Playing with rats for a living

It's been a while since I had a rat post, but this story in The Atlantic about researchers who taught rats to play hide and seek (with the only reward being to tickle them) is quite charming:

All six rats learned to seek, and five also learned to hide. They clearly understood the rules of the game, and played strategically. When seeking, they searched systematically, beginning with past hiding locations. When hiding, they chose opaque boxes instead of transparent ones and kept quieter. They also seamlessly switched between the two roles, taking their cue from whether the starting box was closed (indicating “seek”) or open (indicating “hide”).

The rats learned the game in only a couple of weeks, which is “impressive in neuroscience,” says Juan Ignacio Sanguinetti-Scheck, who also took part in the study. “Animals can take months to learn tasks, even monkeys, but we’re generally trying to teach them to use joysticks or things they’d never do in normal life.” Hide-and-seek, by contrast, draws on behaviors such as concealing, finding peers, and switching roles, which aren’t just natural parts of rat life, but also frequent parts of rat play. In retrospect, it was the perfect game for uniting two different species. “It’s a clever and innovative approach,” says Gordon Burghardt of the University of Tennessee. “Many animals play with other species and engage in peekaboo, tug of war, or tag, but this example does seem unexpectedly complex.”

Why did the rats play along? It’s possible that they were going after tickles and other social rewards. After all, for two decades researchers have known that rats enjoy being tickled and react by producing ultrasonic chirps that can be compared to laughter. But Reinhold found that once discovered, the rats would often run away and re-hide, delaying their reward and prolonging the game itself. “It seemed really playful,” she says.

She and her colleagues believe that rather than pursuing rewards, the rats were playing for the sake of it. They played because they had fun. For a start, and this is an unusual but welcome line to see in a scientific paper, “the animals looked like they are having fun,” the team writes. When they reunited with Reinhold, they frantically jumped on the spot—a behavior delightfully known as freudensprung, or “joy jumps.” They also teased Reinhold by repeatedly getting close and running away.

Wall Street not what it was

I hadn't read of this before (thanks, ABC):  Wall Street is not what it was, with investment banks moving out into other parts of New York and their former building converted into apartments:

When you walk down Wall Street today, it's all condos", says Brian Barnier, director at ValueBridge Advisors.

"JP Morgan's office building — that's condos.

"Somebody's got a bathroom where JP Morgan's [John Pierpont "Jack" Morgan] office was."

Wall Street real estate agent Julia Hoagland is selling rentals on the strip.

"Wall Street and the financial district have changed dramatically in the nearly two decades since September 11," she says.

"A healthy housing market and tax incentives motivated developers to convert commercial buildings to the more valuable residential product."

The former AIG tower across the street from the NYSE and JP Morgan was made into rental apartments.

The owners of 60 Wall Street, which housed Deutsche Bank, have reportedly commissioned CBRE to market the tower's 1.7 million square feet of office space to apartment developers.

It also discusses changes in the whole investment banking line of business:

Mr Barnier, who has first-hand experience working in investment banking as an independent consultant, says the industry has traditionally leaned on three main sources of revenue.

Buying and selling companies, which was a major theme of the movie Wall Street, is one source of revenue. Much of this business has dried up.

Another huge revenue stream for investment banks has been their corporate advisory services.

"And they're now getting more competition from the consultancy firms." Think the big four accounting firms: EY, PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG and Deloitte.

"They're shedding traders right and left, going more to algorithmic models [where computer-driven mathematical models buy and sell shares based on stocks meeting certain criteria]."

"Each one of those business lines is under a lot of pressure."

Heh, again

From the Onion.

But what does it all mean?

At the New Daily, there's a story about the increase in government debt, and the uncertainty as to where it all stops.

Take this illustration from it:

As far as Australia is concerned, our debt government debt level is apparently at 41% of GDP, which (assuming debt is not a good thing) sounds pretty healthy. 

And what about this chart:

As for us:

Australia is a notch ahead of the US, with a corporate debt-to-GDP ratio of 74.7%.

As far as I can tell, the problem is that no one really understands the economics of debt on a global scale.

The thing Australia is "bad" at is household debt to GDP:   we rank near the top at about 120%, whereas the US is about 75% and China 52%.  But having a really low level is not a sign of a country you would like to live in:

So, all rather confusing as to what it means, really...

A victim of the culture wars

The Catholic Herald has an article entitled The Church used to have a powerful economic voice. What went wrong? and that is a pretty good question.

It starts:

One hundred years ago, the National Catholic War Council, the predecessor of today’s US Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued a “Program for Social Reconstruction”. Drawing on American progressive thought and the encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891), it argued for a living wage, urban housing, trust-busting, worker-run cooperatives, and employee ownership of industry.

Unlike most documents issued by America’s Catholic bishops, this one gained widespread notice. It was denounced by some as socialistic, though it in fact condemned socialism in unsparing terms. Leo XIII had done the same in Rerum Novarum. Then as now, a great deal of confusion arose from the fact that the Catholic Church condemns socialism while advancing ideas many people falsely regard as socialist. Some Catholics (including this author) who reject what the Church rejects have even called themselves socialist in this colloquial sense, with more exuberance than accuracy.

The statement’s ideas, some more practical than others, were not immediately implemented. But they helped shape the arguments and activism that would later result in the New Deal and the Great Society. The priest who drafted the statement, Fr John A Ryan, became an influential supporter of Franklin Roosevelt. The Program remains the most important intervention the American bishops have made in economic debates.

Given the document’s importance, the American bishops have marked its centenary rather tepidly.

These paragraphs offer an explanation: 

 Looking back on the document now, a right-wing observer is likely to view it as too economically progressive, and a leftwing observer is likely to view it as culturally retrograde. For example, the bishops state that women should receive equal pay for equal work, but that only adult men are to be guaranteed a living wage (the idea being that the man is responsible for supporting the family). They ask that women be treated fairly – in the name of justice and chivalry. Yet they insist that “the proportion of women in industry ought to be kept within the smallest practical limits.”

Not all these statements necessarily follow from Catholic premises. But simply glossing over them (as many left-wing admirers of the Program do) obscures something important about the document, however questionable some of its conclusions may be. Its signatories felt it was natural to argue simultaneously for economic justice and for healthy families (as they understood those things). They did so in a way that offends liberal economic and cultural pieties. Their statement showed an unabashed confidence in Catholic thought, economic and moral, that has since been lost.

This loss of confidence has much to do with developments in post-war politics. The Left focused on cultural deregulation and the Right on deregulation of the economy. It is hard for the Church to support unions when unions support abortion. It is hard to endorse the pro-life party when its members deny the universal destination of goods.

It is no secret that both political parties have become alienated from the working class. Hillary Clinton’s denunciation of “deplorables” and Mitt Romney’s misleading dismissal of “people who pay no income tax” were of a piece. Though it has generally avoided such crude rhetoric, the Church has suffered the same fate. Poorer and wealthier Catholics used to attend Mass at roughly equal rates. But there has been a large drop in attendance among working-class Catholics born after 1960. It should not surprise us that the Church has lost its economic voice at the same time it has lost the attachment of the working class.

One of the most appalling features of conservative Catholics is their adoption of  selfish, small government economic policies of the libertarian Right, and pretending that this has always been true Catholic thought.   And a large part of the reason for this is because they don't want to catch culture war cooties by being seen to be aligned in any way with the Left on the matters of abortion and sexuality. 

Yet more reason not to vegan

An article at The Conversation talks about a recent UK study indicating that vegetarian/vegan diets are associated with a higher risk of stroke (but a lower risk of heart disease.)

The article seems very reasonable, and it notes that some researchers think a lack of vitamin B12 might be behind this:

They cite a number of Japanese studies which have shown links between a very low intake of animal products and an increased risk of stroke.

One nutrient they mention is vitamin B12, as it’s found only in animal products (meat, fish, dairy products and eggs). Vegan sources are limited, though some mushroom varieties and fermented beans may contain vitamin B12.

Vitamin B12 deficiency can lead to anaemia and neurological issues, including numbness and tingling, and cognitive difficulties.

The authors suggest a lack of vitamin B12 may be linked to the increased risk of stroke among the vegetarian group. This deficiency could be present in vegetarians, and even more pronounced in vegans.

But this is largely speculative, and any associations between a low intake of animal products and an increased risk of stroke remain to be founded in a strong body of evidence.

A veganism worry

As I have said recently, the apparent triumph of veganism over vegetarianism bothers me, because you read so very often how certain key nutrients are hard to get from plants only. 

Here's another one to add to the list:

The momentum behind a move to plant-based and vegan diets for the good of the planet is commendable, but risks worsening an already low intake of an essential nutrient involved in brain health, warns a nutritionist in the online journal BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health.

To make matters worse, the UK government has failed to recommend or monitor dietary levels of this nutrient -- choline -- found predominantly in animal foods, says Dr Emma Derbyshire, of Nutritional Insight, a consultancy specialising in nutrition and biomedical science.

Choline is an essential dietary nutrient, but the amount produced by the liver is not enough to meet the requirements of the human body.

Choline is critical to brain health, particularly during fetal development. It also influences liver function, with shortfalls linked to irregularities in blood fat metabolism as well as excess free radical cellular damage, writes Dr Derbyshire.

The primary sources of dietary choline are found in beef, eggs, dairy products, fish, and chicken, with much lower levels found in nuts, beans, and cruciferous vegetables, such as broccoli.

It doesn't say how it affects "brain health" - but it's a worry that it is important for fetal development in particular.   I hope there is no risk that more widespread veganism will end up dumbing down the population overall.

Cursing in Japan

Not swearing, but literal cursing, is discussed in this fascinating article in Japan Times.

Everyone who has been to Japan has seen the votive plaques with wishes for good fortune hanging around temples and shrines.   But at some shrines, the wishes are not happy ones:

...at Kadota Inari Shrine, located in the suburbs of Ashikaga, a city in Tochigi Prefecture some 90 minutes by train from Tokyo, visitors won’t find plaques with light-hearted wishes asking for good luck and rosy relationships.

“I’m completely exhausted dealing with K.S., the selfish devil in disguise who looks down on me, shouts at me and complains about each and everything I do. I hate you … I hate you … I hate you from the bottom of my heart, and I pray that you disappear from this world as soon as possible,” one of the plaques reads.

“I pray that my relationship with Hitomi, who betrayed me and wasted a year of my life, is completely severed” reads another. “She must be distanced from all paths leading to happiness. I will never let you become happy. May you suffer for the rest of your life to atone for my tears and agony. Mariko.”

Some wishes are more direct: “I pray that Okabe dies in an accident.”

Others are desperate pleas for help: “I pray that my family’s ties with depression and bipolar disorder come to an end.”

These are fervent, even violent expressions of raw, personal emotions rarely shown in public, and physical evidence of how traditional rituals associated with cursing are well and alive in 21st-century Japan.

Gosh.  It continues:

Kadota Inari Shrine is considered one of Japan’s three major enkiri, or “tie-cutting” shrines, in addition to Kyoto’s Fushimi Inari Taisha and Enkiri Enoki in Tokyo’s Itabashi Ward. However, occult writer Yuki Yoshida says Kadota Inari Shrine stands out in terms of the sheer number of plaques being offered and the level of animosity on display.

“A normal person may become sick of reading so many negative messages left on the plaques, but it’s an opportunity to observe the dark side of the human mind,” Yoshida says. “In fact, a number of dedicated fans visit Kadota Inari Shrine routinely to check the plaques hanging there. While Japan is often considered a secular society, it’s worth learning how there are still many people who seriously indulge in the act of cursing others.”

That said, Yoshida says regardless of how cruel wishes may be, revealing one’s darkest secrets in such fashion and letting off some steam is a healthier alternative to taking physical action.

Yet more details:

According to a book published more than a century ago by U.S. orientalist and lecturer William Elliot Griffis titled “The Religions of Japan From the Dawn of History to the Era of Meiji,” women betrayed by their lovers typically performed this religious act of vengeance at the hour of the ox, which is between 1 and 3 a.m.

“First making an image or manikin of straw, she set out on her errand of revenge, with nails held in her mouth and with hammer in one hand and straw figure in the other, sometimes also having on her head a reversed tripod in which were stuck three lighted candles,” he wrote. “Arriving at the shrine she selected a tree dedicated to a god, and then nailed the straw simulacrum of her betrayer to the trunk, invoking the kami (god) to curse and annihilate the destroyer of her peace.”

Griffis wrote that he had seen rusted nails and pieces of straw struck on trees on multiple occasions.

But cursing is now available commercially, on line:

For those looking to curse someone but remain wary of going through complicated rituals, there are online services that conduct curses on the client’s behalf.

Nihon Jujutsu Kenkyu Jukikai is one such service. Founded around three decades ago, the organization now staff around 30 people who undertake ushi no koku mairi and other rituals ranging in price from ¥20,000 to ¥300,000 depending on the skill set of the practitioner and the level of curse being administered, according to a spokesperson for the group.

I had no idea...

US military not doing so well...

There is an article at the New York Times about suicide in the US Air Force in general, and talking about one case the writer knew about in detail.  I was surprised by this:

Today, I accept that I can’t change the actions that led up to Neil’s suicide, but I can control actions I take in the future. The Air Force is facing an alarming increase in suicides, with 2019 seeing a rise of about 50 percent compared to last year, and I want to do whatever I can to help do something about it. For instance, I recorded a podcast for the Air Force about losing Neil, as part of a push to teach people that it is normal and healthy to talk about stressors and to seek help. I’ve also had an active hand in the messaging for the recent Resilience Tactical Pause, the Air Force initiative that requires all airmen to stand down for a day to focus on mental well-being, resiliency and suicide prevention.

I wonder why the Air Force, in particular, would be having such an increase?  I thought - maybe the base rate is actually low, and this is just a reversion to more "normal" rate?   But no - it seems that the USAF is expecting perhaps 150 suicides this year, and has about 320,000 active members.   The general rate of suicide in the US is about 13 per 100,000

So yeah, the USAF really is running at a high suicide rate.  Odd.

Still waiting for the brillance of Boris to emerge

Can't say that I have detected any obvious sign of Boris Johnson "winning" at anything yet.

His performance has generally looked embarrassing:  another living example of the Peter Principle.  (His level of competence peaked out at being Mayor of London, it seems.)

Netflix and cultural export

I recently wrote that I liked the way Netflix lets us view a lot of good quality shows from other cultures, and I see that Axios has an article saying that investing in other countries productions is a specific strategy of the company.

This is a good thing, I think.

I think I'm in...

I've been watching various Youtubes of (parts of) the Ring Cycle, and I have to say, the music from Die Walkure (even before it hits the Ride of the Valkyries) is more exciting than I realised.   

As for versions to watch, I've been pretty impressed by the (very different) Copenhagen Ring.  

I'm pretty sure I'm now going to see it in Brisbane - and the only issue is whether I buy restricted view seats close to the action, or a nosebleed seat on the second balcony.   (There are not that many seats left in any category, by the way.)  

Don't see that every day

This story about a flipped cargo ship that transports cars seems not to have attracted much attention on the Australian news:

Four crew were rescued from the propeller shaft room by a hole being cut in the hull.

They got their "morning after", then.  :)

The dire state of water in Jordan

A report in Nature about how Jordan is caught in a real water supply mess:  depleting ground water; climate change affecting rainfall patterns; population increase and the refugee problem; and desalination solution complicated and involves Israel.  

The joke continues

Oh look, Sinclair Davidson has returned to the topic of climate change and carbon taxes, under a post referencing "climate hysteria".   He ends with his longstanding line that, if done right (that is, according to his value judgement that governments must have as little tax income as possible) maybe a carbon tax could be OK:

How did such a modest and potentially beneficial adjustment to the tax code become virtually undiscussable?

Simple answer: because that is not what actually gets implemented. When the carbon tax was implemented in Australia, for example, the revenue was used to expand the welfare state – not reduce the tax burden. Worse – income tax rates to lower income individuals were increased.


Now there is an argument to having a carbon tax where that tax is considered as part of the overall tax system. Then we would have to consider the dead weight losses associated with a carbon tax and the dead weight losses associated with the taxes that it replaces. This would involve an honest debate and evaluation of the technical merits and demerits of a carbon tax.  I have zero confidence given on what we have seen to date that such a debate could or would be possible.

That last line is so disingenuous as to be a complete joke.

How can a person who runs a blog that for years and years and years has been absolutely full of "climate change is not a serious issue, if it exists at all" content complain that it's impossible to have a "proper" debate on a carbon tax?

Does he think people don't notice his hand on the tiptruck pouring bullshit into the well of public discourse while simultaneously claiming that it's impossible to reason with people who want him to stop doing that but won't taste the water?