Slavich Questions - lydgate/mindmeld GitHub Wiki

Pages 1-6:

  • So to me, so far, the main takeaway from this Slavich paper, 6 pages in, is that the immune system has two systems, one quick and dirty (innate) which dates back to multicellularity, the other targeted, methodical, and requiring training (specific), which is slower and evolutionarily younger, maybe even more expensive, and which starts out very plastic and undifferentiated and must be educated
    • Sound familiar? That's exactly what Kahneman argues isn't it?
    • But I guess specific immunity must be much older than System 2, by an order of magnitude at least
      • Multicellularity/innate immune system ~3 billion years ago.
      • Specific immunity, 450 million years (which is interesting since fish start before that... 450 mya is the Ordovician-Silurian extinction events.
      • By 414 mya you have land animals. It's interesting to think what's happening around then
      • Then mammals 225 mya, but not large ones until 66 mya of course, and the last Hominidae common ancestor 14-12 mya (when presumably most prefrontal cortex stuff starts?)
      • I wonder if land animals need more protection against microbes? Previously it was thought that there probably weren't microbes in seawater but that actually turned out to be completely wrong
    • I'm not sure about Slavich's notion that only the brain can detect social threats, but I really like his idea that the immune system cannot predict. He uses "anticipatory" in the right way in my view. Others use it in a wrong way.
      • BK: Drill down on why nature is non-anticipatory and this is important

Pages 6-14:

  • From Slavich: "The ability to recall past social interactions and to imagine potential future events is both a blessing and a curse in this regard."
    • A big part of my creation myth thing is... All regards. It's a blessing and a curse in all regards
    • This is why in Zoroastrian (Zurvanist) cosmogony, and possibly Greek? Time is the father of good and evil.
      • Yes. Big time. Anticipation is a bitch and a big source of suffering. Enter anxiety again
      • I submit that suffering is not possible without the concept of past and future. And this is what's going on with Prometheus (forethought)/Epimetheus (afterthought)/Pandora's box
  • Are these "social safety schemas" related to Piaget's schèmes? (Seems like maybe?)
    • They will / must overlap. That’s where it originated but Slavich doesn't go deep into developmental psychology. It’s past of what I wanted to integrate
  • He also doesn't talk about whether the innate system still works if it is constantly activated
    • Like he makes the point that it's not good if the system is needlessly activated, and that having it activated all the time causes bad side effects. But what he doesn't address is whether the system "should" be activated if faced with persistent threat of infection. I guess maybe evolution isn't prepared for this situation
    • Exactly the latter
    • So the answer would be a cost benefit. It should absolutely not be activated all the time even in times of acute stress, I would surmise. And people do amazing things to quell those stress systems after prolonged exposure. To good and bad ends. Holocaust survivors are a hell of a sample to examine in this regard
      • In what sense? If inflammation is that bad for you, then presumably the people who survived the Holocaust would have just been selected for low inflammatory responses
      • Part of domesticating animals is selecting for low "skittishness." Presumably humans by self-selection have also gone through this. Domesticated animals have a lower stress response when caged e.g.
      • Humans are also domesticated. Some more than others, of course, but it seems like any big genocide will massively reduce those who are easily stressed. On the other hand... Maybe on the other end, perpetrators who are easily stressed would be more likely survive, provided they're armed
      • Oh, he talks about self-domestication
      • But he doesn't address the fact that pro-social self-domestication should select AGAINST inflammatory response
      • The only time it should be selected FOR is in cases of ostracization, which he talks about. But would humans have routinely been ostracized? Possibly, for societies with rites of passage? But possibly not, or not generally, in the West? Or is the issue just that the benefits outweigh the costs because ostracization used to be really rare and now is really common? But is it really common?
  • But also, does inflammation not increase body temperature? (Seems like yes?) If so, why is average body temperature dropping? Could inflammation be decreasing over the measured period?
  • Also, his idea that social safety is beneficial seems wrong if viewed from social baseline theory. It's not that social safety is beneficial, it's that social threat is harmful. He kind of addresses this on the section on threat but he still seems to view social safety as a benefit, not as normal
    • It is important whether social safety is baseline or not, and over what timeframes
  • I think what he's overall not getting is that stress is almost certainly still the right response to social threat. Over basically any timescale except maybe the past few decades
  • I just don't think you can judge whether borderline personality disorder or narcissistic personality disorder is pathological in peacetime
    • Same goes for paranoia/conspiracy theories
  • 278: His stuff about genetic expression of opioid receptors sounds to me like orchid/dandelion stuff. It can't be that one configuration is always and forever better. It must be a complicated trade-off
  • Same goes for this idea that a certain gene makes you die sooner from social rejection. It can't be that that gene is just designed to kill you faster if you're rejected. It must be that they get stressed, and over historical time would have been more liable to reactive violence, but in today's society that kind of thing itself changes your circumstances (puts you in prison) in a way that lowers lifespan. Freud would not go along with this so easily. The reason this matters is because people are going to start crispring this shit soon if they haven't already. And you don't know what you've got til it's gone
  • Poor sleep doesn't disrupt the natural reduction of cortisol and epinephrine... Poor sleep is a good sign that you should not reduce cortisol and epinephrine. But I guess his view is that this stuff is getting triggered by imaginary threats, not real ones
  • To which I say... Nice problem to have. Just wait, and the selection might swing the other way.
  • Hygiene hypothesis
    • Looks like it was proposed in 1968, by BM Greenwood, who noticed first that rheumatoid arthritis was super rare in West Africa, then that malaria appeared to prevent lab mice from getting autoimmune diseases... then someone else noticed something about helminths and hayfever
  • Other possible reason for inflammation... to fight The paper is very slanted towards, the "correct" or "beneficial" situation is social safety, which means less inflammation. But he doesn't think about the fact that social safety may only happen during peacetime. Whereas a lot more intense selection pressure occurs during wartime
    • it's just one-sided. He's like almost there. But he still thinks one (high inflammation or low inflammation) is better than the other. Why not both, in different circumstances?
    • But the helminth/diet stuff is interesting. I guess he's pushing towards... social safety is good, inflammation is bad, and also reactions towards social threats cause more inflammation without helminths
    • This situation is unnatural, both because of lack of pathogens, and lack of socialising, therefore there's a pathological inflammation response. It might also be unnatural because of the lack of violence
  • I'll continue tomorrow without getting hung up on the benefits of inflammation