. City by city, county by county, they formed unions and other organizations and won control over working conditions, impunity from oversight, and insulation from lean budgets. By the 2000s, this movement had triumphed nationally, shoring up the power of the police to overrule the public interest in the name of law and order. Through deep archival detective work, Blue Power reveals how police forced American democracy to back the blue. Stuart Schrader is an associate professor of history at Johns Hopkins University, where he is the director of the Chloe Center for the Critical Study of Racism, Immigration, and Colonialism. Michael Stauch is an associate professor of modern US history at the University of Toledo, specializing in policing and incarceration, urban studies, and social movements. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What if, every time you wanted to write down 1,000,000, you had to draw a picture of a god? And what if that number were the biggest you had a symbol for? If you were doing math in ancient Egypt, those were the rules: anything bigger broke math.As mathematician Richard Elwes shows in Huge Numbers: A Story of Counting Ambitiously, from 4 1/2 to Fish 7 (Basic Books, 2026)this is the strange story of math. Even today, writing down some numbers is beyond us: try it with all the zeroes in a googolplex, or an outrageous alien number like TREE(3). Safer not to try: even harnessing every particle in the universe, you wouldn't come close. But this book is no mere bestiary of numerical monsters. It shows how, by hunting down and studying ever-bigger numbers, arithmetic has reshaped human thought and made our modern era of science and computation possible.Where many math books celebrate abstract algebra or ineffable infinities, Huge Numbers is both more practical and far weirder. It reveals a world where most numbers remain out of reach until we discover how to chase them down and tame them, and so remake our world again. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

What if, every time you wanted to write down 1,000,000, you had to draw a picture of a god? And what if that number were the biggest you had a symbol for? If you were doing math in ancient Egypt, those were the rules: anything bigger broke math.As mathematician Richard Elwes shows in Huge Numbers: A Story of Counting Ambitiously, from 4 1/2 to Fish 7 (Basic Books, 2026)this is the strange story of math. Even today, writing down some numbers is beyond us: try it with all the zeroes in a googolplex, or an outrageous alien number like TREE(3). Safer not to try: even harnessing every particle in the universe, you wouldn't come close. But this book is no mere bestiary of numerical monsters. It shows how, by hunting down and studying ever-bigger numbers, arithmetic has reshaped human thought and made our modern era of science and computation possible.Where many math books celebrate abstract algebra or ineffable infinities, Huge Numbers is both more practical and far weirder. It reveals a world where most numbers remain out of reach until we discover how to chase them down and tame them, and so remake our world again. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

What if, every time you wanted to write down 1,000,000, you had to draw a picture of a god? And what if that number were the biggest you had a symbol for? If you were doing math in ancient Egypt, those were the rules: anything bigger broke math.As mathematician Richard Elwes shows in Huge Numbers: A Story of Counting Ambitiously, from 4 1/2 to Fish 7 (Basic Books, 2026)this is the strange story of math. Even today, writing down some numbers is beyond us: try it with all the zeroes in a googolplex, or an outrageous alien number like TREE(3). Safer not to try: even harnessing every particle in the universe, you wouldn't come close. But this book is no mere bestiary of numerical monsters. It shows how, by hunting down and studying ever-bigger numbers, arithmetic has reshaped human thought and made our modern era of science and computation possible.Where many math books celebrate abstract algebra or ineffable infinities, Huge Numbers is both more practical and far weirder. It reveals a world where most numbers remain out of reach until we discover how to chase them down and tame them, and so remake our world again. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science

What if, every time you wanted to write down 1,000,000, you had to draw a picture of a god? And what if that number were the biggest you had a symbol for? If you were doing math in ancient Egypt, those were the rules: anything bigger broke math.As mathematician Richard Elwes shows in Huge Numbers: A Story of Counting Ambitiously, from 4 1/2 to Fish 7 (Basic Books, 2026)this is the strange story of math. Even today, writing down some numbers is beyond us: try it with all the zeroes in a googolplex, or an outrageous alien number like TREE(3). Safer not to try: even harnessing every particle in the universe, you wouldn't come close. But this book is no mere bestiary of numerical monsters. It shows how, by hunting down and studying ever-bigger numbers, arithmetic has reshaped human thought and made our modern era of science and computation possible.Where many math books celebrate abstract algebra or ineffable infinities, Huge Numbers is both more practical and far weirder. It reveals a world where most numbers remain out of reach until we discover how to chase them down and tame them, and so remake our world again. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Misha Glenny and guests discuss the work of Maurits Cornelis Escher (1898-1972), the graphic artist and printmaker best known for his impossible buildings, paradoxical perspectives, and repeating geometric patterns. Born in Leeuwarden and trained as a printmaker, Escher visited the Alhambra in Granada and found inspiration in the tessellating shapes of Islamic art. Through his career he went on to create some of the most famous images of the twentieth century and has been called a one-man art movement. After his work was exhibited in a 1954 conference, Escher's work also caught the eye of mathematicians who appreciated his intuitive geometric precision. Escher was influenced by their work, and they were influenced by his – despite Escher never thinking he was actually very good at maths himself.   WithMarcus du Sautoy Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, Professor of Mathematics and Fellow of New College, University of Oxford   Sarah Hart Professor Emerita of Mathematics and Fellow of Birkbeck, University of London, and Fellow of Gresham College   And   Judith Kadee Exhibitions project manager and public programme curator at Hague Historical Museum   Producer: Martha OwenReading list:Marcus du Sautoy, Blueprints: How Mathematics Shapes Creativity (Fourth Estate, 2025)Marcus du Sautoy, Finding Moonshine: A Mathematician's Journey Into Symmetry (Harper Perennial, 2009)Bruno Ernst, The Magic Mirror of M.C. Escher (Taschen, 2007)M.C. Escher, M.C. Escher: The Graphic Work (Taschen America Llc, 1992)Miranda Fellows, The Life and Works of Escher (Siena,1996)Frederico Giudiceandrea, Escher op reis or Escher's Journey (Publisher Wbooks, 2018, in Dutch)Sarah Hart, Once Upon a Prime: The Wondrous Connections Between Mathematics and Literature (Flatiron Books, 2023)Douglas Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid (first published 1979; Basic Books, 1999)Siobhan Roberts, King of Infinite Space: Donald Coxeter, The Man Who Saved Geometry (Profile Books, 2007)Claudio Salsi, Paolo Branca and Claudio Bartocci (eds.), M.C. Escher. Tra arte e scienza. Catalogo della mostra (24 Ore Cultura, 2025, in Italian)Doris Schattschneider, “The Mathematical Side of M.C. Escher” (Notices of the American Mathematical Society, Vol. 57, 6, 2010)Doris Schattschneider, M.C. Escher: Visions of Symmetry (Thames and Hudson Ltd, 2004)Wouter van Reek, Nadir & Zenith in the World of Escher (Leopold, 2019)In Our Time is a BBC Studios productionSpanning history, religion, culture, science and philosophy, In Our Time from BBC Radio 4 is essential listening for the intellectually curious. In each episode, host Misha Glenny and expert guests explore the characters, events and discoveries that have shaped our world.

Peter Savodnik joins us to talk about Nicholas Kristof's column alleging abuse of Palestinian prisoners, including the most extreme dog-rape allegation, and how pro-Israel people should respond when the reporting is weak but the underlying issue may still deserve investigation. We talk about the difference between bad journalism and false accusations, the danger of reflexively circling the wagons, Ben-Gvir and the Israeli prison system, antisemitism, double standards against Israel, whether Jews are being pushed back into history, JD Vance, Marco Rubio, Gavin Newsom, Jonathan Haidt, Twitter addiction, and the general collapse of everyone's sanity online. Peter Savodnik reported for The New York Times Magazine, The Atlantic, The Guardian, GQ, Wired and other venues from the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, Asia and across the United States. His book, The Interloper: Lee Harvey Oswald Inside the Soviet Union, was published in 2013 by Basic Books. He is now a senior editor at The Free Press and based in Los Angeles. https://x.com/petersavodnik Chapters: 00:00 Intro and Peter Savodnik joins 01:16 Nick Kristof's Israel prison-abuse column 06:15 Olmert, Benny Morris, Haviv Rettig Gur, and what may actually be true 10:00 Double standards, bad reporting, and how Israel should respond 15:56 The dog-rape allegation and the danger of reflexive denial 22:22 Why Israel may need its own serious investigation 24:23 Circling the wagons vs. demanding proof 28:17 What real reporting would require 34:03 Retractions, antisemitism, and “emptying our pockets” for every accusation 38:27 Are Jews and Israel entering a more dangerous historical moment? 49:11 JD Vance, Rubio, Trump, and the future of the Republican Party 57:18 Gavin Newsom, 2028, and the Democrats 59:26 Jonathan Haidt, NYU, wokeness, and phone addiction 01:04:13 Twitter fights, the new Comedy Cellar room and final thoughts

Peter Savodnik joins us to talk about Nicholas Kristof's column alleging abuse of Palestinian prisoners, including the most extreme dog-rape allegation, and how pro-Israel people should respond when the reporting is weak but the underlying issue may still deserve investigation. We talk about the difference between bad journalism and false accusations, the danger of reflexively circling the wagons, Ben-Gvir and the Israeli prison system, antisemitism, double standards against Israel, whether Jews are being pushed back into history, JD Vance, Marco Rubio, Gavin Newsom, Jonathan Haidt, Twitter addiction, and the general collapse of everyone's sanity online. Peter Savodnik reported for The New York Times Magazine, The Atlantic, The Guardian, GQ, Wired and other venues from the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, Asia and across the United States. His book, The Interloper: Lee Harvey Oswald Inside the Soviet Union, was published in 2013 by Basic Books. He is now a senior editor at The Free Press and based in Los Angeles. https://x.com/petersavodnik Chapters: 00:00 Intro and Peter Savodnik joins 01:16 Nick Kristof's Israel prison-abuse column 06:15 Olmert, Benny Morris, Haviv Rettig Gur, and what may actually be true 10:00 Double standards, bad reporting, and how Israel should respond 15:56 The dog-rape allegation and the danger of reflexive denial 22:22 Why Israel may need its own serious investigation 24:23 Circling the wagons vs. demanding proof 28:17 What real reporting would require 34:03 Retractions, antisemitism, and “emptying our pockets” for every accusation 38:27 Are Jews and Israel entering a more dangerous historical moment? 49:11 JD Vance, Rubio, Trump, and the future of the Republican Party 57:18 Gavin Newsom, 2028, and the Democrats 59:26 Jonathan Haidt, NYU, wokeness, and phone addiction 01:04:13 Twitter fights, the new Comedy Cellar room and final thoughts

Content note: this episode discusses assisted dying, end-of-life choices, and suicide. Some listeners may find the content distressing.In April 2024, Daniel Kahneman — one of the most influential psychologists of the twentieth century — emailed his close friends to say goodbye. He was 90 years old, his kidneys were failing, his mental lapses were increasing, and he had decided it was time to go. He flew to Switzerland to end his life at an assisted dying clinic there, because New York, where he lived, did not permit it. Thirteen American states currently allow medical assistance in dying; most require a terminal diagnosis with death expected within six months. Canada, Belgium, and Switzerland allow it on broader terms. The UK introduced a bill to parliament, but it failed to pass. The debate on whether we have the right to end our own lives has not been resolved. This week Tim Phillips talks to Al Roth of Stanford University about how economics can contribute to the debate on medical aid in dying (MAID). Roth, a Nobel Prize laureate, has written a new book that argues this, and similar debates, often miss the key insight: the binary choice of “allow” versus “ban” rarely reflects reality. For example, in the United States, he explains that physicians in jurisdictions where assisted dying is illegal are familiar with the practice of administering doses of drugs that will relieve pain, but also end life. Roth's argument is not that assisted dying is always right. It is that a moral position that ignores the costs of a ban is not more ethical — it is less honest. Economists, he says, bring one specific thing to this debate: the insistence that trade-offs be made explicit.The book discussed in this episode:Roth, Alvin E. 2026. Moral Economics: What Controversial Transactions Reveal about How Markets Work. Basic Books. Published 21 May 2026.To cite this episode:Phillips, Tim, and Alvin Roth. 2026. “The right to choose to die." VoxTalks Economics (podcast).Assign this as extra listening. The citation above is formatted and ready for a reading list or VLE.About the guestAlvin Roth is the Craig and Susan McCaw Professor of Economics at Stanford University. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2012, shared with Lloyd Shapley, for the theory of stable allocations and the practice of market design. He is one of the architects of modern matching market design, having redesigned the systems used in the United States to match medical residents to hospitals and students to schools. A previous book, Who Gets What — and Why, was published in 2014. Research cited in this episodeRepugnant transactions is Alvin Roth's term for a class of transactions that are controversial not because no one wants to engage in them — that would be disgust — but because some people do want to engage in them and others believe they should not be allowed to, typically on moral or religious grounds. The key feature is that the objectors suffer no direct externality from the transaction; their objection is to the thing happening at all, regardless of whether it affects them. Roth's examples across the book include medical aid in dying, kidney sales, paid blood plasma donation, surrogacy, and access to certain drugs. The policy implication is that repugnant transactions, unlike ordinary market failures, cannot be resolved by standard economic tools; they require explicit engagement with the moral contest and careful mechanism design to decide what is permitted, to whom, under what conditions.Oregon's Death with Dignity Act (1997) was the first US state law permitting physician-assisted dying. It requires a terminal diagnosis with death expected within six months, confirmation from two physicians, a waiting period, and self-administration of the medication by the patient. According to the 2024 report of the Oregon Health Authority, assisted dying accounts for roughly 0.9% of all deaths in Oregon; many patients who obtain a prescription never use it. Oregon's 27 years of data make it the most-studied model for the policy, and its take-up rates and population demographics have informed both advocates and critics in other jurisdictions.Ezekiel Emanuel and vulnerable populations: A 2016 paper by physician and bioethicist Ezekiel Emanuel and co-authors examined the demographics of patients who access assisted dying in jurisdictions where it is legal and found no evidence that vulnerable populations — defined by disability, age, mental illness, or socioeconomic status — accessed it at higher rates than the broader population of dying patients. Roth cites this as evidence against the argument that legalisation creates pressure on the vulnerable to choose death, while noting that this population-level finding does not rule out individual cases of pressure.The Hippocratic Oath is the earliest recorded professional commitment by physicians not to participate in assisted dying. Roth notes that Hippocrates formulated the oath in the fifth century CE, and that the very inclusion of a prohibition on helping patients die implies the practice was already occurring — physicians were being asked to do it. The religious objection — that decisions about life and death belong to God — and the medical objection — that a physician's role is to save life, not end it — have both been consistent features of opposition to assisted dying across more than two millennia.The Canadian Supreme Court decision (Carter v. Canada, 2015) struck down Canada's criminal prohibition on physician-assisted dying on the grounds that it infringed Canadians' constitutional rights to life and to security of the person. The court's reasoning included the counterintuitive argument that denying access to assisted dying could cause people to end their lives earlier and less safely — while still capable of doing so — out of fear of being unable to later. The Canadian framework that followed is more permissive than US state laws: it does not require a terminal diagnosis but instead an irremediable condition causing intolerable suffering. Canada has since debated, and repeatedly delayed, extending the framework to mental illness as a sole underlying condition.Mechanism design is the field of economics concerned with designing rules, institutions, and processes to achieve desired outcomes, particularly in settings where participants have private information or conflicting interests. Roth is one of its leading practitioners. In the context of assisted dying, mechanism design asks: who can apply, through what process, verified by whom, with what waiting periods, and with what safeguards against coercion or mistaken diagnosis? The differences between Oregon's model (terminal diagnosis, self-administration, annual reporting), Canada's model (irremediable suffering, physician or nurse practitioner administration permitted), and Switzerland's model (available to non-residents) are, in Roth's framing, different mechanism designs with measurably different outcomes.More VoxTalks Economics episodesIn February, Tim spoke to Martin Ellison and Julian Ashwin about what decisions seniors will take about their later years and whether policy can accommodate both their abilities and their needs. Listen to The Economic Consequences of Living Longer. 

Jan is annoyed because he needs to revise his papers and respond to his reviewers. Why can't ChatGPT or Claude do this for him? Why aren't we doing this already? So we start to wonder: what will happen to paper writing, reviews, and revisions as we enter an age where science practice is imbued with AI? How important are framing, literature engagement, and prose when AI use will homogenize communication? How important are method skills when analytics can be automated? What skills should emerging researchers focus on to maintain or create a competitive edge? And will publishing move towards slimmer papers with only problematization, research design, and findings, or will we look for alternative markets to express our ideas and findings? Tune in to find out. References Acquired (2025). Google Part III: The AI Company. Episode 1, Oct 6, 2025, https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/google-the-ai-company. Ahart, J. (2026). AI can 'same-ify' human expression — can some brains resist its pull? Nature (11 March 2026), https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-00781-9. Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Heinemann. Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Ablex Publication Corporation. Heidegger, M. (1975). Being and Time. HarperOne. Churchman, C. W. (1972). The Design of Inquiring Systems: Basic Concepts of Systems and Organization. Basic Books. Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at Work: The New Contested Terrain of Control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366–410. Roberson, Q. (2026). Artificial Intelligence and Responsible Research at AMJ. Academy of Management Journal, 69(2), 207–211.

Petersburg, 1796. Car Rosji osobiście przychodzi do celi polskiego generała. Nie po to, żeby go upokorzyć. Po to, żeby mu się pokłonić. W szóstej części serii o Tadeuszu Kościuszce opowiadam o człowieku, którego podziwiał nawet jego wróg. O drodze z wilgotnego lochu do Filadelfii, gdzie tłumy witały go salwami z dział, a Thomas Jefferson nazwał go „najczystszym synem wolności”.Będzie o godności, której nie można odebrać.O odwadze, która nie pyta o wynik.I o jednym dokumencie napisanym o czwartej nad ranem, który mógł zmienić historię Ameryki.Jeśli cenisz moją pracę nad tą serią: Wesprzyj podcast na patronite.pl/podcastlepiejteraz Postaw kawę na suppi.pl/lepiejterazŹRÓDŁA ODCINKA:Biografie podstawoweAlex Storozynski, The Peasant Prince: Thaddeus Kosciuszko and the Age of Revolution, St. Martin's Press, 2009Monica Gardner, Kościuszko: A Biography, 1920 (Wikisource)Tadeusz Korzon, Kościuszko: Biografia z dokumentów wysnuta, 1894/1896Tadeusz Korzon, Wewnętrzne dzieje Polski za Stanisława Augusta, t. IVJames S. Pula, Thaddeus Kosciuszko: The Purest Son of Liberty, Hippocrene Books, 1998Miecisław Haiman, Kosciuszko: Leader and Exile, 1946/1977Gary Nash, Graham Russell Gao Hodges, Friends of Liberty: Thomas Jefferson, Tadeusz Kosciuszko, and Agrippa Hull, Basic Books, 2008Źródła pierwotne i pamiętnikiJulian Ursyn Niemcewicz, Notes of My Captivity in Russia, tłum. Alexander Laski, 1844 (Wikisource)Founders Online, National Archives (founders.archives.gov): korespondencja Jefferson-Kościuszko, testament z 5 maja 1798The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, t. 30, red. Barbara B. Oberg, Princeton UP, 2003Insurekcja kościuszkowska i Uniwersał PołanieckiKazimierz Bartoszewicz, Dzieje Insurekcji Kościuszkowskiej, 1913 (reprint 2002)Bartłomiej Szyndler, Powstanie kościuszkowskie 1794, 2001Wikipedia: Kościuszko Uprising, Battle of Maciejowice, Battle of Szczekociny, Proclamation of Połaniec, Warsaw Uprising (1794)Kresy.pl: „Wynikał z Konstytucji 3 Maja. 7 maja 1794 roku Tadeusz Kościuszko ogłosił Uniwersał połaniecki”Wprost Historia: „Kościuszko obiecał chłopom wolność”Ośrodek Myśli Obywatelskiej i Patriotycznej: „Uniwersał połaniecki, 7 maja 1794 r.”„Finis Poloniae”, analiza źródłowaJózef Tretiak, O Finis Poloniae, 1921Muzeum Pałacu Króla Jana III w Wilanowie: „Finis Poloniae! Kościuszko w niewoli”Wikipedia (pl): Finis PoloniaeNiewola, uwolnienie i car Paweł IEdward P. Alexander, „Jefferson and Kosciuszko: Friends of Liberty and of Man”, Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XCII, nr 1, 1968Bibliotekarz Podlaski: „Prisons, politics and the gift of freedom: Kosciuszko, Niemcewicz and Paul I”Muzeum Historii Polski / Google Arts & Culture: „Tadeusz Kościuszko, a man of vision”Encyclopedia Britannica: Paul IWikipedia: Paul I of Russia, Peter and Paul FortressPrawa kobiet i Emilia ZeltnerDr Liliana Narkowicz, Rocznik SNPL, t. 17, Wilno 2017, s. 596-603Muzeum Kościuszki w SolothurnGeni.com: Emilia Taddea Zeltner (1804-1875)Wikimedia CH: Emilia Morosini ZeltnerAlex Storozynski, wywiad dla Polish WeeklyPowrót do Ameryki i testament abolicjonistycznyNPS: Thaddeus Kosciuszko National Memorial (nps.gov/thko)ushistory.org / Independence Hall AssociationAmerican Battlefield TrustThe Philadelphia Inquirer: „Jefferson's missed opportunity to free his slaves”, 2017New Eastern Europe: „General Kosciuszko, a man ahead of his time”, 2018Kontekst historyczny: III rozbiór i LegionyJerzy Lukowski, Hubert Zawadzki, A Concise History of Poland, Cambridge UP, 2001Norman Davies, God's Playground: A History of Poland, Oxford UP, 2005Wikipedia: Third Partition of Poland, Mazurek DąbrowskiegoMuzyka KościuszkiAleksander Janta, Polski Ośrodek Muzyczny USC (polishmusic.usc.edu)

This week on The Hamilton Review Podcast, we're pleased to welcome American Political Scientist, Charles Murray. In this episode, Charles discusses his book, Taking Religion Seriously. Taking Religion Seriously is Charles Murray's autobiographical account of the decades-long evolution in his stance toward the idea of God in general and Christianity in particular. The book traces Murray's journey from agnosticism to a tentative yet public Christian commitment. It is his first extended reflection on religion after four decades of writing on social policy and human diversity. Enjoy this engaging and thought provoking conversation. Charles Murray holds the F. A. Hayek Chair Emeritus in Cultural Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Dr. Murray first came to national attention with the publication of "Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950–1980" (Basic Books, 1984), which has been credited as the intellectual foundation for the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. In 1994, "The Bell Curve" (Free Press), a New York Times bestseller he coauthored with the late Richard J. Herrnstein, sparked heated controversy for its analysis of the role of IQ in shaping America's class structure. In 2012, in another the New York Times bestseller, "Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960–2010" (Crown Forum), Dr. Murray described the nature and causes of the cultural polarization that, by 2016, would shape national politics. In his latest book, "Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class" (Twelve Books, January 2020), he describes recent developments in genetics and neuroscience that are transforming the social sciences.   How to contact Charles Murray: Charles Murray at American Enterprise Institute     How to contact Dr. Bob: Dr. Bob on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChztMVtPCLJkiXvv7H5tpDQ Dr. Bob on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/drroberthamilton/ Dr. Bob on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bob.hamilton.1656 Dr. Bob's Seven Secrets Of The Newborn website: https://7secretsofthenewborn.com/ Dr. Bob's website: https://roberthamiltonmd.com/ Pacific Ocean Pediatrics: http://www.pacificoceanpediatrics.com/

"In addition to the easy convenience of bathing two children together, or three children together, there are other motivations of bathing them together. Parents are less aware that there is an excitement in seeing the children naked - although convenience is what's stated first, I think other things do go into it. Through development reactions to the genital difference and nudity will change, and I believe that being aware of those changes is very useful for parents to make decisions about what they want to do in their family, about family nudity, toileting, bathing, running around naked."    Episode Description: Ilene demonstrates the many influences on mothers' engagements with their daughters which include their own remembered and forgotten pasts, cultural influences and their unique imaginations. She mentions the startling messaging in the famous movie "Gigi", "Thank heaven for little girls...so helpless and appealing, without them what would little boys do." We discuss the power of girls wishing to be like their mothers and how that at times conflicts with their wishes to also individuate from their mothers. The book demonstrates differences among new parents around the blue/pink choices for boys and girls, and she also discusses the many feelings parents have associated with family nudity. A special distinction is made between a three-year-old asking 'Do I look pretty?' vs 'Am I pretty' - each having very different meanings to the child and to her parents. We touch upon 'whining', self-stimulation, and what being a 'girly-girl' means to parents. We close with Ilene sharing with us how real her granddaughters found this work to be.   Our Guest: Ilene Lefcourt established the Sackler Lefcourt Center for Child Development in 1982. She was the Director, led the Mother-Baby-Toddler Groups, and provided Developmental Consultation to parents for over 35 years. She taught Child Psychiatry Residents and Parent-Infant Psychotherapy Trainees about her work. She has been a faculty member at the Columbia University Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research since 1995. Ms. Lefcourt is currently in private practice in New York City. She is the author of  Parenting and Childhood Memories: A Psychoanalytic Approach to Reverberating Ghosts and Magic, Mother-Baby-Toddler Group Guide: A Psychodynamic Approach, When Mothers Talk: Magical Moments and Everyday Challenges, and Mothers and Daughters: The First Three Years. Visit Ilene's website: http://ilenelefcourt.com/.  Recommended Readings: 1975, Fraiberg S. Adelson E., Shapiro V., Ghosts in the Nursery, Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 14, 387-421   1993, Lieberman, A ., The Emotional Life of the Toddler, Simon and Schuster    2005, Lieberman, A., Angels in The Nursery, Infant Mental Health Journal. Vol. 26(6)   1995, Stern, D. The Motherhood Constellation, Basic Books

Transcript Paper: Gearhardt AN, Brownell KD, Brandt AM. From Tobacco to Ultraprocessed Food: How Industry Engineering Fuels the Epidemic of Preventable Disease. Milbank Q. 2026;104(1):0202.https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.70066 https://www.milbank.org/quarterly/articles/from-tobacco-to-ultraprocessed-food-how-industry-engineering-fuels-the-epidemic-of-preventable-disease/ Ashley, let's talk a little bit about, just set the stage for what this paper was all about, and since it was your brainchild, you approached Allan and me about being involved. Tell us what you set out to do and why you thought these issues were worth digging into. Ashley - You know, I've just been so struck that when we think of cigarettes, they were something that's so common, so normal that we kind of think, oh, they've always just sort of been there. But truly, they're just taking a natural plant from the ground and through advancements and corporate engineering and technology and knowhow, they took a poisonous plant and made it into the most deadly and addictive drug in human history. And yet that was, you know, just accompanied by tons of debate. It didn't look like other addictive substances. And I just really felt like, man, we're reliving this history right now when it comes to how we've altered our food supply. I wanted to really bring you all together and see if we could really lay that story out of the, the parallels of these two public health crises. We'll get in a minute into the issue of what you discovered, but tell us what you covered, what the paper was meant to do. Ashley - The paper really goes back from how you take the tobacco plant in the field, or the corn in the field, and walks essentially through all the kind of levers that are being pulled to transform it in very specific ways. And through specific technologies and corporate practices that are being shared by modern cigarettes and ultra processed foods. These products maybe look harmless on their face initially, or don't look like they're just maybe pleasurable or craveable. But truly, I would argue that they've crossed thresholds into things that are addictive and clearly damaging many people's lives. Okay, so several decades ago, I don't know who came up with a term, but there was a lot of discussion about similarities between tobacco industry behavior and food industry behavior. And the press started publishing cover pieces that would say food is the next tobacco. And it was a term that the food industry really didn't like, and they don't want that comparison at all. It'll be interesting to see whether they deserve it. You clearly made that connection in this paper. Allan, let's turn to you. Oh my God. I mean, we could do a 15-hour podcast and not cover the history of the tobacco industry. There's so much to say, enough that you wrote a massive book about it. But give an overall sense, if you will, of the kind of tactics and morality of that industry. Allan - Well, as Ashley already mentioned, early in the 20th Century we wouldn't really be thinking much of cigarettes, and they were just a very peripheral sales consumer item. And over the course of the 20th Century, we came to a point in the middle of the century of the 1970s, and '80s where about half of all American adults were smoking cigarettes regularly. I wanted to understand that. How do you take something that's at the very margin of the economy and culture and make it a dominant consumer force? And I think in that way, we have certain parallels to ultra processed foods. But then there were the questions, how do you make it so popular? Is it dangerous to use? Is it addictive? Does it cause disease? And how do you resist regulation and other public health approaches to try to keep people smoking? And I found a lot of evidence in each of those areas, both of how the industry acted. And when you say, you know, it's ultra processed food like cigarettes, we're learning a lot about ultra processed foods. But we know a ton about what the industry did to make the 20th Century what I call the Cigarette Century. And we have seen really important declines in smoking in the last 30-40 years. It's a remarkable public health effort. But at the same time, the industry worked incredibly hard and, in some ways brilliantly, to maintain the popularity of their product. And underlying all this is the idea that nicotine is highly addictive. And the industry came to understand that certainly before consumers did. And as a result, they could engineer, manage, manipulate the addictive character of a product that kills. I think looking for parallels, both in terms of how the industry did it and how perhaps public health law regulation can undo it, is the critical aspect of what we've been working on together. Okay. So, the tobacco industry did more than just take a plant, dry it out, chop it up, and roll it up in some paper. Then people might be driving whatever natural pleasure there would be from that product. But they did more, didn't they? Allan - Yes. And you talked about nicotine in particular. So how manipulated was this industrial process and was it designed to create such high levels of addiction? Allan - Well, for a long time we couldn't be sure about that. And we have learned that the industry had learned sophisticated techniques of industrial production of cigarettes. So, it wasn't like just chopping up tobacco and putting it in paper. You know, they added many additives. They added liquids. They dried it out, they put it in long strips of tobacco for cutting and packaging. And they had innovated the technologies, instead of human beings rolling cigarettes, they were able through machinery and technology to produce hundreds of thousands of cigarettes a day. And then they had to figure out how do we sell this tremendous volume of cigarettes in order to make our industry truly lucrative. So, there were those aspects. And certainly by the middle of the 20th Century, many people realize that - I smoke regularly and I crave my next cigarette and I'm smoking a pack a day, sometimes two packs a day. And people would ask, well, is it a habit? Is it habituating? Is it addictive? And as the science of addiction really grew in the middle of the 20th Century, we began to realize it had all the characteristics of addiction. But we really didn't know exactly what the companies were doing. And what we did learn in the '80s and '90s is that the companies had a precise ability to manage the nicotine in their product. And they did, so that even as they put filters on and they claimed they had safer cigarettes, they were also producing increasingly addictive cigarettes where we have craving, we have withdrawal, we have tolerance. The basic categories, that structure, how we understand addiction. Okay. We'll dive into some of those in a little more detail, but thanks for that background. Ashley, people kind of get it that drugs can be addictive and they know that alcohol can be addictive. They know that cigarettes can. But what about food? Ashley - Yes, so I think one of the things that when I take a step back, is that the reward and motivation system that alcoholic beverages, cigarettes can start to hijack and drive towards compulsive problematic use, that was laid down in the brain to make sure we were getting enough food. It's really sensitive to food reward, energy density. But the thing is you actually consume nicotine probably most days. Nicotine is actually in a lot of plants like tomato and eggplant, but nobody's getting addicted to the chemical in that delivery vehicle. I would argue the same thing's happening. When we look at our research nobody's getting addicted to minimally processed foods like bananas and broccoli, and salmon filets. It's when you're able to process and titrate and hedonically engineer food reward in a way that mimics the intensity and the sensory appeal and the spikes and crashes and the craveability of something like cigarettes, that you start to see people losing control. And when I read Allan's book, my husband was watching over my shoulder. And he's like, you know, if you highlight every single sentence, it's not gonna help you because you've highlighted the whole book. And reading what Allan laid out about how each wave of cigarette addiction, it wasn't because we suddenly discovered what nicotine was, it's because the industry got better at manipulating engineering, designing, flooding the market with it. And then health washing it, so people didn't really understand what they were getting into. And to me, that is what we've done to our food supply. And the result of that has been the astronomical increases in diet related disease and health concerns. Tell us about the concept of ultra processed food and how that fits in. Ashley - Yes. Yeah, that's a great question. So, ultra processed food is a concept that actually came out at about the same time as the Yale Food Addiction Scale, that Kelly and I published together, about how to operationalize who might be showing signs of addiction and certain foods. Carlos Monteiro from Brazil was noticing that his grocery store was starting to be flooded by foods that you could not make in your home kitchen. I have exactly no idea how to make a double stuffed Oreo or a flaming hot Cheeto, or a Cherry Coca-Cola. And as these products that were industrially created with additives and flavor enhancers that are kind of biologically novel, that's when the disease risk started to go up. And so, these foods are so fundamentally changed in they're kind of most archetypal forms of things, like sodas and, you know, your sweet, savory sort of snacks, that a whole new category had to be created for them. To really distinguish them from, you know, grandma's homemade cookies or, you know, an apple or an orange. Ashley, you're brilliant at framing things. And one of the things that I learned from you a long time ago, and I've used a thousand times in discussions with people, is thinking about food, like turning the coca plant into cocaine and into crack cocaine. That if you take the coca plant into its natural form, people can live in harmony with it. You don't really have addiction. But when you process it and it becomes cocaine, then things change dramatically. And when you hyper process it, like the hyper palatable foods and the ultra processed foods, then the crack cocaine becomes incredibly addictive. So that same sort of phenomenon I think applies here. And it's a very compelling way to think about this. Allan, let's get back to the addiction thing and tobacco. One of the most stunning things I remember about the tobacco history. Is the videotape of the seven tobacco company executives testifying before Congress that nicotine wasn't addictive. Swearing, you know, sworn statements about nicotine. Tell us about that and what that kind of meant in history. Allan - It's a great story and it has a kind of visual linkage to many of us who actually saw those congressional hearings. And it was a brilliant sort of performative politics, if you will. And there had been more and more knowledge that the industry was manipulating nicotine to make cigarettes that they were claiming were safer and not addictive, even more highly addictive. And David Kessler, the head of the FDA under Clinton, had really been a major player in this. And one thing I should say is we were learning more and more about the industry because people were suing them. And they would typically lose the suits, but they would get hundreds, hundreds of thousands of documents. And the industry also had whistleblowers who were coming forward and saying, of course we know it's addictive. So, Henry Waxman, a really fantastic congressman who represented consumers invited all seven of the major tobacco CEOs to a hearing on nicotine. And he went one by one - do you believe nicotine is addictive? And they would say, Congressman, I do not believe that nicotine is addictive. And it's like any great prosecutor, he had figured out how to get them essentially to perjure themselves in front of a congressional, and video news audience. And in fact, the Department of Justice considered for some time whether they should be put on trial and indicted for perjury before Congress. But it was so in congress, with what we had come to know, especially experts, but even, you know, parents and the public and citizens had come to know that it was incredibly difficult to get off of nicotine. It just didn't comport with our existing knowledge. And we're not quite to that point with ultra processed foods yet, but I think we have a good chance to get there because as we understand what they're doing better and we have a sophisticated understanding of the characteristics of addiction, that same question will be put ultimately to CEOs of the food industry. Especially those who are producing these highly addictive products. And there are many people who are involved in this. So, they will tell a story of how we understood we could make our product sell better and be used at a much higher level if we could make it addictive. And regrettably, as we learn more about addictive addiction, we not only learn perhaps how to help people who are addicted. But we often learn how to make certain products even more highly addictive. Ashley, let's take what Allan said and apply it into the food arena. So, if you think about the criteria for addiction, like Allan had mentioned: cravings, withdrawal, and tolerance, and, tolerance being the need to have more of the substance over time in, in order to produce the same pharmacologic effect. How do those things apply to foods? Ashley - Yes. There there's very strong parallels there. And I actually have a paper I wrote with Dr. Alex DiFeliceantonio, where we took the 1988 Surgeon General's report on the addictiveness of tobacco and nicotine in particular. And we took what they identified as the necessary and sufficient criteria to prove that it was addictive. It was a watershed moment for tobacco. And the major one is that people consume it compulsively. Meaning, you know, they want to cut down and they can't. They know it's harming them and they can't. Clearly we see that with ultra processed food. That it shifts mood. It increases pleasure. It reduces negative affect through its mechanism on the brain. And I think if you look at any marketing, you know, they're always saying you're craving meet your maker, get your bliss point. You're not you unless you're eating a Snickers. They show that it was highly reinforced. And that is, you know, animals and humans will work really hard to get access to it. With nicotine one of the major points of that is that animals, about 20% of the time, would work to get nicotine over cocaine. And that was quite striking because cocaine is so powerfully addictive. Well in those same models, animals will work for processed sweet taste and choose it 80% of the time over cocaine. It just shows that when we start altering, processing food reward into these unnaturally intensely stimulating packages, our brains were not evolved to protect itself against that. And then the final pieces that's been kind of added over time has been the cravings. I mean, if you think about what is the core of addiction, it's the craveability of it. That they maximize that. So, you can't stop thinking about anything else. And when I read, and we even quote in our paper, spots where, you know, industries, the big food is having webinars and how to turn cravings into corporate wins. And how to take snackers who are consuming, because their cravings feel unmanageable, but here's how you can keep them snacking even though they want to quit. And so, the craving really seems to me, based on my read of what I've seen from the industry, is the core engine of driving and selling ultra processed food. So, these foods, and I've heard you say this, Ashley, you know, they have less to do with the farm and, you know, these sort of romantic ideas of the farmer growing crops and the crops being harvested and coming to a farmer's market. These are really industrial lab-based, you know, heavy duty factory related products. And there's a real question, isn't there, about what you even should call them food. Ashley - Yes, absolutely. I actually grew up on a farm and I never ate anything that we grew on the farm because it was all due to Ag policy. Just, corn to go into high fructose corn syrup, soy to go into soybean oil. And I was surrounded by what looked like lots of food, but in reality, it was not. And some of the things that I learned in writing this paper with you all is just to what degree ultra processing allows them to even control the molecular structure and size of the different starch chemicals. That carby kind of access point in food. Allan talks in his book about how you can treat tobacco. So, you break it down and make it molecularly more bioavailable so nicotine gets more rapidly into the body. That's a huge driver of addictive potential. I found in ours that they were actually using enzymes that mimic what's in the saliva in your mouth. And hitting starches with it. Essentially you were predigesting, pre salivating, essentially the starch creating what's called a starch slurry. And that's a base of so many common ultra processed foods like cereals and savory snacks. Many of these products really have far more in common with that cigarette and have almost nothing in common, you know, with the apple or the can of beans anymore. You know, that image that you said about pre salivating food. I mean, it's in some ways as if the industry is spitting in your food to bypass your own biological mechanisms that occur when the food gets in the mouth and. People get a kind of a yuck response to that, but it deserves that kind of a response. Let's dive into the paper and talk about what you reported, Ashley. You talk a lot about the kind of processes. You just mentioned one of them, but there are a lot more. What are some of the specific techniques to food processing that surprised you when you started digging in. How did you get this information? Ashley - Yes, so one of the functions that actually didn't surprise me, but it made me look at it in new light, is the work on how we really changed the way we saw cigarettes when we realized they weren't just taking a plant and drying it and rolling it up. But that they were actually curating and titrating these just right doses of nicotine. So, you get stimulated, but not too satisfied and you don't feel overwhelmed by the amount of nicotine. When we realized that was very intentional and designed and titrated, that really changed this from a natural kind of product, it's just a plant to, oh, this is an in industry engineered product. They're controlling so much of this. We all know that they are altering the amount of sweetened refined carbohydrates and fats in our food. I mean, that's just plain knowledge. And at levels that go way beyond what exists in nature. But I think I've become very obsessed with extrusion technology. Extrusion is something where they take really high pressure, high shear mechanical impact, high pH, high temperature. And they can break the corn or the potatoes and things into this slurry that is broken down again into this kind of predigested molecular base that on its own is nasty. No one is like, oh, starch, slurry, yes! They need all the sensory and flavor additives to blitz that and texturize it so it can trick your brain into thinking it's appealing. I realized that actually has such a strong parallel to modern cigarette where, as Allan talks about in his book, one of the major technological advances was creating reconstituted tobacco where they take the tobacco scraps and they do the same sort of process to create what they call a tobacco slurry. That was then very easy to manipulate by putting flavor and preservative additives in it, and that's what makes up a large component of modern cigarette. And so, when we look at these processes and those sensory additives, the flavors, that are put in it, cigarettes have more sugar and flavor additives in them by weight than they do nicotine. And so many of those flavor additives are actually in our ultra processed food supply. Why? Because the flavor and sensory profiles are what you start to become really emotionally attached to. And that starts to drive brand loyalty from a very young age. I could go on and on and on. Oh man, we could be here for a day, so I'm really inhibiting myself. I'll be exhausted. I'll have to go get an ultra processed food from this. But it was stunning to me to see how the goals of the engineering were so shared. And I guess it shouldn't surprise us because, you know, we know that the tobacco companies like Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds actually created, manufactured and sold many of our favorite ultra processed foods that are now in our modern food supply, like Fig Newton's and you know, Hawaiian Punch and things. It really came from the same industrial practices. So Allan, I want to bring this back to the tobacco industry in a minute, but Ashley, I wanted to ask you first. I'm going to make a characterization. Tell me if I'm off on this. The industry is kind of manipulating every possible characteristic of a product. Its fragrance, its color, its texture, everything in the ways you mentioned. It becomes this industrialized product much more than a food. People consume it. They get immense reward from it because it's delivering a drug, basically, to the brain very quickly in a very efficient way. People then, of course, want more of that sensation. If tolerance exists, then it means they need more of the food over time in order to get the same reward. And then you've got a public health nightmare on your hand because people aren't just eating a little bit of these foods, they're eating a lot of these foods. And they're designed in order to produce that very impact. Does that seem fair? Ashley - Absolutely. That sums it up quite nicely. Okay, Allan, back to the tobacco experience. This kind of information that Ashley is talking about in the context of food, and you talked about in the context of tobacco. Manipulation of the product. As this kind of damning information became public knowledge, how did that happen in the tobacco arena? And then what was the consequence? Was it, you mentioned whistleblowers; was it investigative journalism? The hearings you mentioned were important. Scientific research, discovery. It sounds like a whole lot of things happened that made this information available to the public, which in turn changed public opinion against the industry. Allan - Yes, I think that's exactly right. It changed public opinion and it changed public policy and it took a long time. So, these are aspects that I think we have to, you know, acknowledge in thinking about public health and especially these powerful commercial interests that spend a lot of money on lobbying. They spend a lot of money on advertising. They know how to get to kids. These are very challenging. I do think, you know, early in the anti-tobacco campaigns, there were a few lawyers who said, well, we're going to sue them because they have misled, deceived, and in some instances probably acted criminally to build their addictive and extremely harmful life-threatening product. And people said, well, you know, it's everybody's decision whether they want to smoke and people quit all the time, so you're not going to do very well. And I think as a young academic type, I was very skeptical of the suits against the companies. But one thing that happened that I think was unanticipated, the lawyers asked for the company's records and their research reports and what people were doing. And they took depositions and the lawyers often lost the case, but they won an incredible archive that was incredibly self-incriminating of what the industry knew. When they knew it and how they continued to act to sell a harmful product. And I think that began to change things. So once you have documents, you know you're going to be more successful in court. Once you have some documents, you can call the CEOs in and say is it addictive? When they say no, you have documentation to challenge them about their own industry. Obviously, education is important. Investigative journalism. A lot of the documents not only came from the court suits, but from whistleblowers who snuck them out of law firms. Some of the whistleblowers came directly from the industry where they said, here's what my bosses told me. They need to know can you make this cigarette even more addictive? And they knew, for example, that taking nicotine out of cigarettes, which is not that difficult to do given the extent of manipulation, had to be something that was resisted. We could end the tobacco pandemic by just removing nicotine. Even if we did, you know, 10% a year. Many people would be able to stop smoking who cannot. But we had to array a kind of knowledge and practice and advocacy that really hadn't existed till the second half of the 20th Century. Ashley, when Allan mentioned these archives that exist on tobacco industry behavior, there's some food things in there, aren't there? Tell us about that connection between tobacco and food companies. Ashley - Yes, so you know, actually, Dr. Laura Schmidt at University of California - San Francisco, has done this just stunning work by using those same tobacco archives. Because they owned alcoholic beverage and ultra processed food and beverage companies she's been able to show really how much these industries kind of spoke back and forth. The different sectors of Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds, you know, they're big conglomerates. They were pulling scientists working on the cigarettes, or the marketers working on marketing cigarettes to kids, and putting them on and intentionally using that playbook to sell their ultra processed foods and beverages. That's very clear and very intentional. They might not say as blatantly. I feel like they learned their lesson a little bit. Oh, we're going to make this more addictive. They use synonyms even out in the public. Some of it that we report in this paper is not hidden. It's industry trade newsletters. It's interviews on 60 minutes with labor scientists where they're saying, yeah, we design these products, so you get a big flavor burst. And then it fades really rapidly because that makes you want to keep coming back for more and more and more. And yeah, addictive is a good word for that. And so there is this moment where it just becomes so implausible that they don't know that they have crossed the Rubicon into something that is hooking people. That plausible deniability that we're just, you know, giving consumers what they want, not actually engineering their desires to override what they know they should have to nourish themselves. It just feels beyond the pale to me to believe that's the case. Allan, look, you mentioned delay. And I'd like to talk about that a little bit more. There's a point in time when the science on something becomes robust. And you're very certain say that tobacco is causing lung cancer and heart disease.  And then you can't change things the next day or the next week. So, a little bit of delay is probably acceptable and to be understood. But the delay in this case between that knowledge and significant public health action policy action wasn't measured in days, weeks, months, or even years. It was decades. And you can count the number of attributable deaths to that delay in the millions. What did the industry do to make that delay as long as possible in terms of planting doubt, conflicts of interest with science and things like that? Allan - This is highly relevant to our moment because I make a few claims in the book. One is that the industry invented disinformation and misinformation. And there's always this way that says, well, I know that study appeared, but we need more information. And this was very clever on the part of the tobacco companies because they said, well, you know, that science shows this, but that science is unreliable. And we need to use different methods. And lung cancer is not a result of cigarette smoking, it's actually genetic. And maybe there are a few people that shouldn't be smoking cigarettes. We should be able to identify what's different about them. They kept finding strategies of delay, manipulation, building uncertainty. There's one of the tobacco documents in this phase that says, from now on, our product is doubt. And what they really needed to do to sell the product was to create doubt about a science that was highly robust and really important to consumers. On the other hand, I think consumers are sensitive to being manipulated. They don't like that. They don't like being tricked. They know these industries, especially tobacco industry, you know, is disreputable. And as that became the case, what did they know and what are they selling. We began to see some slow shifts in public awareness. And, you know, it's so interesting presenting the cigarette problem to a jury in 1970 became radically different than presenting the case against the tobacco companies in the 1990s. And a lot had changed, A lot had been documented and, you know, we never even thought of the idea that a company would scientifically mislead us probably until in any consequential way till the middle of the 20th Century. And now we're incredibly skeptical and I think taking advantage of the public skepticism, both politically and culturally is going to be one of the important issues of pushing back against what I've called rogue industries. They're operating unethically; in many cases, unlawfully. They're misrepresenting what they produce. And they have the idea that having addicted customers is the best customer. And Warren Buffet once said, you know the tobacco industry, that's crazy. It cost a dime to make it. You sell it for a dollar and its addictive. He said, what industry could be more, you know, lucrative than tobacco? Ashley, how do those things apply into the food area now? Ashley - Oh, my brain is just exploding with all the things I want to say. But I think I have an answer to Warren Buffett, which is if you've pulled all those same levers and pretend to people that it's food, and it's because we all have to eat, you know? And I walk around a grocery store and I, in my head, I'm like, if I waved a magic wand, and all the products in here that are masquerading as food but are actually ultra processed, chemically adulterated starch, slurries essentially disappeared. There is so little food in my grocery store. Real food. And it's also expensive. We would be rioting in the streets if we really saw the degree that we're not being adequately nourished or supported in our current environment. And it's the mirage of abundance that is totally hooking us. You know, taking us hook, line, and sinker. And so, you know, I'll have people often say to me, you know, it's food. Like can't really be addictive. We all need to eat. And to me that is absolutely true. Just like we all need pain management. And there used to be a belief, a myth, that if you were in pain, you couldn't get addicted to painkillers like opiates which we now know is incredibly wrong. That just because we need calories to survive doesn't mean that if you manipulate and hedonically engineer those products, that it won't impact the brain in a way that can drive it in compulsive problematic ways. It's so essential for us to carve out, yes, you need real nourishing food. This is real nourishing food and these other things. I'd love it if the grocery store, it's like you're walking around this spot, you know you're getting real food. Sure, you want to go get those Cheetos, go for it. But it's in a very clear designated area that you're not being tricked into thinking that you're eating something that's nourishing you when it's really addicting you. So, people have very strong affective attachments to foods. Particular foods that they like. Some of it is kind of what you grew up with, what your parents gave you, but a lot of it's marketing as well. And you mentioned a Cheeto or Coca-Cola, or a Dorito or a Twinkie or whatever it is. People don't want that taken away from them. Tell me if this is correct, the problem isn't so much that people eat Cheetos. It's that they overeat Cheetos, and then you add to that all the other thing, not just that food. But then you've got a real problem. Could it be a matter of just removing some of the especially troublesome ingredients from that. If you look at the list of ingredients on these foods, there could be 25 or 30 different ingredients. Well, what if, what if 12 of them got taken out or 13 or 15 of them got taken out? You'd still have the food; it would still have its taste. People could enjoy it, but it's not hijacking your biology. Ashley - Yes, I'm very skeptical of that as the response, because as Allan lays out in his book, we were like, okay, if we just get the tar out of the cigarette. You know, it's all fine, Vapes, right? Oh, you're vaping. It's fine. It will be harmless because our reward system is so porous to different levers that signal food reward. We see it with the non-sugar sweeteners. Look, we took all the sugar out, we gave you Diet Coke, we gave you non-sugar sweeteners. It's a get out of jail free card. And now we're realizing how much that messes up our gut microbiome, could potentially lead to earlier brain aging and so, you know, abstinence, clearly making this stuff illegal, that's never the goal. But I think that sense of saying, oh, we can just engineer our way out of this is unlikely. And we have the alternative. You know, for what should be the majority of what we're eating. I love a Reese's Cup, right? I will have an ultra processed food, but it shouldn't be 60% of the food supply, or 70% of what my kids are getting for their calories. And so again, that clear understanding that this is something that's fundamentally different from the food that nourishes us. We have the answer which is real food. If we poured even a tiny amount of the investment, even closing the tax loopholes on things like ultra processed food marketing to kids that they get tax breaks on and invested that into technology to make real food in its original food matrix affordable, accessible, convenient. That stuff is tasty. Have a fresh apple. It's just everything's been wired for that to be the minority of our food supply. That's often unaffordable and we all feel really time poor. These are solvable problems. We've just been shoving all our money towards how we make new flavor additives to sell high fructose corn syrup, starch, slurries. So, we just need to have the right in incentives in mind. Your point is very well taken that government trying to say, okay, let take out this ingredient or that ingredient is stepping into a trap. It makes all the sense to me in the world that that is a trap because. Using that philosophy requires a trust in the industry that if you ask them to take out these 12 things, they're not going to put in 12 new things that might even make things worse. And both of these industries, tobacco and the food industry have done everything but earn our trust so that's a very good cautionary note that you raised. I would say in the tobacco area, the idea of that we think that, you know, vaping will be harm reduction. And there's been a strong political notion that we should be, you know, doing harm reduction. And of course, in many instances, harm reduction can be helpful. But I found in tobacco, that I can't trust the industry to make a harm reduction product that's not going to get kids addicted. That's going to, you know, make sure that we're not using both tobacco and nicotine in the form of vape or other products. And so while many people who I admire in the public health world have said, yes, harm reduction is the way to go. I don't think that's true with tobacco. We have a lot of children and adolescents today who are profoundly addicted to nicotine. So, this discussion has led to lots of, oh my God, kind of observations from both of you. Paints a pretty scary picture of the food supply. How much manipulation there is. And how much harm gets caused by it. I'm hoping we might end on a bit of a positive note if there is one here. I'd like to ask each of you, is there a reason to be hopeful about the future? Allan, let me start with you. You're looking in on this with a unique perspective because of your years and years of working on tobacco. As you look in on the food space and see what's happening, what do you think? Allan - Well, I tend to be an optimist. I believe public policies can make a difference. I believe the courts can be used to serve consumers who have been harmed in the market. So, I have seen those things work to a really significant degree around the cigarette. Especially in countries where we have resources for education, where we can make policies that sometimes work or mostly work. I don't think I ever would've thought when I started this work in like the 1980s that we would've gotten so far. I once said to my son when he was seven, he was taking a flight with me. And I said, you know, people used to smoke on airplanes. And he said, no, that's impossible. And he just couldn't believe the idea that we had let people smoke on airplanes. And I've been collecting cigarette packages that were given out by the big airlines. Of course, you and I, Kelly, remember probably, when they start to put smokers in the back of the plane. But the smoke was wafting throughout it. And a lot of things that seem almost impossible now, were actually reduced through regulation and politics and public health. I'm very hopeful that we can use what we've learned about how to get smoking from 50% of the population down to 15 or 12, as bad as that is. And apply it to other gigantic risks like ultra processed foods. All right, thanks for that positive note. Ashley, what do you think are there grounds for being positive? Ashley - Yes, I'm also a huge optimist. I feel wildly optimistic. I just, from listening to consumer sentiment right now, the degree to which corporations are able to hack our limbic systems, I mean, you see it right now with social media and sports betting. I think in our bones as a society, we're starting to just get fed up. And to me there is nothing that is more clear cut of how industries can manipulate us than taking food, the thing we most evolved to care about and to find rewarding and nourishing, and somehow jacking it up into an addictive, harmful substance. And I have two little kids. I have a five and 7-year-old and I am just as a mom full of rage every time I go grocery shopping because they've just shoved protein in a Pop-Tart, now they're trying to tell me it's a health food. I think we're catching onto them, and I think that there is no way to go but up. And again, we already have the solution. In opiates, we are still struggling to find non-addictive pain management. We have non-addictive food and it's called, you know, minimally processed real foods. So, it's just about putting the incentives in the right place. BIOS Ashley Gearhardt, Ph.D., is a Professor of Psychology in the Clinical Science area at the University of Michigan. She also earned her B.A. in psychology from The University of Michigan as an undergraduate. While working on her doctorate in clinical psychology at Yale University, Dr. Gearhardt became interested in the possibility that certain foods may be capable of triggering an addictive process. To explore this further, she developed the Yale Food Addiction Scale (YFAS) to operationalize addictive eating behaviors, which has been linked with more frequent binge eating episodes, an increased prevalence of obesity and patterns of neural activation implicated in other addictive behaviors. It has been cited over 800 times and translated into over ten foreign languages. Her areas of research also include investigating how food advertising activates reward systems to drive eating behavior and the development of food preferences and eating patterns in infants. She has published over 100 academic publications and her research has been featured on media outlets, such as ABC News, Good Morning America, the Today Show, the Wall Street Journal, and NPR. Allan M. Brandt is the Amalie Moses Kass Professor of the History of Medicine and Professor of the History of Science at Harvard University, where he holds a joint appointment between the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and Harvard Medical School.  Brandt served as Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences from 2008 to 2012.  He earned his undergraduate degree at Brandeis University and a Ph.D. in American History from Columbia University.  His work focuses on social and ethical aspects of health, disease, medical practices, and global health in the twentieth century.  Brandt is the author of No Magic Bullet:  A Social History of Venereal Disease in the United States since 1880 (paperback, 1987; 35th Anniversary Edition, 2020); and co-editor of Morality and Health (1997).  He has written on the social history of epidemic disease, the history of public health and health policy, and the history of human experimentation, among other topics.  His book on the social and cultural history of cigarette smoking in the U.S., The Cigarette Century: The Rise, Fall, and Deadly Persistence of the Product that Defined America, was published by Basic Books in 2007 (paperback, 2009).  It received the Bancroft Prize from Columbia University in 2008 and the Welch Medal from the American Association for the History of Medicine in 2011, among other awards.   Brandt has been elected to the National Academy of Medicine and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.  In 2015, he was awarded the Everett Mendelsohn Excellence in Mentoring Award by the Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.  In 2019-20, Brandt was a recipient of fellowships from the American Council of Learned Societies and the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study.  He recently served as the interim chair of the Department of Global Health and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School.  Brandt is currently writing about the history and ethics of stigma and its impact on patients and health outcomes.  

In this episode, Veronica explores the definition of "horsemanship". What is the historical definition versus the definition given by industry traditions? How much of defining horsemanship is relationship based versus skill based? Have we drifted from its original meaning and can we circle it back? Just another topic to question on the "Question Everything" Equestrian Podcast.Sources and Further ReadingsHistorical FoundationsXenophon. (c. 350 BCE/1925). On horsemanship. (E. C. Marchant, Trans.). Harvard University Press. (Original work written ca. 350 BCE).— Early instructional text emphasizing gentle handling, trust, and partnership even within a military context. Equine Science & Learning TheoryMcGreevy, P. D., & McLean, A. N. (2007). Roles of learning theory and ethology in equitation. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 2(4), 108–118.— Discusses how misunderstanding learning theory contributes to conflict behaviors in horses.McLean, A. N., & Christensen, J. W. (2017). The application of learning theory in horse training. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 190, 18–27.— Explains pressure-release training, reinforcement, and the ethical implications of correct timing and consistency.Sankey, C., Henry, S., André, N., Richard-Yris, M.-A., & Hausberger, M. (2010). Do horses have a concept of person? Behavioural Processes, 86(2), 153–157.— Demonstrates that horses recognize and differentiate humans based on previous interactions.Sankey, C., Henry, S., Clouard, C., Richard-Yris, M.-A., & Hausberger, M. (2011). Asymmetry of behavioral responses to a human: Discrimination and memory of individuals in horses. Animal Cognition, 14, 339–347.— Shows horses remember positive vs. negative handling experiences.Hausberger, M., Roche, H., Henry, S., & Visser, E. K. (2008). A review of the human–horse relationship. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 109(1), 1–24.— Comprehensive review of how handling styles shape equine stress and behavior.Fureix, C., & Meagher, R. K. (2015). What can inactivity (and depression-like states) tell us about welfare in domestic horses? Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 171, 8–20.— Links behavioral shutdown and learned helplessness to welfare concerns.Psychology of Healthy vs. Unhealthy Relationships Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Basic Books.— Foundational attachment theory explaining trust, safety, and emotional security in relationships.Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.— Self-Determination Theory: autonomy, competence, and relatedness as pillars of healthy relationships.Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.— Explores connection and belonging as central to well-being. Ethical Framing of Horsemanship International Society for Equitation Science (ISES). (2018). First principles of horse training.— Evidence-based guidelines for ethical, science-informed training practices.

From its birth in seventh-century Arabia, Islam has been a faith on the move. In Worlds of Islam: A Global History (Basic Books, 2026), James McDougall explores its origins and transformations from Late Antiquity to the digital age. Over the span of a thousand years, armies, missionaries, and merchants carried it to the edges of Europe, the coasts of Southeast Asia, and the remote interior of China. By the nineteenth century, Islam encompassed a world of great diversity, from Muslim-ruled empires to nations where Muslims lived out their faith among many others. In the twentieth century, while monarchs in the Gulf asserted dynastic privilege and fundamentalists in Egypt and Pakistan preached social morality, revolutionaries from Algeria to Indonesia fought for national self-determination, and activists in North America and Europe campaigned for civil liberties and social justice. As empires fell and new superpowers rose, Muslims proved to be as adaptable and dynamic as modernity itself. Sweeping and authoritative, Worlds of Islam narrates the epic story of how Muslims emerged as a community, built empires, traversed the globe, came to number in the billions, and became modern. James McDougall is a Professor of Modern and Contemporary History and a Fellow of Trinity College, University of Oxford. He previously taught at Princeton and at SOAS, London. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

From its birth in seventh-century Arabia, Islam has been a faith on the move. In Worlds of Islam: A Global History (Basic Books, 2026), James McDougall explores its origins and transformations from Late Antiquity to the digital age. Over the span of a thousand years, armies, missionaries, and merchants carried it to the edges of Europe, the coasts of Southeast Asia, and the remote interior of China. By the nineteenth century, Islam encompassed a world of great diversity, from Muslim-ruled empires to nations where Muslims lived out their faith among many others. In the twentieth century, while monarchs in the Gulf asserted dynastic privilege and fundamentalists in Egypt and Pakistan preached social morality, revolutionaries from Algeria to Indonesia fought for national self-determination, and activists in North America and Europe campaigned for civil liberties and social justice. As empires fell and new superpowers rose, Muslims proved to be as adaptable and dynamic as modernity itself. Sweeping and authoritative, Worlds of Islam narrates the epic story of how Muslims emerged as a community, built empires, traversed the globe, came to number in the billions, and became modern. James McDougall is a Professor of Modern and Contemporary History and a Fellow of Trinity College, University of Oxford. He previously taught at Princeton and at SOAS, London. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/islamic-studies

From its birth in seventh-century Arabia, Islam has been a faith on the move. In Worlds of Islam: A Global History (Basic Books, 2026), James McDougall explores its origins and transformations from Late Antiquity to the digital age. Over the span of a thousand years, armies, missionaries, and merchants carried it to the edges of Europe, the coasts of Southeast Asia, and the remote interior of China. By the nineteenth century, Islam encompassed a world of great diversity, from Muslim-ruled empires to nations where Muslims lived out their faith among many others. In the twentieth century, while monarchs in the Gulf asserted dynastic privilege and fundamentalists in Egypt and Pakistan preached social morality, revolutionaries from Algeria to Indonesia fought for national self-determination, and activists in North America and Europe campaigned for civil liberties and social justice. As empires fell and new superpowers rose, Muslims proved to be as adaptable and dynamic as modernity itself. Sweeping and authoritative, Worlds of Islam narrates the epic story of how Muslims emerged as a community, built empires, traversed the globe, came to number in the billions, and became modern. James McDougall is a Professor of Modern and Contemporary History and a Fellow of Trinity College, University of Oxford. He previously taught at Princeton and at SOAS, London. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/middle-eastern-studies

From its birth in seventh-century Arabia, Islam has been a faith on the move. In Worlds of Islam: A Global History (Basic Books, 2026), James McDougall explores its origins and transformations from Late Antiquity to the digital age. Over the span of a thousand years, armies, missionaries, and merchants carried it to the edges of Europe, the coasts of Southeast Asia, and the remote interior of China. By the nineteenth century, Islam encompassed a world of great diversity, from Muslim-ruled empires to nations where Muslims lived out their faith among many others. In the twentieth century, while monarchs in the Gulf asserted dynastic privilege and fundamentalists in Egypt and Pakistan preached social morality, revolutionaries from Algeria to Indonesia fought for national self-determination, and activists in North America and Europe campaigned for civil liberties and social justice. As empires fell and new superpowers rose, Muslims proved to be as adaptable and dynamic as modernity itself. Sweeping and authoritative, Worlds of Islam narrates the epic story of how Muslims emerged as a community, built empires, traversed the globe, came to number in the billions, and became modern. James McDougall is a Professor of Modern and Contemporary History and a Fellow of Trinity College, University of Oxford. He previously taught at Princeton and at SOAS, London. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/religion

O que há em comum entre uma bateria antiaérea da Segunda Guerra Mundial, os algoritmos do WhatsApp e o bolsonarismo? Para Letícia Cesarino, professora associada de Antropologia Social na Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, a resposta está na cibernética. Neste episódio, produzido em parceria com o Observatório da Extrema Direita, David Magalhães e Guilherme Casarões recebem Letícia para discutir seu artigo recém-publicado na revista Current Anthropology: “An Ecology of Mind Approach to Far-Right Publics in Brazil“, no qual ela aplica o quadro teórico da ecologia da mente, desenvolvido pelo antropólogo Gregory Bateson, para reler o bolsonarismo como um sistema tecnopolítico. No bloco de notícias, David traz dois termômetros da extrema-direita global: os resultados das eleições municipais na França, que revelam o avanço territorial do Rassemblement National a despeito de um teto de vidro nas grandes cidades, e as eleições húngaras de abril, onde Peter Magyar desafia 15 anos de governo Orbán. E ainda tem, no último bloco, dica cultural. Aperte o play! Quer apoiar o Chutando a Escada? Acesse chutandoaescada.com.br/apoio Mande um café usando nossa chave PIX: perguntas@chutandoaescada.com.br Comentários, críticas, sugestões? Escreva pra gente em perguntas@chutandoaescada.com.br Participaram deste episódio: Letícia Cesarino (UFSC), David Magalhães e Guilherme Casarões Capa do episódio: Agência Brasil (CC BY 3.0 BR) Escute também no Spotify, no YouTube ou Apple Podcasts. Capítulos: 00:00 — Abertura 00:02 — Entrevista: ecologia da mente, cibernética e extrema-direita digital 00:32 — Bolsonarismo, populismo e públicos digitais artificiais 00:45 — Radicalização, a lacuna online-offline e os limites da etnografia 00:57 — Boletim: França — eleições municipais e o Rassemblement National 01:03 — Boletim: Hungria — Orbán e Peter Magyar às vésperas das eleições de abril 01:08 — Dica cultural: Feels Good Man (Amazon Prime, 2020) Citados no episódio CESARINO, Letícia. “An Ecology of Mind Approach to Far-Right Publics in Brazil”. Current Anthropology, 2026. BATESON, Gregory. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chandler, 1972. GALISON, Peter. “The Ontology of the Enemy: Norbert Wiener and the Cybernetic Vision”. Critical Inquiry, v. 21, n. 1, 1994. WIENER, Norbert. Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. MIT Press, 1948. MASSUMI, Brian. Ontopower: War, Powers, and the State of Perception. Duke University Press, 2015. SIMONDON, Gilbert. L’individuation à la lumière des notions de forme et d’information. Jérôme Millon, 2005. LIFTON, Robert Jay. The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide. Basic Books, 1986. EASTON, David. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. Wiley, 1965. Documentário Feels Good Man. Direção: Arthur Jones. EUA, 2020. Disponível na Amazon Prime. Chute 391 — Transcrição Parceria Chutando a Escada e Observatório da Extrema Direita Publicado em 26 de março de 2026 Abertura David Magalhães: Olá, pessoal! Sejam bem-vindos e bem-vindas a mais um episódio da parceria entre o Chutando a Escada e o Observatório da Extrema Direita — o primeiro episódio de 2026. A partir de agora, nos encontramos sempre na última semana de cada mês com episódios dedicados a discutir a extrema-direita em suas dimensões globais, teóricas e também reagindo ao calor dos acontecimentos. Para quem já acompanha o podcast, vale lembrar que nosso programa segue dividido em três blocos. No primeiro, trazemos uma entrevista mais aprofundada com pesquisadores e pesquisadoras que estão na linha de frente desse debate. Depois, passamos para um boletim com as análises das principais notícias envolvendo a extrema-direita global. E, para fechar, uma dica cultural sempre conectada com o universo do extremismo de direita — pode ser um livro, um filme, uma série, uma produção musical. Peço que você fique conosco até o fim, porque a dica deste episódio está completamente relacionada com o tema da nossa entrevista. Vamos lá. Entrevista — Letícia Cesarino David Magalhães: Estou aqui com o meu amigo Guilherme Casarões para receber a nossa convidada deste episódio, que é a Letícia Cesarino. A Letícia é professora associada de Antropologia Social na Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina e também uma das novas integrantes do Observatório da Extrema Direita. Aproveitamos para dar as boas-vindas — é um prazer ter você conosco, não só no episódio, mas também no Observatório. Nos últimos cinco anos, a Letícia desenvolveu uma pesquisa bastante aprofundada e relevante sobre antropologia digital, extrema-direita e redes sociais. E, mais recentemente, ela acaba de publicar — acabou de sair do forno — um artigo bastante interessante e instigante na revista Current Anthropology. O artigo se intitula “An Ecology of Mind Approach to Far-Right Publics in Brazil” — algo como uma abordagem da ecologia da mente aplicada aos públicos de extrema-direita no Brasil. A ideia deste episódio é discutir esse novo artigo. Letícia, você mobiliza um quadro teórico bastante sofisticado, especialmente ao trazer a ideia de ecologia da mente — ecology of mind —, que vem do trabalho de Gregory Bateson, um antropólogo e linguista britânico importante do século XX. Confesso que não o conhecia; encontrei o livro dele em PDF na internet e li um pouco para me inteirar de como você adota e aplica esse quadro teórico para discutir redes sociais e extrema-direita brasileira. Fiquei bastante interessado no uso do termo “cibernético”, porque para ouvidos contemporâneos ele remete imediatamente ao universo digital, de redes e internet. Mas as principais obras de Bateson são publicadas logo após a Segunda Guerra, nos anos 1960 e 1970 — embora ele tenha iniciado seu desenvolvimento nos anos 1930 —, e ele não estava falando exatamente de internet. Isso me gerou dúvidas. Antes de falarmos da aplicação propriamente dita, você poderia nos explicar um pouco sobre essa abordagem e esse quadro teórico? Bateson propõe tudo isso muito antes da chamada terceira revolução industrial. Letícia Cesarino: Oi, David, Casarões. É um grande prazer estar aqui com vocês no podcast e também no Observatório da Extrema Direita como um todo. Obrigada pelo convite. Acho que esse artigo é um bom gancho para trabalharmos questões da minha abordagem mais específica para a extrema-direita, porque, diferente de muitos que trabalham nesse campo, eu não venho dos estudos da política. Sou uma antropóloga cuja área de origem é a antropologia da ciência e tecnologia — sempre foi assim, desde a graduação —, e nos últimos anos fui transitando para essas questões das mediações digitais, das plataformas e da cibernética. O meu olhar para a extrema-direita é, portanto, um olhar tecnopolítico. O meu interesse é entender essa dimensão relativamente pouco trabalhada nas ciências sociais: o papel das máquinas, o papel da técnica, o papel das infraestruturas técnicas na conformação dessa força política e, mais especificamente no caso desse artigo, dos ecossistemas digitais de extrema-direita. A ecologia da mente e o Bateson — nos últimos anos consolidei em torno da obra dele um arcabouço que remeto também a outros autores da antropologia e da área dos estudos de mídia e tecnopolítica, para desenvolver uma perspectiva que veja agência humana e maquínica juntas, de forma recursiva. E aí a cibernética — podemos começar por ela, esclarecendo o termo. O termo remete a computadores, o que faz sentido, porque a cibernética clássica dos anos 1940, a de Norbert Wiener, o matemático estadunidense que inventou o termo, também deu origem à indústria de tecnologia que temos hoje. Existe, portanto, uma continuidade entre o que chamamos de cibernética hoje e o que era a cibernética como superciência da comunicação e do controle, tanto nos sistemas maquínicos como nos sistemas animais, incluindo o humano. Gregory Bateson fez parte do grupo original das chamadas Conferências Macy, nos anos 1940. Mas depois da Segunda Guerra houve uma bifurcação: uma linha foi trabalhar o que chamo de cibernética das máquinas — Norbert Wiener, Von Neumann, todos os nomes precursores da indústria de tecnologia, da construção dos computadores, da inteligência artificial —, enquanto Bateson foi trabalhar a questão da cibernética dentro de uma chave mais próxima da teoria da evolução e da história natural, o que chamo de cibernética da vida. Ele tem um arcabouço que inclui a cibernética das máquinas, os princípios comuns do funcionamento de máquinas cibernéticas, humanos e animais, mas vai além, trazendo as camadas extras que o humano coloca na relação com a máquina. Nesse sentido, a ecologia da mente inclui a cibernética, mas é maior. É a partir desse ponto de vista que tenho olhado para a participação de máquinas cibernéticas — que, no fundo, hoje são basicamente algoritmos, e a evolução dos algoritmos são as inteligências artificiais — e como elas influem e participam em processos que entendemos como políticos, mas que, na verdade, são tecnopolíticos, porque têm cada vez mais a participação de agências não humanas, agências maquínicas. Guilherme Casarões: Letícia, eu também ficava intrigado com essa terminologia cibernética. Lembro que na faculdade, na aula de sociologia, tive contato com David Easton, que aplicava a cibernética aos sistemas políticos e aos sistemas humanos em geral. Sempre achei curioso que não tivesse a ver com computador — essa foi a maneira como sempre encaramos o termo. Mas toda teoria de sistemas convida a um tipo de abordagem cibernética, com essa linguagem muito interessante de inputs e outputs, de como os sistemas funcionam. Trazer isso de volta à discussão é fundamental. E você argumenta no seu texto que a infraestrutura das redes sociais carrega uma espécie de ontologia do inimigo, herdada dessa cibernética militar da Segunda Guerra Mundial. Como essa visão do ser humano como um servomecanismo — um animal a ser controlado por algoritmos — cria uma afinidade eletiva com a lógica da guerra e a desumanização do outro praticadas pela extrema-direita? Letícia Cesarino: Ótima pergunta. É um bom gancho para colocarmos mais camadas na questão da cibernética. O que tentaram fazer nos anos 1940 — e é importante notar que a cibernética nasce do esforço de guerra, do esforço de guerra dos americanos entrando na Segunda Guerra contra o nazifascismo; a primeira conferência foi em 1946, se não me engano — era produzir conhecimento básico, porque a cibernética é uma ciência que explicaria formas comuns de funcionamento de máquinas cibernéticas, de animais e de humanos. O que têm em comum entre o funcionamento desses sistemas? A cibernética gira em torno da ideia não só de input e output, mas principalmente do feedback — quando o output volta para o sistema como input. O coração da cibernética é essa questão da recursividade, ou causalidade circular, que é uma característica de qualquer organismo vivo e também de máquinas construídas à imagem e semelhança desses organismos, ou seja, máquinas que tomam decisões sozinhas. Essa é, para mim, a principal definição de máquina cibernética, porque os algoritmos fazem isso. Mas muito antes da indústria de tecnologia, outras máquinas já faziam isso — como a própria máquina a vapor de James Watt, que é a base do que Marx, no uso grundrissiano, chama de automata. Ele já identificou no século XIX que havia máquinas sendo incorporadas nas infraestruturas do trabalho que tomavam decisões sozinhas — ainda muito rudimentares, mas a ideia de que as máquinas começam a dar o ritmo do trabalho humano já estava colocada desde o século XIX. A cibernética dos anos 1940 traz para o centro essa questão da guerra, que é quando houve um pico na produção dessas máquinas antes da indústria de tecnologia propriamente dita. Peter Galison — um dos grandes historiadores da ciência, físico de formação — tem um artigo no qual trabalha a ontologia da cibernética de Wiener a partir do contexto de guerra. Ele vai elaborar o que seria essa ontologia do inimigo de guerra a partir da cibernética. Ele faz uma progressão que vale a pena resgatar brevemente aqui. Quando você está numa conjuntura de guerra — uma conjuntura de exceção, isso é importante —, você precisa desumanizar seu inimigo, porque assim vai torná-lo eliminável. Em modelos de guerra anteriores, até a Primeira Guerra, quando você tinha que confrontar seu inimigo no corpo a corpo com uma baioneta ou uma arma de fogo de curto alcance, a forma de desumanização era através de analogias com animais, com monstros. Galison trabalha, por exemplo, cartas de soldados americanos que representam os japoneses através de analogias com ratos, com vermes. Essa é uma forma de desumanização. A segunda forma seria a da Segunda Guerra, que compartilha com a cibernética essa ideia do servomecanismo — um híbrido de humano-máquina. Quando Norbert Wiener começou a desenvolver a cibernética para produzir artilharia antiaérea — máquinas que conseguissem calcular sozinhas a trajetória do caça inimigo para atirar antes de o avião chegar, e o projétil encontrar o alvo no meio da trajetória —, o que o servomecanismo significa? Por que essa imagem do inimigo desumaniza? Porque não interessa quem está dirigindo aquele avião. O que interessa é como aquele avião se comporta — e um comportamento que possa ser previsto e controlado. É um tipo de desumanização cibernética. E podemos pensar também em outras formas de desumanização que evoluem com a guerra, como essa guerra de videogame que temos hoje, onde o inimigo não é sequer visto — é quase como algo da fantasia dos videogames. Isso sempre acompanha a guerra. A cibernética é uma boa epistemologia para entender contextos de exceção, conjunturas de guerra, conjunturas de crise que não se superam, porque são conjunturas de grande instabilidade, de não linearidade, com essa tendência à bifurcação do corpo social. Essas são ferramentas melhores para esse tipo de conjuntura do que muitas das ferramentas clássicas das ciências sociais — Durkheim, por exemplo, desenvolveu ferramentas em sua maioria para contextos de estabilidade, de paz, onde o social está mais estruturado, mais previsível e regido por normas. Num contexto de exceção, de crise e de guerra, o social muda de modo de funcionamento. Uma das hipóteses do meu próximo livro é a de que o social de guerra, de exceção e de crise, funciona em outra dinâmica, e que a cibernética tem boas ferramentas para entender isso, inclusive as formas de desumanização que tendem a se proliferar nesses contextos. David Magalhães: Excelente. Acho que é um bom gancho para avançarmos para a parte do seu texto em que você enquadra todo esse arcabouço para compreender a extrema-direita em ambiente digital. As principais linhas interpretativas preocupadas em compreender a ascensão dessa onda ultradireitista global olham para a questão ideológica, para eleitores frustrados, para a relação desses eleitores com a globalização e com a crise da democracia liberal. Mas você propõe algo diferente: observar esse fenômeno como um grande organismo cibernético, um sistema no qual humanos — lideranças, influenciadores, seguidores — e máquinas — algoritmos do WhatsApp, do Telegram, de redes sociais — operam de maneira integrada, como parte de um ecossistema. O que ganhamos analiticamente ao fazer esse deslocamento? Letícia Cesarino: São muitas camadas. Uma das coisas que acho importante — sempre começo palestras com isso — é a questão do ciborgue. O que é o ciborgue? É um híbrido de humano-máquina, outra forma de falar no servomecanismo. Mas temos essa imagem fantasiosa do ciborgue que vem da ficção científica, a de que seria um indivíduo com partes de sua função fisiológica — alimentação, respiração — suplementadas por máquina. O Robocop seria o tipo ideal disso. O ciborgue da vida real, porém, não se parece em nada com o Robocop. O ciborgue da vida real somos nós. É qualquer um que acorda e a primeira coisa que faz é pegar o celular — para olhar o WhatsApp ou para desligar o alarme — e fica nessa relação de dependência com aquela máquina o dia inteiro, para questões de memória e de tomada de decisão. Por que isso acontece? Porque o Homo sapiens é uma espécie extremamente técnica — uma questão antropológica. Sobrevivemos como espécie, enquanto todos os outros hominíneos foram extintos, pela questão da técnica, da cultura. Precisamos ser suplementados. Como espécie biológica, precisamos ser suplementados o tempo todo pela cultura e pela técnica. Isso não significa que outros animais não tenham técnica — vários mamíferos têm, pássaros também. Mas para o sapiens, isso é existencial. Como Bateson diz, a mente não termina na pele; a mente humana é estendida para o seu ambiente. A unidade de análise da ecologia da mente nunca é o indivíduo sozinho — tentamos delimitar qual é o circuito relevante, e esse circuito de feedbacks é sempre maior que o indivíduo. Pode ser uma família, como no caso dos cães e de uma matilha; pode ser uma comunidade, algum território existencial qualquer. E o nosso território existencial hoje passa necessariamente por essas tecnologias. Os algoritmos, as máquinas, a agência maquínica fazem parte desse território existencial. Isso é um preâmbulo para chegar ao argumento que também faço em vários textos — inclusive nesse —: de que a extrema-direita, se a gente for transposto para a política, é uma força política nativa digital, pelo menos essa extrema-direita que conhecemos hoje. O nazifascismo histórico tem muita participação de mídia, embora isso não seja suficientemente notado. Há muitos estudos históricos que mostram o papel do rádio na capilarização do Terceiro Reich, para conformar esse grande território existencial imaginado e como isso atraiu os alemães comuns em torno daquele projeto. De certa forma, algo similar — similar, mas muito diferente também — está sendo recolocado hoje com relação à nova infraestrutura técnica midiática que são as plataformas digitais. Evito usar a palavra “mídia” porque quando falamos em mídia pensamos em máquinas específicas — televisão, rádio —, mas plataformas não são exatamente mídias. Elas se sobrepõem a todo tipo de infraestrutura técnica, não apenas midiática. Com a plataformização — uma tendência relativamente recente; a internet era muito diferente antes de 2010 — e com os smartphones, que foram um verdadeiro game changer, as primeiras áreas cujos efeitos foram sentidos foram a política eleitoral e a área da saúde. Mesmo antes da pandemia, pesquisadores já identificavam como o autocuidado começou a passar rapidamente por essas infraestruturas, com o “doutor Google”. Para não me estender, vou colocar os dois pontos principais que desenvolvo no artigo, porque são mais ontológicos: como essas máquinas mudam a própria relação espaço-temporal dos nossos sistemas sociotécnicos. O que os algoritmos fazem? Eles hiperaceleram — e esse é, para mim, o ponto central. Quando você hiperaccelera, desestabiliza a relação da mente humana com o seu ambiente. Fica aquele fluxo constante de eventos ao qual você tem que responder o tempo todo, e cognitivamente isso é lido como uma situação de crise, do ponto de vista da ecologia da mente — não só para o humano, para qualquer espécie. Quando há uma instabilidade muito grande do ambiente, isso tende a reverter para o modo crise. É o que Wendy Chun chama de situação de crise permanente que as plataformas jogam nos nossos sistemas sociotécnicos. Isso é, obviamente, uma base fértil para a instrumentalização por forças de extrema-direita. Um outro ponto que os algoritmos introduzem, relacionado à hiperaceleração — que seria uma dimensão mais temporal —, é uma dimensão mais espacial de bifurcação. Algoritmos programados para segmentar públicos, porque essa é a lógica do modelo de negócios da economia da atenção, acabam gerando — não sozinhos, mas na interação com os usuários humanos, porque a recursividade do humano-máquina vai para os dois lados — um efeito sistêmico não de segmentação pura e simples, mas de bifurcação. É aí que entra o código amigo-inimigo, a polarização, a sismogênese — todos esses processos de antagonismo extremo, o que chamo de “mundo do avesso”: um lado é o extremo oposto do outro, numa dinâmica de guerra em que só um pode prevalecer, porque o outro é visto como uma ameaça existencial. No ecossistema de extrema-direita, ele vai desde um polo mais moderado — Tarcísio, digamos — até um polo mais radicalizado — o pessoal do 8 de janeiro, o “tio França” que se explodiu na frente do STF. O que é a extrema-direita? Um lado? O outro? Agentes específicos? Discursos específicos? Não. Do ponto de vista da ecologia da mente, a extrema-direita é toda essa ecologia, todo esse ecossistema que cobre todo esse espectro e que inclui a agência maquínica como um dos seus principais motores. Primeiro porque ela desestabiliza o mundo real, com a hiperaceleração e todos esses processos. Mas ao mesmo tempo ela direciona — é como um rio que tem uma corrente que vai para um lado, e os agentes da extrema-direita são aqueles que nadam a favor da correnteza, porque as plataformas são um ambiente; elas não são variáveis. Elas mudam o ambiente no qual fazemos política. E esse ambiente tem vieses técnicos intrinsecamente favoráveis a uma força política como a extrema-direita. Por isso não é que eles estejam mais espertos ou inteligentes — é que a forma como fazem política converge com a lógica das redes de maneira subliminar, intrínseca. Como o Casarões disse, há uma certa afinidade eletiva com a lógica das plataformas. Mas essa afinidade não é aleatória — por isso foi importante voltarmos à cibernética dos anos 1940, ao esforço de guerra, à artilharia antiaérea. O próprio DNA dessa indústria de tecnologia se originou da guerra e nunca saiu da chave de guerra. Depois da Segunda Guerra, a cibernética se tornou parte da Guerra Fria, com a mesma lógica do controle indireto — fazer o inimigo fazer o que você quer que ele faça indiretamente —, que é essa ideia cibernética do controle numa chave sempre não linear, sempre recíproca. É o que o Trump exatamente tenta fazer agora, em outra versão. Houve um breve interregno onde se tornou uma indústria civil, nos anos 1980 e 1990, mas a lógica algorítmica, a lógica cibernética, continuou sendo a da guerra — só que agora, em vez de controlar o inimigo, você vai controlar o usuário, para fazê-lo clicar num anúncio e vender a atenção daquele usuário para os anunciantes. Há também uma convergência, especialmente durante a Guerra Fria, entre a lógica de guerra indireta, a lógica da propaganda e a indústria de publicidade que temos hoje. Não foi a publicidade que originou a propaganda política — foi a propaganda política que veio primeiro e depois se tornou uma indústria civil, que é o coração da lógica da economia da atenção. Mesmo essas plataformas que se colocavam como liberais sempre tiveram um DNA mais próximo da lógica de guerra, propaganda e controle indireto do que de algo parecido com democracia. Era, de certa forma, um pouco inevitável que as coisas se desenrolassem como estão se desenrolando, porque já estavam previstas na própria ontogênese dessa indústria — como Simondon chamaria —, uma ontogênese ligada à guerra, ao controle e à desumanização. As plataformas, os algoritmos, não nos veem como humanos. É exatamente a mesma coisa do caça com o piloto dirigindo: a máquina é incapaz de ver interioridade, incapaz de ver subjetividade. Ela só nos interpela no nível do controle, da previsão de comportamento. A política está se tornando isso — retroalimentando-se com os discursos da extrema-direita que ativam o senso comum na direção da regeneração, que é a lógica do fascismo histórico: seria possível vencer essa crise, resetar o sistema e construir o estereótipo de um inimigo que precisa ser derrotado para que a crise permanente seja superada. No fim das contas, é uma mistificação de processos reais e de problemas reais, numa linguagem nacionalista e nativista. Guilherme Casarões: Letícia, um outro conceito com que você trabalha no texto e na sua obra é o de populismo. Uma das passagens que mais me chamaram a atenção — e que acho fascinante — é que essa abordagem ecológica de Bateson ganha muita relevância frente ao populismo contemporâneo, justamente porque esse populismo se ampara em públicos que, como você diz no texto, são parcialmente artificiais. A passagem, para quem quiser ler depois, está na página 2 do texto: “os públicos que são produzidos por essa dinâmica são resultados transindividuais de uma agência que é humana e não humana, na medida em que os algoritmos coemergem permanentemente por meio de ciclos cibernéticos”. Essa questão da artificialidade do público é muito central para entender tanto a dinâmica amigo-inimigo quanto a maneira pela qual o populismo contemporâneo consegue controlar a construção narrativa e a mobilização de seu público. Queria ir mais especificamente para o caso que você estuda no texto, que é o bolsonarismo. Seu texto descreve o bolsonarismo não só como uma ideologia, mas como uma dinâmica mutante que oscila entre a moderação e a radicalização. Você traz o conceito de indecidibilidade rítmica — essa coisa de ir e voltar — e eu queria que você explicasse como o bolsonarismo, a partir dessa chave analítica, alterna entre o institucional e o antiestructural, e como isso permitiu ao ex-presidente Bolsonaro manter o sistema político num estado de antagonismo permanente sem chegar a uma ruptura total — o que só vai acontecer em 2023. Letícia Cesarino: O que tentei fazer nesse texto é reler parte do governo Bolsonaro até as eleições de 2022 a partir dessa lógica cibernética — ou seja, como ele performou uma dinâmica cibernética que é essa tecnopolítica moldada pelas máquinas. Casarões, você trouxe a questão do populismo, e acho que são etapas. Desde 2013 até 2018, temos essa invasão muito forte e muito rápida da agência técnica dessas mídias e desses dispositivos dentro da política — um movimento mais tectônico, de desestabilização. E aí essas figuras aparecendo mais ou menos ao mesmo tempo: Modi, Trump, Bolsonaro, Duterte, Orbán — é aí que o conceito de populismo realmente faz mais sentido, nesse sentido dessa irrupção de uma política antiliberal, com uma norma mais afetiva, mais espontânea. É a política da exceção. E que, novamente, bate com a estrutura das plataformas, porque as plataformas também são políticas de exceção e de multidão. É importante termos isso em mente. A citação que você trouxe mostra como as plataformas fazem um tipo de prestidigitação: colocam uma coisa na interface, então o usuário tem a impressão de que é livre, de que é um indivíduo, enquanto o que está acontecendo atrás da tela é que esse indivíduo está sendo desagregado e reagregado com fragmentos de outros usuários em grandes multidões digitais. Ele não tem liberdade — ao contrário, está tendo seu comportamento indiretamente controlado, no sentido cibernético, pelos algoritmos. E esse social de multidão é o social de crise. Quem está imerso nesses ambientes está se colocando num modo crise — e a extrema-direita é a força política que mais combina com esse tipo de ambiente. Sem crise eles não são nada. Se você tirar a crise, a atmosfera de ameaça de que o Brasil vai acabar, eles não têm nada. Por isso não têm programa político: são uma força política na e da crise e da exceção. Daí esse paradoxo de como uma tecnopolítica de crise, de exceção e de guerra se rotiniza como um governo — que foi exatamente o paradoxo do governo Bolsonaro. E ainda teve a pandemia, que adicionou uma camada enorme de crise a isso. Ciberneticamente, faz muito sentido esse vai e vem — os ciclos de feedback positivo e negativo. O feedback positivo é o que acelera o viés que você já está; o negativo coloca um freio. Bolsonaro, enquanto governante, não podia ficar só no runaway, só no feedback positivo, porque o feedback positivo sozinho eventualmente leva a um colapso — tanto nos organismos vivos como nas máquinas. O que ele e o Trump fazem é colocar estrategicamente esses freios, esses recuos: avanço e recuo, feedback positivo e negativo. Tentei mostrar no artigo como isso se deu durante o governo e como esse processo perde o controle na eleição de 2022, redundando eventualmente no 8 de janeiro. O governo Bolsonaro não construiu nada — estava destruindo coisas, que é o que a extrema-direita faz — mas dosando até onde poderia ir na relação com os outros agentes: o Congresso Nacional, o público. E o público passou a ser medido através das redes sociais — pelas métricas das mídias digitais — e cada vez mais por pesquisas de opinião, que são outra forma de feedback que coteja com as mídias sociais. Bolsonaro foi assim sentindo, de forma propriamente recursiva, lidando com um ambiente de causalidades circulares, crises, etc. A linearidade só é possível em contextos de estabilidade e paz — e é exatamente o que o Trump está fazendo hoje. Agora, uma virada acontece, e aí é muito importante a questão do método. Esse artigo é baseado em pesquisa de métodos mistos, onde a abordagem qualitativa antropológica foi composta com uma abordagem computacional de grandes quantidades de dados, com os meus parceiros da Universidade da Bahia, do LabHD, onde fazíamos o mapeamento em tempo real dos públicos do Telegram. Foi muito interessante ver como, em meados de 2021, o comportamento desse ecossistema transindividual — que chamamos de públicos refratados, os públicos da extrema-direita — mudou. O comportamento pandêmico, ativado pela pandemia, e inclusive as teorias da conspiração começaram a diminuir. Isso foi bem na época da questão do voto impresso. Quando o voto impresso é enterrado, um conspiracionismo eleitoral começa a subir e se estabilizar. Por quê? As condenações do Lula tinham sido definitivamente canceladas, e eles, na mentalidade de guerra deles, já previam: “Está vindo um golpe que vai impedir o Bolsonaro de ganhar as eleições de 2022.” Isso mais de um ano antes da eleição. Já entraram no modo de contra-golpe. Que é outra característica desse social de crise — o que Brian Massumi, também batesoniano, chama de preempção: você passa a agir antecipando a ação do seu inimigo. É muito como a lógica da Guerra Fria entre os dois blocos. Por isso a extrema-direita está sempre reagindo — isso é uma característica muito consistente, inclusive dos ecossistemas misóginos, que estão sempre reagindo à suposta provocação ou traição da mulher. O bolsonarismo entrou nesse modo preemptivo, com a certeza de que haveria um golpe contra ele. Na cabeça deles, dessa grande mente transindividual controlada pelo Bolsonaro, o golpe deles era um contra-golpe: seria dado um golpe no Bolsonaro, e o que estavam fazendo seria a resposta. Quando você vê tudo o que fizeram ao longo desse tempo com esse olhar, tudo faz sentido — e o Bolsonaro, como depois ficou demonstrado, de fato estava tentando articular esse contra-golpe. Nas eleições de 2022, estavam nessa dinâmica de avanço e recuo, não deixando o sistema escalar demais, a temperatura subir demais, enquanto conspiravam. Quando ele finalmente desiste, vê que não ganhou a eleição — isso se arrasta por algumas semanas —, e quando realmente percebem que os comandantes das três forças não vão entrar, que o golpe não vai acontecer, Bolsonaro fica em silêncio. Ciberneticamente, isso foi muito importante, porque era ele que fazia a regulação cibernética entre a camada moderada e a camada radicalizada. Ele não deixava as coisas escalar. Era um agente de radicalização, mas também de moderação. Quando ele se retira, a coisa escala — e foi justamente o 8 de janeiro. Olha que interessante: quando aquela multidão invadiu o Congresso, o que aconteceu? Ficaram esperando para ver o que ia acontecer, porque confiavam no plano — só que o plano já tinha dado errado e eles não sabiam disso. Tem esse componente de um mundo de fantasia criado dentro das comunidades radicalizadas — o Bateson ajuda a entender isso, porque ele tem uma teoria cibernética da fantasia e do jogo. Foi aquele choque de realidade. Não houve mais regulação, não houve mais feedback negativo, a coisa escalou, a temperatura subiu — e é onde o artigo termina, fazendo essa releitura cibernética e ecológica dos eventos do segundo governo Bolsonaro e das eleições de 2022. David Magalhães: Ótimo, Letícia. Encaminhando para o fechamento: no finzinho do artigo você faz uma ressalva que achei bastante importante, ao apontar que a ecologia da mente é extremamente poderosa para entender essas dinâmicas sistêmicas mais amplas, mas que também tem limites — especialmente quando tentamos compreender a totalidade da vida cotidiana do sujeito. É justamente aí que você coloca a necessidade de retornar à etnografia tradicional, à etnografia offline. Queria te ouvir sobre esse desafio metodológico. Como a antropologia pode costurar essas duas pontes — de um lado, a visão de um sistema cibernético amplo no qual os indivíduos parecem agir quase como parte de um circuito, de maneira relativamente previsível; de outro, as trajetórias de vida, as experiências subjetivas, as dores concretas que não desaparecem. Como não reduzir essas pessoas a meros nós de rede? Letícia Cesarino: Ótima pergunta, porque é realmente um desafio metodológico. No caso da ecologia da mente, você nunca pode fechar só no indivíduo. Mas é possível — e é o que estou fazendo no livro novo — pensar como o indivíduo enquanto sistema, porque todo organismo individual é um sistema cibernético, com outras camadas além dele, mas ele próprio é uma camada de individuação bastante importante. Ele pode estar dividido entre dois territórios existenciais — e é um pouco como estou tentando trabalhar a questão da radicalização no livro novo. O online oferece um tipo de território existencial onde a persona online do sujeito está com interações específicas. É isso que gera o elemento de fantasia nas comunidades extremistas: no online é possível cultivar uma realidade e um tipo de estereotipação do inimigo, toda a questão da desinformação, que não é possível fazer no offline. Por isso o que aconteceu depois da invasão ao Congresso e ao STF: a realidade bateu. Eles achavam que a realidade era o que era cultivado na mente transindividual do online — e isso não bateu com o que estava acontecendo offline. Com a internet, não é mais preciso se deslocar fisicamente para se radicalizar. Você pode viver sua vida normalmente e, em parte do seu circuito, se radicalizar só no online. São muito esses casos que abordarei no próximo livro: adolescentes e jovens que estão no quarto jogando videogame, vivendo normalmente na escola, e estão fazendo coisas indescritíveis na internet — que você só vai descobrir quando a polícia bater na porta. Etnografar a radicalização é muito difícil, porque é um processo — você precisa acompanhar a pessoa desde o início, quando não estava radicalizada. É praticamente impossível, a não ser que alguém muito próximo passe por isso. Mas existem autorrelatos. Tenho trabalhado muito com o caso dos neonazistas, onde já há na Europa e nos Estados Unidos um repertório grande de testemunhos e autobiografias de pessoas que saíram dessas comunidades extremistas. No jihadismo também há bastante material; os manifestos de atiradores em escolas, por exemplo, muitas vezes trazem essa visão subjetiva da radicalização. Há um outro ponto que descobri e que não estava na pesquisa anterior: o que alguns estudos de radicalização chamam de reduplicação. Isso vem de um estudo histórico de Robert Lifton sobre médicos nazistas — como eles dividiam a personalidade. Quando estavam em Auschwitz, eram um tipo de pessoa; quando estavam em casa, com a família, eram completamente diferentes. Era uma reduplicação da personalidade em duas, como forma de resolver dissonâncias e contradições. O médico conseguia desumanizar as pessoas que selecionava para morrer em Auschwitz, enquanto em casa humanizava os seus. Algo assim parece acontecer também no nível da mente individual através da lacuna online–offline: as pessoas inconscientemente encontram formas de dividir a sua mente entre esses dois mundos, de forma que não precisem romper com familiares, amigos ou colegas de trabalho por razões políticas. Esse efeito da lacuna online–offline deve ser estudado — não é só uma questão metodológica, é a questão de qual é o efeito dessa própria separação, que é inédita: são as primeiras tecnologias que possibilitam essa divisão em ambientes existenciais separados, ainda que em relação recursiva. Isso pode ser um indutor de radicalização. Sabe aquele meme dos cachorros latindo no portão? Quando o portão abre, cada um vai para um lado. O humano tem um pouco disso: fica mais agressivo, fala coisas e faz coisas quando não está cara a cara com a pessoa — coisas que não faria no presencial. Isso é muito característico da extrema-direita: estão latindo, agressivos, no comportamento de ameaça, e quando a Polícia Federal bate na porta, revertem ao comportamento de autopiedade e vitimização — que é o que o Bolsonaro está fazendo agora na cadeia. Bateson trabalha isso muito bem, não só no humano, mas em outros mamíferos. A ecologia da mente, pegando inclusive insights de outros mamíferos — como o Bateson faz —, nos ajudaria a reincorporar o elemento biológico-evolutivo nas nossas explicações. E aqui chego a um ponto que acho muito importante: a extrema-direita tem todo um repertório do darwinismo social e da psicologia evolutiva para dizer que a forma como ela vê o humano é a forma real, a forma biológica, a forma natural. São leituras completamente erradas e enviesadas, mas para o senso comum são muito intuitivas. A questão de gênero, por exemplo: a ideia de que o homem é para um papel e a mulher para outro não tem apoio em estudos sérios de outras espécies ou da nossa. A antropologia, porém, abandonou esse campo — tornou-se etnografia, estudo da cultura, abandonou a natureza e a biologia, por razões relacionadas à história e à política interna da disciplina. Um dos meus objetivos é recuperar esse espaço de autoridade científica para falar do humano, do que é natural no humano, a partir de abordagens como a do Bateson — que é uma teoria da evolução que inclui a cultura — para competir também nesse campo da naturalização do comportamento humano. Eu diria que é talvez o campo mais persuasivo dos discursos da extrema-direita, porque a esquerda e as ciências sociais ficam só na desconstrução e no culturalismo, enquanto eles estão falando daquilo que é espontâneo, natural, atemporal. É assim que o fascismo mira, e precisamos competir nessa ordem de discurso, reivindicando uma abordagem científica mais universalista — um outro tipo de universalismo, não o positivista. A ecologia da mente é uma das principais vias que vejo para isso. No contexto desse artigo, foi também um subtexto: o artigo foi parte de um dossiê financiado pela Fundação Wenner-Gren, a maior fundação de antropologia dos Estados Unidos, e queria passar essa mensagem para os meus colegas antropólogos — a gente pode falar de universais humanos de uma forma mais refinada e rica, e competir com a extrema-direita nesse campo de discurso. Guilherme Casarões: Letícia Cesarino — incrível, tanto no pessoal quanto no profissional. E agora descobrimos, o que não deveria ser exatamente uma surpresa, que você é especialista em memes. Foi de longe uma das conversas mais eruditas que tivemos aqui, não só na colaboração com o OED, mas de todas as entrevistas que já fiz. Uma densidade impressionante, transmitida de forma didática. Tenho certeza de que os nossos ouvintes vão adorar esse papo. Quem está acompanhando, fiquem por aí — ainda temos a segunda parte da conversa, com o boletim de notícias e a dica cultural. Boletim — Giro de Notícias David Magalhães: Vamos ao nosso boletim com duas notícias envolvendo a ultradireita. França No próximo ano teremos eleições nacionais na França, que serão importantíssimas tanto para a Europa quanto para o futuro da direita radical no mundo. No dia 22 de março, domingo, ocorreu o segundo turno das eleições municipais francesas, que costuma ser um termômetro importante para medir o crescimento e a capilaridade da direita radical francesa, representada aqui pelo Rassemblement National. O resultado dessas eleições foi bastante ambíguo. O Rassemblement National, partido de Marine Le Pen e da estrela em ascensão Jordan Bardella, não conseguiu vencer em grandes cidades estratégicas — como Marselha e Toulon —, onde havia uma expectativa de vitória da direita radical. Por outro lado, o partido avançou de forma importante em outro nível: consolidou uma presença territorial, especialmente no sudeste e no nordeste do país, conquistando dezenas de prefeituras e ampliando de maneira bastante significativa sua base local. Hoje, de acordo com matéria do Le Monde de 23 de março, o Rassemblement National passa a governar aproximadamente 70 municípios e conta com cerca de 3 mil representantes locais — uma quantidade bastante considerável. Outro ponto central é um certo teto de vidro que tem impedido a vitória do RN em grandes cidades. Esses centros urbanos mais ricos, mais jovens e com maior nível educacional têm sido um desafio para a expansão da direita radical. Por outro lado, há um crescimento muito forte em áreas periféricas, regiões pós-industriais e comunas menores, geralmente marcadas por uma sensação de abandono e por um acúmulo de ressentimento — o que alguns autores chamam de left behinds, os que foram deixados para trás —, sentimento que a direita radical populista costuma explorar. Quero destacar ainda um fator que pode ser preocupante olhando para as eleições nacionais de 2027: não houve, ou houve em pouquíssimas cidades, a chamada frente republicana — também chamada de cordão sanitário. O cordão sanitário é o conjunto de alianças tradicionais de partidos com compromissos democráticos para barrar a direita radical no segundo turno das eleições. A quase inexistência desse cordão fez com que o RN conquistasse cidades onde, em eleições anteriores, havia sido bloqueado. No final das contas, essas eleições não deram o resultado que o RN esperava — um grande impulso nacional —, mas consolidaram uma base territorial sólida. Isso coloca uma questão relevante olhando para 2027: seria esse enraizamento local suficiente para sustentar uma vitória nas eleições presidenciais? Seguiremos acompanhando o caso da França. Hungria Passamos para a Hungria — continuamos falando de eleições, já que os húngaros vão às urnas em abril para decidir se encerram os 15 anos de governo de Viktor Orbán. No domingo, 15 de março, os dois principais atores políticos do país — Viktor Orbán, do Partido Fidesz, e o oposicionista Peter Magyar, do partido Tisza — realizaram grandes manifestações em Budapeste no Dia Nacional Húngaro. Mais do que uma comemoração histórica, os eventos funcionaram como um teste de força às vésperas das eleições de abril. Os dois lados reivindicaram vitória em termos de mobilização — como já vimos aqui no Brasil. O governo afirmou que foi uma das maiores marchas já realizadas no país, enquanto a oposição chegou a afirmar que reuniu meio milhão de pessoas. Ainda que sejam números exagerados, as estimativas independentes indicam que o Tisza, de Magyar, levou mais gente às ruas do que o Fidesz de Orbán, o que sinalizaria um possível avanço da oposição no campo urbano. Essas manifestações têm algo interessante: acontecem dentro de um calendário nacional, e foi possível observar uma disputa não só eleitoral, mas simbólica. Ambos os lados tentavam se apropriar da memória da Revolução de 1848. Orbán engendrou uma narrativa que associa o passado à luta contra o domínio estrangeiro, ao globalismo, à ingerência da União Europeia e à ameaça da guerra na Ucrânia. A oposição liderada por Peter Magyar utiliza os mesmos símbolos nacionais, mas com outros significados: para eles, a defesa da liberdade hoje se traduz em manter a Hungria dentro da União Europeia e vinculada à OTAN, além de restaurar o funcionamento das instituições democráticas do Estado húngaro — bastante prejudicadas nos anos de Orbán. As pesquisas de intenção de voto desde julho do ano passado mostram um quadro relativamente estável, com uma diferença de aproximadamente 10% em favor da oposição. É preciso ter cautela com essas pesquisas, no entanto, porque em 2011 Orbán fez uma importante reforma eleitoral que dá mais peso aos distritos rurais, geralmente mais conservadores. Além disso, ele concedeu cidadania a húngaros que vivem na Eslováquia, na Romênia e na Sérvia, uma população que tende a votar no governo. E há também uma mobilização ideológica mais incandescente da direita radical húngara, que pode fazer diferença nas urnas. Fato é que nenhum dos lados parece acreditar numa vitória esmagadora. Já se discute a possibilidade de alianças — o partido Jobbik, na Hungria, pode ser crucial para a formação de uma maioria no parlamento. No nosso episódio de abril, iremos repercutir o resultado dessa eleição. Dica Cultural David Magalhães: A nossa recomendação cultural deste episódio tem tudo a ver com a conversa que tivemos no primeiro bloco com a Letícia Cesarino. Se você se interessou pelo debate sobre internet, cultura digital, extrema-direita e disputa de narrativas, vale muito a pena assistir o documentário Feels Good Man, disponível na Amazon Prime. O documentário é de 2020, mas chegou recentemente a essa plataforma. O filme conta a história do Pepe the Frog, personagem criado pelo cartunista Matt Furie nos anos 2000. Originalmente era um sapo tranquilo, good vibes, que circulava numa tirinha independente. Com o tempo, porém, esse personagem foi sendo apropriado na internet — primeiro como meme, depois ganhando formas cada vez mais distorcidas, até virar um símbolo associado ao alt-right e a outros grupos de extrema-direita. O documentário é bastante interessante porque não trata isso como uma mera curiosidade da internet. Ele mostra como esse processo revela algo mais profundo: como essas comunidades online — fóruns, antigamente o 4chan, hoje um ecossistema bem mais complexo — funcionam como verdadeiros laboratórios de produção cultural e política, com uma lógica quase darwiniana de disputa por atenção, em que os conteúdos mais chocantes e extremos ganham mais visibilidade, com toda uma engenharia algorítmica por trás. O filme também acompanha o próprio criador do Pepe, que se vê completamente impotente diante da transformação da sua obra. E esse é um ponto central: na era da internet, a circulação de imagens e memes escapa completamente ao controle original — pode ser capturada e ressignificada por distintos atores políticos. O documentário tem um aspecto que dialoga diretamente com o que conversamos com a Letícia Cesarino: esses grupos utilizam o humor, a ironia, a ambiguidade e as trollagens para disseminar ideias racistas, misóginas e xenófobas, muitas vezes sob a aparência de brincadeira. Isso cria uma zona cinzenta que dificulta a crítica e, ao mesmo tempo, aumenta o alcance dessas mensagens de ódio. Feels Good Man nos ajuda a entender essa cultura digital e como ela se relaciona com a extrema-direita — e dialoga perfeitamente com os temas que trouxemos na entrevista do primeiro bloco. Até a próxima. The post Ecologia da mente e extrema-direita appeared first on Chutando a Escada.

Welcome back to scaling theory. My guest today is ⁠Scott E. Page⁠, Distinguished University Professor of Complexity, Social Science, and Management at the University of Michigan, and an external faculty member at the Santa Fe Institute. He is an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a recipient of the Guggenheim Fellowship. His books include The Difference, Diversity and Complexity, The Diversity Bonus, and The Model Thinker.In this episode of Scaling Theory, Scott walks us through what complexity actually is. He unpacks the difference between complicated and genuinely complex systems, explains why cognitively diverse teams systematically outperform homogeneous ones on complex tasks, and what that means for how organizations scale. We also take up path dependence, the spillover effects of overlapping games across platform ecosystems, and where complexity tools have changed real decisions in practice. We close on the single open problem whose resolution would most reshape our understanding of social systems. As you will hear, Scott's thinking is exceptionally clear. It is always a pleasure to talk with him and to listen to his insights. I hope you enjoy our discussion.You can follow me on X (@⁠ProfSchrepel⁠) and BlueSky (@⁠ProfSchrepel⁠).**BooksPage, S.E. (2007). The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton University Press.Page, S.E. (2011). Diversity and Complexity. Princeton University Press (Primers in Complex Systems).Page, S.E. (2018). The Model Thinker: What You Need to Know to Make Data Work for You. Basic Books.Miller, J.H. and Page, S.E. (2007). Complex Adaptive Social Systems: An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life. Princeton University Press.Peer-reviewed articlesHong, L. and Page, S.E. (2004). "Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(46): 16385–16389.Page, S.E. (2006). "Path Dependence." Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 1(1): 87–115.Page, S.E. (2007). "Type Interactions and the Rule of Six." Economic Theory, 30(2): 223–241.Bednar, J. and Page, S.E. (2007). "Can Game(s) Theory Explain Culture? The Emergence of Cultural Behavior Within Multiple Games." Rationality and Society, 19(1): 65–97.Bednar, J., Bramson, A., Jones-Rooy, A. and Page, S.E. (2010). "Emergent Cultural Signatures and Persistent Diversity: A Model of Conformity and Consistency." Rationality and Society, 22(4): 407–444.

Grieving the Unseen Loss: Understanding Grief After Betrayal Summary In this episode of the Human Intimacy Podcast, Dr. Kevin Skinner and MaryAnn Michaelis reflect on the powerful insights emerging from the 2026 Human Intimacy Conference, with a particular focus on grief following sexual betrayal. While much of the field has emphasized trauma and post-traumatic stress, this conversation highlights a critical gap: the profound and often unaddressed grief experienced by both betrayed and betraying partners. Drawing from early data on the Grief After Betrayal Impact Scale, MaryAnn shares a striking finding—the most significant loss reported is not just the relationship, but the loss of self, including identity, trust in oneself, and a coherent sense of reality. The discussion explores how betrayal creates a “collapsed self,” alters one's perception of a partner, and leads to ongoing grief that can persist for decades. The episode introduces emerging frameworks for understanding betrayal-related grief, including stages of emotional shock, internal conflict, withdrawal, rage, and eventual reclamation. Dr. Skinner and Marianne emphasize that grief is not a single event but a long-term process, often unfolding over years as individuals grieve not only what happened, but what could have been. A key theme is the importance of giving grief a voice in safe relationships. Healing is accelerated when individuals are witnessed, validated, and supported—whether by a partner, therapist, or trusted connection. Without this, grief often becomes prolonged and isolating. The conversation also raises important clinical and societal implications, including the need for better training, expanded research, and more effective support systems—particularly in faith communities, where many individuals report feeling misunderstood or unsupported. Ultimately, this episode reframes betrayal recovery by integrating grief as a central component of healing, calling for a more compassionate, relational, and research-informed approach to addressing the deep emotional losses that accompany betrayal. Click here to take the Grief After Betrayal Impact Scale References (Note: These are foundational and aligned with concepts discussed in the episode—ideal for podcast notes and future academic integration.) Jennifer J. Freyd (1996). Betrayal Trauma: The Logic of Forgetting Childhood Abuse. Harvard University Press. Judith Herman (1992). Trauma and Recovery. Basic Books. Susan Anderson (2010). The Journey from Abandonment to Healing. Berkley Books. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross & Kessler, D. (2005). On Grief and Grieving. Scribner. William Worden (2009). Grief Counseling and Grief Therapy. Springer Publishing. Bessel van der Kolk (2014). The Body Keeps the Score. Viking. Stephen W. Porges (2011). The Polyvagal Theory. Norton. John Bowlby (1980). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 3 – Loss. Basic Books. Pauline Boss (1999). Ambiguous Loss. Harvard University Press. Kenneth J. Doka (1989). Disenfranchised Grief. Lexington Books.  

Edward Frenkel ist ein mathematisches Ausnahmetalent, doch seine Chancen, in der Sowjetunion Mathematik zu studieren, stehen bei null. Der Grund: seine jüdische Herkunft. Von einem Mann, der sich trotz systematischer Diskriminierung nicht aufhalten lässt und den „Babelfisch“ der Mathematik sucht. Hier geht’s zum Video-Podcast von Lex Fridman im Gespräch mit Edward Frenkel. Die angesprochenen Buchtipps: Love and Math: The Heart of Hidden Reality, Edward Frenkel, 2013, Basic Books. You Failed Your Math Test, Comrade Einstein: Adventures and Misdventures of Young Mathematicians, or Test Your Skills in Almost Recreational Mathematics, Michail Shifman, 2005, World Scientific Publishing. Wir freuen uns über Fragen, Anregungen und Feedback an podcast@spektrum.de. Die Idee für diesen Podcast hat Demian Nahuel Goos am MIP.labor entwickelt, der Ideenwerkstatt für Wissenschaftsjournalismus zu Mathematik, Informatik und Physik an der Freien Universität Berlin, ermöglicht durch die Klaus Tschira Stiftung. (00:00:00) Einleitung (00:01:15) Die Geschichte von Edward Frenkel (00:16:27) Das Langlands-Programm (00:26:36) Demians persönliche Geschichte (00:29:19) Ausblick & Verabschiedung ➡️ Artikel zum Nachlesen: https://detektor.fm/wissen/geschichten-aus-der-mathematik-edward-frenkel-babelfisch

Kolet är fossiliserat solsken. En svart sten som värmt våra hem, drivit våra maskiner, byggt våra städer och förändrat världen mer än något annat naturmaterial. I det här avsnittet följer vi människans relation till kolet från Karbons sumpiga skogar via kinesiska smältverk och romerska gruvor till den brittiska industrialiseringen och ångmaskinens genombrott.Det är berättelsen om hur energi blev makt – och hur samma kraft som skapade moderniteten också lade grunden för några av våra största miljöproblem. Kolet är både vår bästa vän och vår värsta fiende. Spänningen mellan dessa krafter har vi levt med i 500 år.Läslista:Dartnell, Lewis, Ursprung: hur jorden formade oss, Första upplagan, Volante, Stockholm, 2021.Freese, Barbara, Coal: a human history, Basic Books, New York, 2016.Högselius, Per, Gräv upp, hugg ned, pumpa ut: människan och naturresurserna under 5000 år, Historiska media, Lund, 2025. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Jacob Mchangama, founder and director of the think tank Justitia, has written a one-volume history of freedom of thought, which ranges from the lone Demosthenes of 4th-century BCE Athens to the recent controversies regarding Donald Trump. In Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media (Basic Books, 2022), Mchangama argues that the history of freedom of thought has recurrent themes, such as a free speech entropy: the perception of rulers or governments that if speech is not restricted then social or political decline or disorder is inevitable. Mchangama also notes how restrictions usually have the unintended effect of emboldening the speakers and making the forbidden speech even more attractive to potential listeners. This history also reveals advocates of free speech less familiar to Western readers, such as the ninth-century Persian scholar Ibn al-Rawandi, a theologian and later skeptic whose life illustrates the debates possible in medieval Islam. Mchangama reviews the modern debates regarding freedom of thought and the latest iterations of arguments about whether free speech will lead to social decline and chaos. Mchangama is a champion of free speech but his history provides a fair minded account of the concerns of speech restrictionists throughout history. Ian J. Drake is Associate Professor of Jurisprudence, Montclair State University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Jacob Mchangama, founder and director of the think tank Justitia, has written a one-volume history of freedom of thought, which ranges from the lone Demosthenes of 4th-century BCE Athens to the recent controversies regarding Donald Trump. In Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media (Basic Books, 2022), Mchangama argues that the history of freedom of thought has recurrent themes, such as a free speech entropy: the perception of rulers or governments that if speech is not restricted then social or political decline or disorder is inevitable. Mchangama also notes how restrictions usually have the unintended effect of emboldening the speakers and making the forbidden speech even more attractive to potential listeners. This history also reveals advocates of free speech less familiar to Western readers, such as the ninth-century Persian scholar Ibn al-Rawandi, a theologian and later skeptic whose life illustrates the debates possible in medieval Islam. Mchangama reviews the modern debates regarding freedom of thought and the latest iterations of arguments about whether free speech will lead to social decline and chaos. Mchangama is a champion of free speech but his history provides a fair minded account of the concerns of speech restrictionists throughout history. Ian J. Drake is Associate Professor of Jurisprudence, Montclair State University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

A search for the meaning of one of nature's greatest riddles: why do so many creatures transform? “How many creatures walking on this earth / Have their first being in another form?” the Roman poet Ovid asked two thousand years ago. He could not have known the full extent of the truth: today, biologists estimate a stunning three-quarters of all animal species on Earth undergo some form of metamorphosis.But why do tadpoles transform into frogs, caterpillars into butterflies, elvers into eels, immortal jellyfish from sea sprigs to medusae and back again, growing younger and younger in frigid ocean depths? Why must creatures go through massive destruction and remodeling to become who they are? Tracing a path from Aristotle to Darwin to cutting-edge science today, Harman explores that central mystery in Metamorphosis: A Natural and Human History (Basic Books, 2025).Metamorphosis, however, isn't just a biological puzzle: it takes us to the very heart of questions of being and identity, whatever kind of change we humans may undergo. Metamorphosis is a new classic of natural history: a book that, by unveiling a mystery of nature, causes us to relearn ourselves. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Jacob Mchangama, founder and director of the think tank Justitia, has written a one-volume history of freedom of thought, which ranges from the lone Demosthenes of 4th-century BCE Athens to the recent controversies regarding Donald Trump. In Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media (Basic Books, 2022), Mchangama argues that the history of freedom of thought has recurrent themes, such as a free speech entropy: the perception of rulers or governments that if speech is not restricted then social or political decline or disorder is inevitable. Mchangama also notes how restrictions usually have the unintended effect of emboldening the speakers and making the forbidden speech even more attractive to potential listeners. This history also reveals advocates of free speech less familiar to Western readers, such as the ninth-century Persian scholar Ibn al-Rawandi, a theologian and later skeptic whose life illustrates the debates possible in medieval Islam. Mchangama reviews the modern debates regarding freedom of thought and the latest iterations of arguments about whether free speech will lead to social decline and chaos. Mchangama is a champion of free speech but his history provides a fair minded account of the concerns of speech restrictionists throughout history. Ian J. Drake is Associate Professor of Jurisprudence, Montclair State University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

A search for the meaning of one of nature's greatest riddles: why do so many creatures transform? “How many creatures walking on this earth / Have their first being in another form?” the Roman poet Ovid asked two thousand years ago. He could not have known the full extent of the truth: today, biologists estimate a stunning three-quarters of all animal species on Earth undergo some form of metamorphosis.But why do tadpoles transform into frogs, caterpillars into butterflies, elvers into eels, immortal jellyfish from sea sprigs to medusae and back again, growing younger and younger in frigid ocean depths? Why must creatures go through massive destruction and remodeling to become who they are? Tracing a path from Aristotle to Darwin to cutting-edge science today, Harman explores that central mystery in Metamorphosis: A Natural and Human History (Basic Books, 2025).Metamorphosis, however, isn't just a biological puzzle: it takes us to the very heart of questions of being and identity, whatever kind of change we humans may undergo. Metamorphosis is a new classic of natural history: a book that, by unveiling a mystery of nature, causes us to relearn ourselves. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science

In A Nasty Little War: The Western Fight to Reverse the Russian Revolution (Basic Books, 2024), award-winning reporter Anna Reid tells the extraordinary story of how the West tried to reverse the Russian Revolution. In the closing months of the First World War, Britain, America, France and Japan sent arms and 180,000 soldiers to Russia, with the aim of tipping the balance in her post-revolutionary Civil War. From Central Asia to the Arctic and from Poland to the Pacific, they joined anti-Bolshevik forces in trying to overthrow the new men in the Kremlin, in an astonishingly ambitious military adventure known as the Intervention. Fresh, in the case of the British, from the trenches, they found themselves in a mobile, multi-sided conflict as different as possible from the grim stasis of the Western Front. Criss-crossing the shattered Russian empire in trains, sleds and paddlesteamers, they bivouacked in snowbound cabins and Kirghiz yurts, torpedoed Red battleships from speedboats, improvised new currencies and the world's first air-dropped chemical weapons, got caught up in mass retreats and a typhus epidemic, organised several coups and at least one assassination. Taking tea with warlords and princesses, they also turned a blind eye to their Russian allies' numerous atrocities. Two years later they left again, filing glumly back onto their troopships as port after port fell to the Red Army. Later, American veterans compared the humiliation to Vietnam, and the politicians and generals responsible preferred to trivialise or forget. Drawing on previously unused diaries, letters and memoirs, A Nasty Little War brings an episode with echoes down the century since vividly to life. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose forthcoming book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Jonathan Gleason spent ten years writing the ten essays in his debut collection, Field Guide to Falling Ill (Yale UP, 2026). In them, Gleason braids together strands from a variety of sources – from his experience with a potentially-lethal blood clot, to his imprisoned uncle, to his journey to access medication to prevent HIV – to analyze America's healthcare system and the humiliating, confusing, and depersonalizing effects it can often have. The essays approach medicine from a variety of viewpoints, from Jonathan's perspective as a gay man analyzing the development of HIV medications like AZT and Truvada, to his experience as a Spanish language medical interpreter at a free clinic in Iowa City. But each essay also reminds readers of the importance of understanding the history of our healthcare institutions, and the necessity of feeling less alone when confronted by their myriad failures. Lyrical, poignant, and deeply human, Field Guide to Falling Ill is a poetic approach to understanding medicine in America. For more information on Jonathan and his writing, visit: Jonathan's website: here Jonathan's Substack, Histories of Present Illness: here Emily Dufton is the author of Grass Roots: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Marijuana in America (Basic Books, 2017). Her new book, Addiction, Inc.: Medication-Assisted Treatment and America's Forgotten War on Drugs, will be released in April 2026. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

George Fisher, the Judge John Crown Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, just released his new book Beware Euphoria: The Moral Roots and Racial Myths of America's Drug War, with Oxford University Press. George has been teaching and writing in the realms of evidence, prosecution practice, and criminal legal history since 1995. He began practice as a prosecutor in Massachusetts and later taught at the law schools of Boston College, Harvard, and Yale. Beware Euphoria is the most recent among a slew of other books, articles, and essays that he's published over the years, and perhaps the most contrarian. In this interview, George discusses his research methods and how he came to the conclusion that the history of America's drug war, while racially motivated, was not meant to target minorities, but protect the morals and health of America's white youth. Emily Dufton is the author of Grass Roots: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Marijuana in America (Basic Books, 2017). A drug historian and writer, her second book, on the development of the opioid addiction medication industry, is under contract with the University of Chicago Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In A Nasty Little War: The Western Fight to Reverse the Russian Revolution (Basic Books, 2024), award-winning reporter Anna Reid tells the extraordinary story of how the West tried to reverse the Russian Revolution. In the closing months of the First World War, Britain, America, France and Japan sent arms and 180,000 soldiers to Russia, with the aim of tipping the balance in her post-revolutionary Civil War. From Central Asia to the Arctic and from Poland to the Pacific, they joined anti-Bolshevik forces in trying to overthrow the new men in the Kremlin, in an astonishingly ambitious military adventure known as the Intervention. Fresh, in the case of the British, from the trenches, they found themselves in a mobile, multi-sided conflict as different as possible from the grim stasis of the Western Front. Criss-crossing the shattered Russian empire in trains, sleds and paddlesteamers, they bivouacked in snowbound cabins and Kirghiz yurts, torpedoed Red battleships from speedboats, improvised new currencies and the world's first air-dropped chemical weapons, got caught up in mass retreats and a typhus epidemic, organised several coups and at least one assassination. Taking tea with warlords and princesses, they also turned a blind eye to their Russian allies' numerous atrocities. Two years later they left again, filing glumly back onto their troopships as port after port fell to the Red Army. Later, American veterans compared the humiliation to Vietnam, and the politicians and generals responsible preferred to trivialise or forget. Drawing on previously unused diaries, letters and memoirs, A Nasty Little War brings an episode with echoes down the century since vividly to life. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose forthcoming book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In A Nasty Little War: The Western Fight to Reverse the Russian Revolution (Basic Books, 2024), award-winning reporter Anna Reid tells the extraordinary story of how the West tried to reverse the Russian Revolution. In the closing months of the First World War, Britain, America, France and Japan sent arms and 180,000 soldiers to Russia, with the aim of tipping the balance in her post-revolutionary Civil War. From Central Asia to the Arctic and from Poland to the Pacific, they joined anti-Bolshevik forces in trying to overthrow the new men in the Kremlin, in an astonishingly ambitious military adventure known as the Intervention. Fresh, in the case of the British, from the trenches, they found themselves in a mobile, multi-sided conflict as different as possible from the grim stasis of the Western Front. Criss-crossing the shattered Russian empire in trains, sleds and paddlesteamers, they bivouacked in snowbound cabins and Kirghiz yurts, torpedoed Red battleships from speedboats, improvised new currencies and the world's first air-dropped chemical weapons, got caught up in mass retreats and a typhus epidemic, organised several coups and at least one assassination. Taking tea with warlords and princesses, they also turned a blind eye to their Russian allies' numerous atrocities. Two years later they left again, filing glumly back onto their troopships as port after port fell to the Red Army. Later, American veterans compared the humiliation to Vietnam, and the politicians and generals responsible preferred to trivialise or forget. Drawing on previously unused diaries, letters and memoirs, A Nasty Little War brings an episode with echoes down the century since vividly to life. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose forthcoming book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/russian-studies

Peniel Joseph, Barbara Jordan Chair in Ethics and Political Values, founding director of the Center for the Study of Race and Democracy, professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin and the author of The Third Reconstruction: America's Struggle for Racial Justice in the Twenty-First Century (Basic Books, 2022), talks about what was accomplished, as well as the inequality that remained unaddressed.

Mark Parrino has been involved with the delivery of health care and treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) since 1974. As the president of the American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence, Inc. (AATOD), he works with treatment providers across the country to develop and improve treatment protocols. In December 2022, AATOD worked with the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors (NASADAD) to initiate a first-of-its-kind census of all patients currently receiving treatment from government-certified opioid treatment programs (OTPs). Their findings, based on responses from over 1,500 OTPs nationwide, show the breadth and distribution of addiction treatment in America, and are the product of almost fifty years of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) in the United States. I spoke with Mark about his census results, as well as the history of MAT, and specifically methadone, treatment in America. You can see the full report here. Emily Dufton is the author of Grass Roots: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Marijuana in America (Basic Books, 2017). A drug historian and writer, her second book, on the development of the opioid addiction medication industry, is under contract with the University of Chicago Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Dive into the wild life of Diogenes, the philosopher who wasn't afraid to challenge norms or even Alexander the Great. In today's episode, discover how his bold actions and sharp wit left an enduring legacy and why historians still debate his famous sunbathing encounter with the young conqueror.Pick up a copy of Inger Kuin's new book Diogenes: The Rebellious Life and Revolutionary Philosophy of the Original Cynic. Thanks to Basic Books for allowing us to run this audio excerpt.