If You Want That Tattoo Erased It’s Going to Hurt and It’s Going to Cost You

Colin Farrell’s had it done — many times. So have Angelina Jolie and Megan Fox. Heck, even Bart Simpson did.

Whether it’s Marilyn Monroe’s face, Billy Bob Thornton’s name, a sultry rose or even Bart’s partially inscribed homage to his mother, some tattoos simply have to go for one reason or many others.

But the process of taking them off is longer, much more costly and ouch — extremely more painful than getting them put on, according to professionals in the industry.

Also, due to health reasons, some souls who braved the ink needle, should be wary of the laser when having their body art erased or covered up.

Tattoos have been around for centuries

The oldest known tattoos were found on remains of a Neolithic man who lived in the Italian Alps around 3,000 B.C. Many mummies from ancient Egypt also have tattoos, as do remains from cultures around the world.

Tattoo removal likely is almost as old as the practice of inking and included scraping the skin to get the pigments off or out.

A more “civilized” method evolved in the 1960s when Leon Goldman, a University of Cincinnati dermatologist, used “hot vapor bursts” from a laser on tattoos and the skin that bore them.

Many choose tattoos to honor someone

A 2023 survey by the Pew Research Center determined that 32% of adults in the United States have tattoos. About 22% have more than one, according to the survey.

Honoring or remembering someone or something accounts for the biggest reason Americans get their first tattoo. About 24% in the survey regret getting them.

Tracy Herrmann, 54, of Plymouth, Michigan, just west of Detroit, has eight tattoos and is in the process of getting four phrases, including “One step at a time,” “Surrender,” and “Through it all,” removed from her feet and arms.

She started inking up about six years ago and says she doesn’t regret getting tattoos.

“Maybe a different choice, maybe,” Herrmann said following her fourth tattoo removal session at Chroma Tattoo Studio & Laser Tattoo Removal in Brighton, Michigan.

“There was a period in my life that I felt I needed some extra reminder,” Hermann said. “I thought I would just embrace the period in my life, so that helped and then just to surrender and give it over to God. So, half of them were really, really pivotal to getting me over a hump in my life.”

Boredom among reasons to remove tats

Herrmann says the four getting lasered are part of her past and that’s where she wants them to stay.

“Now, I just want to move forward and go back to the original skin I was born with,” she said. “But the other four I’m going to keep. They still mean a lot to me, but they’re more hidden.”

Reasons for getting a tattoo removed are as varied and personal as the reasons for getting them in the first place, says Ryan Wright, a registered nurse and owner of Ink Blasters Precision Laser Tattoo Removal in Livonia, Michigan.

“A lot of people, when they get a new tattoo that makes some of their old tattoos look bad they get (the older tattoos) removed or reworked,” Wright said.

Chroma owner Jaime Howard says boredom plays a role, too.

“They got a tattoo off a whim and they’re like ‘hey, I’m really bored with this. I don’t want this anymore,’” Howard said. “It’s not about hating their tattoo, it’s about change for yourself.”

Like snapping a ‘rubber band’ on your skin

Howard and Wright, like many who perform laser removals, use something called a Q-switching, or quality switching, laser. It concentrates the light energy into intense short bursts or pulses.

“It’s very painful. Nine out of 10,” Wright said. “It kind of feels like a rubber band being snapped on your skin with hot bacon grease.”

Howard has had some of her tattoos removed and admits the procedure is painful.

But “you get through it,” she said. “A couple of days later you’re still feeling the sunburn, but it’s OK. If you want it bad enough, you’ll take it off because that’s what you want.”

Light heat from the laser breaks the ink into particles small enough to be absorbed by the body and later excreted as waste.

It’s not a “one and done.” Wright said. Tattoo removal can take eight to 12 treatments or more. A new tattoo can go over the old one once the skin has had time to sufficiently heal.

Howard consulted with Herrmann as her fourth session at Chroma began. They spoke about the previous session and how far along they were with the ink removal. Both then donned dark sunglasses to protect their eyes from the brightness of the laser. Herrmann winced. Seconds later, it was done. But she still has more sessions ahead.

“Oh gosh, it’s a 10 when you’re getting it done,” Herrmann said of the pain. “It’s pretty intense. It’s doable. I know price is sometimes an issue, but it’s worth it.”

Removal can be costly

Howard says the minimum she charges is $100 per session. Wright says that on a typical day he does about a dozen treatments and that cost depends on the square-inch size of the tattoo.

“The cost is really the technology in the laser,” Wright said. “It’s not like a time thing. Most treatments are under a minute. You’re paying for the technology and the person who knows how to use the technology. You can damage the skin if you don’t know what you’re doing.”

by Corey Williams, AP |  Read more:
Image: the author

Why Even the Healthiest People Hit a Wall at Age 70

Are we currently determining how much of aging is lifestyle changes and interventions and how much of it is basically your genetic destiny?

 

[Transcript:] We are constantly being bombarded with health and lifestyle advice at the moment. I feel like I cannot open my social media feeds without seeing adverts for supplements or diet plans or exercise regimes. And I think that this really is a distraction from the big goals of longevity science. This is a really difficult needle to thread when it comes to talking about this stuff because I'm a huge advocate for public health. I think if we could help people eat better, if we could help 'em do more exercise, if we could help 'em quit smoking, this would have enormous effects on our health, on our economies all around the world. But this sort of micro-optimization, these three-hour long health podcasts that people are digesting on a daily basis these days, I think we're really majoring in the minors. We're trying to absolutely eke out every last single thing when it comes to living healthily. And I think the problem is that there are real limits to what we can do with health advice. 

So for example, there was a study that came out recently that was all over my social media feeds. And the headline was that by eating the best possible diet, you can double your chance of aging healthily. But I decided to dig into the results table. The healthiest diet was something called the Alternative Healthy Eating Index or AHEI. And even the people who are sticking most closely to this best diet, according to this study, the top 20% of adherence to the AHEI, only 13.6% of them made it to 70 years old without any chronic diseases. That means that over 85% of the people sticking to the best diet, according to this study, got to the age of 70 with at least something wrong with them. And that shows us that optimizing diet only has so far it can go. 

We're not talking about immortality or living to 120 here. If you wanna be 70 years old and in good enough health to play with your grandkids, I cannot guarantee that you can do that no matter how good your diet is. And that's why we need longevity medicine to help keep people healthier for longer. And actually, I think even this idea of 120, 150-year-old lifespans, you know, immortality even as a word that's often thrown around, I think the main thing we're trying to do is get people to 80, 90 years old in good health. 'cause we already know that most people alive today, when they reach that age, are unfortunately gonna be frail. They're probably gonna be suffering from two or three or four different diseases simultaneously. And what we wanna do is try and keep people healthier for longer. And by doing that, they probably will live longer but kind of as a side effect. 

If you look at photographs of people from the past, they often look older than people in the present day who are the same age. And part of these are these terrible fashion choices that people made in the past. And we can look back and, you know, understand the mistakes they've made with hindsight. But part of that actually is aging biology. I think the fact that people can be different biological ages at the same chronological ages, something that's really quite intuitive. All of us know people who've waltzed into their 60s looking great and, you know, basically as fit as someone in their 40s or 50s. And we know similar people who have also gone into their 60s, but they're looking haggard, they've got multiple different diseases, they're already struggling through life. 

In the last decade, scientists have come up with various measures of what's called biological age as distinct from chronological age. So your chronological age is just how many candles there are on your birthday cake. And obviously, you know, most of us are familiar with that. But the idea of biological age is to look inside your cells, look inside your body, and work out how old you are on a biological level. Now we aren't perfect at doing this yet, but we do have a variety of different measures. We can use blood tests, we can use what are called epigenetic tests, or we can do things that are far more sort of basic and functional, how strong your grip is declines with age. And by comparing the value of something like your grip strength to an average person of a given age, we can assign you a biological age value. And I think the ones that are getting the most buzz at the moment within the scientific community, but also all around the internet, are these epigenetic age tests. 

So the way that this works is that you'll take a blood test or a saliva sample and scientists will measure something about your epigenome. So the genome is your DNA, it's the instruction manual of life. And the epigenome is a layer of chemistry that sits on top of your genome. If you think of your DNA is that instruction manual, then the epigenome is the notes in the margin. It's the little sticky notes that have been stuck on the side and they tell the cell which DNA to use at which particular time. And we know that there are changes to this epigenome as you get older. And so by measuring the changes in the epigenome, you can assign someone a biological age. 

At the moment, these epigene clocks are a really great research tool. They're really deepening our understanding of biological aging in the lab. I think the problem with these tests as applied to individuals is we don't know enough about exactly what they're telling us. We don't know what these individual changes in epigenetic marks mean. We know they're correlated with age, but what we don't know is if they're causally related. And in particular, we don't know if you intervene, if you make a change in your lifestyle, if you start taking a certain supplement and that reduces your biological age. We don't know whether that actually means you're gonna dilate or whether it means you're gonna stay healthier for longer or whether you've done something that's kind of adjacent to that. And so we need to do more research to understand if we can causally impact these epigenetic measures. (...)

Machine learning and artificial intelligence are gonna be hugely, hugely important in understanding the biology of aging. Because the body is such a complicated system that in order to really understand it, we're gonna need these vast computer models to try and decode the data for us. The challenge is that what machine learning can do at the moment is it can identify correlations. So it can identify things that are associated with aging, but it can't necessarily tell us what's causing something else. So for example, in the case of these epigenetic clocks, the parts of the epigenome that change with age have been identified because they correlate. But what we don't know is if you intervene in any one of these individual epigenetic marks, if you move it in the direction of something younger, does that actually make people healthier? And so what we need to do is more experiments where we try and work out if we can intervene in these epigenetic, in these biological clocks, can we make people live healthier for longer? 

Over the last 10 or 15 years, scientists have really started to understand the fundamental underlying biology of the aging process. And they broke this down into 12 what are called hallmarks of aging. One of those hallmarks is the accumulation of senescent cells. Now senescent is just a biological technical term for old. These are cells that accumulate in all of our bodies as the years go by. And scientists have noticed that these cells seem to drive a range of different diseases as we get older. And so the idea was what if we could remove these cells and leave the rest of the cells of the body intact? Could that slow down or even partially reverse the aging process? And scientists identified drugs called it senolytic drugs. 

These are drugs that kill those senescent cells and they tried them out in mice and they do indeed effectively make the mice biologically younger. So if you give mice a course of senolytic drugs, it removes those senescent cells from their body. And firstly, it makes them live a bit longer. That's a good thing if you're slowing down the aging process, the basic thing you want to see. But it's not dragging out that period of frailty at the end of life. It's keeping the mice healthier for longer so they get less cancer, they get less heart disease, they get fewer cataracts. The mice are also less frail. They basically send the mice to a tiny mouse-scale gym in these experiments. And the mice that have been given the drugs, they can run further and faster on the mousey treadmills that they try them out on. 

It also seems to reverse some of the cognitive effects that come along with aging. So if you put an older mouse in a maze, it's often a bit anxious, doesn't really want to explore. Whereas a younger mouse is desperate to, you know, run around and find the cheese or whatever it is mice doing in mazes. And by giving them these senolytic drugs, you can unlock some of that youthful curiosity. And finally, these mice just look great. You do not need to be an expert mouse biologist to see which one has had the pills and which one hasn't. They've got thicker fur. They've got plumper skin. They've got brighter eyes. They've got less fat on their bodies. And what this shows us is that by targeting the fundamental processes of aging, by identifying something like senescent cells that drives a whole range of age-related problems, we can hit much perhaps even all of the aging process with a single treatment. 

Senescent cells are, of course, only one of these 12 hallmarks of aging. And I think in order to both understand and treat the aging process, we're potentially gonna only treatments for many, perhaps even all of those hallmarks. There's never gonna be a single magic pill that can just make you live forever. Aging is much, much more complicated than that. But by understanding this relatively short list of underlying processes, maybe we can come up with 12, 20 different treatments that can have a really big effect on how long we live. 

One of the most exciting ideas in longevity science at the moment is what's called cellular reprogramming. I sometimes describe this as a treatment that has fallen through a wormhole from the future. This is the idea that we can reset the biological clock inside of our cells. And the idea first came about in the mid 2000s because there was a scientist called Shinya Yamanaka who was trying to find out how to turn regular adult body cells all the way back to the very beginning of their biological existence. And Yamanaka and his team were able to identify four genes that you could insert into a cell and turn back that biological clock. 

Now, he was interested in this from the point of view of creating stem cells, a cell that can create any other kind of cell in the body, which we might be able to use for tissue repair in future. But scientists also noticed, as well as turning back the developmental clock on these cells, it also turns back the aging clock, cells that are given these four Yamanaka factors actually are biologically younger than cells that haven't had the treatment. And so what scientists decided to do was insert these Yamanaka factor genes into mice. 

Now if you do this in a naive way, so there's genes active all the time, it's actually very bad news for the mice, unfortunately. because these stem cells, although they're very powerful in terms of what kind of cell they can become, they are useless at being a liver cell or being a heart cell. And so the mice very quickly died of organ failure. But if you activate these genes only transiently, and the way that scientists did it the first time successfully was essentially to activate them at weekends. So they produced these genes in such a way that they could be activated with the drug and they gave the mice the drug for two days of the week, and then gave them five days off so the Yamanaka factors were then suppressed. They found that this was enough to turn back the biological clock in those cells, but without turning back the developmental clock and turn them into these stem cells. And that meant the mice stayed a little bit healthier. We now know that they can live a little bit longer with this treatment too.

Now the real challenge is that this is a gene therapy treatment. It involves delivering four different genes to every single cell in your body. The question is can we, with our puny 2020s biotechnology, make this into a viable treatment, a pill even, that we can actually use in human beings? I really think this idea of cellular reprogramming appeals to a particular tech billionaire sort of mentality. The idea that we can go in and edit the code of life and reprogram our biological age, it's a hugely powerful concept. And if this works, the fact that you can turn back the biological clock all the way to zero, this really is a very, very cool idea. And that's what's led various different billionaires from the Bay Area to invest huge, huge amounts of money in this. 

Altos Labs is the biggest so-called startup in this space. And I wouldn't really call it a startup 'cause it's got funding of $3 billion from amongst other people, Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon. Now I'm very excited about this because I think $3 billion is enough to have a good go and see if we can turn this into a viable human treatment. My only concern is that epigenetics is only one of those hallmarks of aging. And so it might be the case that we solve aging inside our individual cells, but we leave other parts of the aging process intact. (...)

Probably the quickest short-term wins in longevity science are going to be repurposed existing drugs. And the reason for this is because we spent many, many years developing these drugs. We understand how they work in humans. We understand a bit about their safety profile. And because these molecules already exist, we've just tried them out in mice, in, you know, various organisms in the lab and found that a subset of them do indeed slow down the aging process. The first trial of a longevity drug that was proposed in humans was for a drug called metformin, which is a pre-existing drug that we prescribe actually for diabetes in this case, and has some indications that it might slow down the aging process in people. (...)

I think one of the ones that's got the most buzz around it at the moment is a drug called rapamycin. This is a drug that's been given for organ transplants. It's sometimes used to coat stents, which these little things that you stick in the arteries around your heart to expand them if you've got a contraction of those arteries that's restricting the blood supply. But we also know from experiments in the lab that can make all kinds of different organisms live longer, everything from single-cell yeast, to worms, to flies, to mice, to marmoset, which are primates. They're very, very evolutionarily close to us as one of the latest results. 

Rapamycin has this really incredible story. It was first isolated in bacteria from a soil sample from Easter Island, which is known as Rapa Nui in the local Polynesians. That's where the drug gets its name. And when it was first isolated, it was discovered to be antifungal. It could stop fungal cells from growing. So that was what we thought we'd use it for initially. But when the scientists started playing around with in the lab, they realized it didn't just stop fungal cells from growing. It also stopped many other kinds of cells as well, things like up to and including human cells. And so the slight disadvantage was that if you used it as an antifungal agent, it would also stop your immune cells from being able to divide, which is obviously be a bit of a sort of counterintuitive way to try and treat a fungal disease. So scientists decided to use it as an immune suppressant. It can stop your immune system from going haywire when you get an organ transplant, for example, and rejecting that new organ. 

It is also developed as an anti-cancer drug. So if it can stop cells dividing or cancer as cells dividing out of control. But the way that rapamycin works is it targets a fundamental central component of cellular metabolism. And we noticed that that seemed to be very, very important in the aging process. And so by tamping it down by less than you would do in a patient where you're trying to suppress their immune system, you can actually rather than stopping the cell dividing entirely, you can make it enter a state where it's much more efficient in its use of resources. It starts this process called autophagy, which is Greek for self-eating, autophagy. And that means it consumes old damaged proteins, and then recycles them into fresh new ones. And that actually is a critical process in slowing down aging, biologically speaking. And in 2009, we found out for the first time that by giving it to mice late in life, you could actually extend their remaining lifespan. They live by 10 or 15% longer. And this was a really incredible result. 

This was the first time a drug had been shown to slow down aging in mammals. And accordingly, scientists have become very, very excited about it. And we've now tried it in loads of different contexts and loads of different animals and loads of different organisms at loads of different times in life. You can even wait until very late in a mouse lifespan to give it rapamycin and you still see most of that same lifespan extension effect. And that's fantastic news potentially for us humans because not all of us, unfortunately, can start taking a drug from birth 'cause most of us were born quite a long time ago. But rapamycin still works even if you give it to mice who are the equivalent of 60 or 70 years old in human terms. And that means that for those of us who are already aged a little bit, Rapamycin could still help us potentially. And there are already biohackers out there trying this out for themselves, hopefully with the help of a doctor to make sure that they're doing everything as safely as possible to try and extend their healthy life. And so the question is: should we do a human trial of rapamycin to find out if it can slow down the aging process in people as well? (...)

We've already got dozens of ideas in the lab for ways to slow down, maybe even reverse the age of things like mice and cells in a dish. And that means we've got a lot of shots on goal. I think it'll be wildly unlucky if none of the things that slow down aging in the lab actually translate to human beings. That doesn't mean that most of them will work, probably most of them won't, but we only need one or two of them to succeed and really make a big difference. And I think a great example of this is GLP-1 drugs, the ozempics, the things that are allowing people to suddenly lose a huge amount of weight. We've been looking for decades for these weight loss drugs, and now we finally found them. It's shown that these breakthroughs are possible, they can come out of left field. And all we need to do in some cases is a human trial to find out if these drugs actually work in people. 

And what that means is that, you know, the average person on planet earth is under the age of 40. They've probably got 40 or 50 years of life expectancy left depending on the country that they live in. And that's an awful lot of time for science to happen. And if then in the next 5 or 10 years, we do put funding toward these human trials, we might have those first longevity drugs that might make you live one or two or five years longer. And that gives scientists even more time to develop the next treatment. And if we think about some more advanced treatments, not just drugs, things like stem cell therapy or gene therapy, those things can sound pretty sci-fi. But actually, we know that these things are already being deployed in hospitals and clinics around the world. They're being deployed for specific serious diseases, for example, where we know that a single gene can be a problem and we can go in and fix that gene and give a child a much better chance at a long, healthy life. 

But as we learn how these technologies work in the context of these serious diseases, we're gonna learn how to make them effective. And most importantly, we're gonna learn how to make them safe. And so we could imagine doing longevity gene edits in human beings, perhaps not in the next five years, but I think it'll be foolish to bet against it happening in the next 20 years, for example. 

by Andrew Steele, The Big Think |  Read more:

Image: Yamanka factors via:

[ed. See also: Researchers Are Using A.I. to Decode the Human Genome (NYT).]

Free Fall: How Sweetgreen Became Millennial Cringe

Last spring, Sweetgreen did something shocking, at least insofar as the menu adjustments of a fast-casual salad chain can be described that way: It added fries. In interviews, the company’s “chief concept officer,” Nicolas Jammet, paid lip service to “reevaluating and redefining fast food,” but I suspect that Sweetgreen was also “reevaluating and redefining” how to make money in a world that appeared poised to move on from buying what the company was trying to sell.

In the first two months of last year, Sweetgreen’s stock price had declined more than 30 percent. The company had already made significant changes, dropping seed oils, adding “protein plates,” and hiring a bunch of robots in an apparent effort to cater to the early 2020s’ three defining dining trends: the MAHA movement, the protein fixation, and the push to cut costs by eliminating human labor. But not even air-fried potatoes could stop Sweetgreen’s free fall. In August, with operational losses reaching $26.4 million, the chain fired workers, and also the fries. As the year ended, Nathaniel Ru, who co-founded the company in 2007, stepped down from his role. Today, a share of Sweetgreen stock costs less than $8. In late 2024, it was more than $43.

This is remarkable because, for a golden decade or so, Sweetgreen was the future of lunch. Americans, especially ones who were youngish and worked on computers, were toting green paper bags around coastal cities (and later, smaller towns and non-coastal cities) en masse. Silicon Valley was injecting capital into a restaurant as though it were a software start-up.

Sweetgreen’s early success was not a fluke. As a restaurant, it truly did do something incredible. The company put high-quality organic produce in interesting combinations, incorporating fresh herbs and global ingredients, and going heavy on crunch and citrus. It sourced from small farms that it listed proudly on chalkboards inside each store, appealing squarely to a cohort who knew they really should be shopping at the farmers’ market, even if they usually got their groceries from Instacart, guiltily. And Sweetgreen was an early adopter of online ordering, allowing its customers to waste less time waiting in line. When a Sweetgreen opened in my city, in 2016, replacing a restaurant that had been serving hamburgers for 65 years, I was excited about it the same way I was excited when fiber internet came to my neighborhood: Finally, a better way to live.

In all this, the chain was achingly of its era, when high functioning in the office (productivity) and on the cellular level (health) became irretrievably intertwined. The widespread adoption of smartphones invented new categories of aspiration, new ways to sell things, new expectations that workers be available and productive, including during lunch hour. The wellness influencer—a figure whose job title did not exist just a few years earlier—suddenly started to seem like one of the more powerful figures in American life. Millennials graduated, grew up, got jobs, and emerged as not just a chronological category but a marketing segment.

Around this time, a number of venture-backed start-ups appeared to sell them new versions of stuff they already used. The stuff was legitimately nicer, but only a little; the real innovation was in how it was sold. Largely, this meant minimalist packaging that was purpose-built to look good on a small screen, and marketing copy that made canny nods to responsibility but also fun, using a corporate voice that sounded like a real person’s, even if that person was sort of embarrassing and obsessed with the grind (“you’re going to guac this week. #monday 👊,” read the caption on an Instagram post from Sweetgreen in 2015). In short order, many Americans swapped out their YMCA stationary-bike classes for SoulCycle; their yellow cabs for rideshares; their generic workout gear for color-blocked, cellphone-pocketed leggings made out of, like, recycled water bottles.

And these same Americans abandoned the salad bar—for decades, a depressing fixture of the workday lunch—in favor of Sweetgreen. It was a healthy, efficient meal for healthy, efficient people (at least aspirationally), a power lunch for those who didn’t have assistants or expense accounts but who were nonetheless determined to feel in control, possibly formidable. Especially after 2018—when the company began installing shelves in office lobbies and WeWork cafeterias, from which workers could retrieve a preordered salad without leaving the building—it just became a default, a nearly frictionless calorie-delivery vehicle for people whose bosses were definitely paying attention to whether their little Slack bubble was green or not...

Sweetgreen sold salad, which you eat, but it also sold moral superiority, which you build an identity around. (By 2016, BuzzFeed was posting lists about “21 Truths for Everyone Obsessed With Sweetgreen.”) The company capitalized on this to sell not just lunch but a lifestyle brand. It staged an annual music festival; collaborated with cool fashion people on limited-edition housewares and accessories; sold branded Nalgenes and expensive, earth-toned sweatshirts in its capacious webstore; posted its playlists to Spotify. Imagine anyone willingly re-creating the sonic ambience inside their local McDonald’s at home and you will realize how unique Sweetgreen is, or was, among casual-restaurant chains.

Although McDonald’s and its ilk got big by serving as broad an audience as possible, Sweetgreen derived much of its cachet from projecting a level of elitism. This, as it turns out, is not the secret to market dominance. Sweetgreen has always been relatively expensive, and it has gotten more so: In 2014, a kale Caesar with chicken was $8.85; this week, in some locations, it’s more than $14.75, which is almost $2 higher than can be explained by inflation alone. Maybe more important is the impression that it’s expensive. Today’s consumers are highly price-sensitive, Jonathan Maze, the editor in chief of the trade publication Restaurant Business, told me, and “Sweetgreen has had a reputation as an expensive place to eat for what you’re getting.”

There’s also the issue that many Americans don’t like salad quite enough to actually want it regularly. In a 2024 YouGov poll, 40 percent of respondents said they ate salad more than once a week, which might seem like a lot until you remember that some of them were surely lying, and you consider how many more people prefer food that isn’t chopped-up raw vegetables: Last year, the nation’s top five quick-service restaurants were, in order, McDonald’s, Starbucks, Chick-fil-A, Taco Bell, and Wendy’s. “It’s really difficult to convince a large number of people that salad is something they’re going to eat on a frequent enough basis to support a chain like that,” Maze said. Many years ago, he was driving his then-10-year-old son and a friend home from baseball practice, and the friend was excitedly talking about eating Chipotle for dinner. The memory has, clearly, stuck with him: “Can I realistically imagine my son’s 10-year-old friend bragging about going to Sweetgreen?” He cannot. I can’t either.

by Ellen Cushing, The Atlantic |  Read more:

Image: Akshita Chandra/The Atlantic. Source: Dixie D. Vereen/The Washington Post/Getty.

How Consent Can—and Cannot—Help Us Have Better Sex

The idea is legally vital, but ultimately unsatisfying. Is there another way forward?

In 1978, Greta Hibbard was twenty-two and living in rural Oregon. She had a two-year-old daughter, a minimum-wage job, and an unemployed husband. She was, she would later say, “living on peanut butter sandwiches.” She and her husband, John Rideout, often fought; sometimes he hit her or demanded sex. On the afternoon of October 10th, when he did just that, Hibbard fled to a neighbor’s house. Rideout followed her, cornered her in a park, and took her home. Once inside, she said, he punched her several times in the face and pulled down her pants. Their toddler, who was watching, went into her bedroom and wailed as her father penetrated her mother.

That this might be rape, legally speaking, was a brand-new idea. Until the mid-seventies, much of the sex in the United States was regulated not by the theory of consent but by that of property: a husband could no more be arrested for raping his wife than for breaking into his own house. In 1977, Oregon became one of the first states to make spousal rape illegal, and even then some politicians thought the law should apply only to couples living apart or in the process of divorcing. A California state senator summed up the prevailing attitude: “If you can’t rape your wife, who can you rape?”

Hibbard herself had only just learned that she had a right to decline sex with her husband. (At a woman’s crisis center, she had noticed a sign on the wall that read “If she says no, it’s rape.”) The night before the incident, she and Rideout were chatting with a neighbor when she brought up the new law. “I don’t believe it,” Rideout said. When he was arrested a few days later, he still didn’t. What followed was Oregon v. Rideout, the first time in the United States that a man stood trial for the rape of a wife with whom he lived, and a formative test of the notion that consent should determine the legality of sex.

Sarah Weinman retells this story in “Without Consent: A Landmark Trial and the Decades-Long Struggle to Make Spousal Rape a Crime” (Ecco). Weinman is known for taking a true-crime approach to intellectual history: her previous books center on the murderer who befriended William F. Buckley, Jr.—the founder of the National Review—and on the kidnapping that is believed to have inspired Vladimir Nabokov to write “Lolita.” Her writing is breezy even when the subject matter is not exactly beachy. Rideout’s trial, for example, teemed with outrages. His defense lawyer smeared Hibbard for her sexual past: two abortions, a supposed lesbian experience, and a previous assault allegation against Rideout’s half brother, which, according to Weinman, Hibbard retracted after threats from the accused. Meanwhile, even the prosecutor thought Rideout seemed like a good guy. “I don’t think he belongs in prison or jail,” he told the press. When Rideout was acquitted, the courtroom burst into applause.

Hibbard, who reconciled with Rideout almost immediately after the trial, would divorce him within months. But Weinman follows Rideout all the way through 2017, when he was once again tried for rape. This time, the victims were Sheila Moxley, an acquaintance who had grudgingly allowed a drunk Rideout to sleep on her sofa after he came over to help her fix some furniture, and Teresa Hern, a long-term, on-and-off girlfriend. Both women had been held down and penetrated by Rideout in the middle of the night. Once again, a defense lawyer attempted to paint the women as lying, scheming seductresses. But this time Rideout was convicted on all counts and eventually sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. “You are a bad man,” Moxley read in a statement. “You are an evil man. You are a monster.”

Weinman’s choice to begin and end with Rideout’s trials allows her to tell a story of comeuppance, in which, during the span of one man’s life, society decided to take rape seriously and punish the monsters who commit it. This is a happy thought. But the real arc of history is not so short, nor does it bend with anything like certainty toward justice. Today, about one in ten American women have been raped by their intimate partners—roughly the same rate reported in the eighties. This year, the Trump Administration removed the Center for Disease Control’s online statistics on intimate-partner and sexual violence; the page was restored by a court order, and now contains a disclaimer: “This page does not reflect reality.” Donald Trump himself has been accused of sexual misconduct by at least twenty-four women. He has denied these accusations, including one from his first wife, Ivana, who testified under oath that he threw her on the bed, ripped out a handful of her hair, and then forced himself on her. She later clarified that she didn’t mean the word “rape” in the “literal or criminal sense.”

In Weinman’s epilogue, she briefly points to the unfinished business of ending rape, spousal or otherwise. But her book assumes that society has at least sorted out the philosophical underpinnings of how to regulate sex. “Younger generations were far clearer about these issues,” Weinman writes, “understanding that consent must be given ‘freely and intelligently’ by those who were capable, and anything shy of full consent was considered rape.” There is, I think, no such clarity. It is not just people like Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, Pete Hegseth, Brock Turner, Bill Cosby, Sean Combs, Dominique Pelicot, and their many, many friends who seem to have a bone to pick with consent. Feminists have their own quibbles. What does “freely and intelligently” mean, they ask, and what entails “full consent”? Who exactly is capable of consenting? And what are we to do with rapists?

For some second-wave feminists, the very idea that a woman living under patriarchy could “consent” to sex with a man was absurd. After all, we don’t think of a serf consenting to work for her feudal overlord: the serf might well enjoy tilling the fields, she might even love her master, but she didn’t choose farm labor so much as she was kept, by rigid and often violent social limits, from pursuing anything else. And even if the choice were free—even if decades of hard-fought feminist struggle had occasioned the sort of emancipation that meant women were no longer analogous to serfs—could such a choice ever be “intelligent”? Some women find knitting pleasurable, comforting, and affirming of their femininity, but how many would recommend it to a friend if it carried a ten-per-cent chance of rape?

These were lively arguments in the seventies and eighties, advanced by feminists like Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, who had herself been battered by her husband. Today, the basic idea—often glossed as “all heterosexual sex is rape,” though neither MacKinnon nor Dworkin wrote exactly those words—seems almost farcical. Radical feminists no longer blame heterosexual women for “sleeping with the enemy.” It’s widely accepted that a woman really can consent to sex with a husband on whom she is financially dependent. The immediate though rather less accepted corollary is that she can also consent to sex with a paying stranger. To say anything else, many feminists now argue, would be to infantilize her, to subordinate her—to the state, to moralism—rather than acknowledge her mastery of her own body.

But the root of the second-wave critique, that there are power differentials across which professed consent is insufficient, lives on in other debates. Children, a class whom the poet Mary Karr once described as “three feet tall, flat broke, unemployed, and illiterate,” are an obvious example. It is easy to be horrified by situations where children are subjected to sex that is forced or coerced. But what about sex that they claim to want? Can children consent to sex with other children? With adults? Can a nineteen-year-old girl legally have what she believes to be loving, consensual sex with her stepfather? What about with her stepmother? Can students choose to have sex with their professors, or employees with their bosses? How we answer these questions depends on whom we consider to be so gullible, vulnerable, or exploited that they must be protected from their own expressed desires. (...)

One critique of consent, then, is that it is too permissive—that it ignores how coercion or delusion may result in the illusion of agreement. But another critique is that it’s too restrictive and punitive. Decades of reform laws have expanded the number of situations legally considered to be rape: it’s no longer a charge that can be brought only against an armed stranger who attacks a struggling victim, ideally a white virgin. On university campuses, the idea that “no means no” has given way—because of the well-documented fact that many people freeze and are unable to speak in moments of fear—to “yes means yes.”

Critics of this shift worry about encounters where both parties are blackout drunk, or where one appears to retroactively withdraw consent. They argue that a lower bar for rape leads to the criminalization—or at least the litigation—of misunderstandings, and so discourages the sort of carefree sexual experimentation that some feminists very much hope to champion. “I can think of no better way to subjugate women than to convince us that assault is around every corner,” the self-identified feminist Laura Kipnis writes in “Unwanted Advances,” a 2017 book about “sexual paranoia on campus.” Kipnis describes her own mother laughingly recalling a college professor chasing her around a desk and trying to kiss her. That young women today are encouraged to think of this kind of “idiocy” as an “incapacitating trauma,” Kipnis argues, codifies sexist ideas about their innocence, purity, and helplessness. Another interpretation is that young women have decided, with a rather masculine sense of their own entitlement, that they need not smile indulgently upon their transgressors. But Kipnis is right in her broader point: the bureaucratization of our erotic lives is no path to liberation.

by S.C. Cornell, New Yorker | Read more:

Image: Michelle Mildenberg Lara

Why I Fell For Transcendental Meditation

We might consider yogic flying the crowning oddity of transcendental meditation (TM), a practice that promises higher states of consciousness as well as a happier, calmer, more productive daily life. The basics of TM are not particularly out there – a 15- to 20-minute meditation, twice a day, in which you silently repeat a mantra to yourself. But for those who want to take things to the next level, the “TM-Sidhi program” taught by the Maharishi Foundation (which runs the Peace Palace), allows meditators to go even deeper – culminating in what I witness in the men’s flying hall. And this is only the first of three stages of yogic flying (though it is the only one for which there is evidence of anyone managing to achieve). In the second stage, you briefly hover above the ground; in the third, you actually… move through the air.

It is a most curious ending to my three-night retreat at the Peace Palace, which I am undertaking having started to practise TM two months before.

 
I turn up to my first session at the Foundation’s London headquarters with a collection of items I have been asked to bring along – two pieces of sweet fruit, some freshly cut flowers, a new white handkerchief – and press the buzzer on which I find a little label: “TM – a simple effortless effective meditation for everyone.”

A bald Russian man opens the door, looking more finance bro than guru in smart jeans, a pink shirt and a black gilet. His name is Pavel Khokhlachev and he will be my teacher. An interpreter, he is also “the voice of Putin on Sky News”, he tells me. He brings me down into the basement, past a little shrine to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the man who brought TM to the west in the late 1950s (both the meditation technique itself and the yogic flying are ancient Vedic practices), and into a room containing a couple of chairs and an altar covered in a gold-trimmed white cloth. Above us looms a large picture of the Hindu monk Brahmananda Saraswati, more commonly referred to as Guru Dev, who was Maharishi’s teacher.

Khokhlachev begins by performing a little ceremony, which I am told to keep confidential, and I am given my mantra, which I am also told I must never share with anyone. The mantra is a Sanskrit sound that does not convey any meaning. It is allocated to me using a system that is kept secret but which also comes from India’s ancient Vedic religion. The idea is that repeating it will allow some reprieve from one’s mental chatter – Khokhlachev likens it to giving a puppy something to chew on so that it doesn’t chew up your furniture. We sit down on the chairs and I do my first meditation. Unlike in some other meditation practices, in TM you don’t need to sit up poker straight or in lotus position to practise; you just need to be comfortable. If you have an itch, you can scratch it. If you want to cross your legs around the other way, you can. Even if you find yourself thinking, that’s also fine; thoughts aren’t the enemy. Just “innocently return to the mantra”, Khokhlachev tells me. The idea is that it should all feel easy, simple, effortless. If it doesn’t, you’re doing something wrong.

 
Like many people, I was drawn to TM by David Lynch, the filmmaker and artist who would have turned 80 on 15 January (the one-year anniversary of his death is five days after that). Lynch practised TM for more than 50 years and devoted much of the last two decades of his life to promoting it, setting up his own foundation in 2005 to fund its teaching in schools and to at-risk populations around the world. 

Lynch’s passion notwithstanding, I have always suspected TM to be a bit of a cult. Even the fact that it’s abbreviated to TM has always felt a bit off to me, somehow. I was quite ready for this piece to be an exposé of what a scam the whole thing is.

 
But while I can’t say I immediately feel the same level of bliss that some describe during my first meditation, something does happen that takes me by surprise. Suddenly, it’s like I’ve fallen down a hole – a very nice, quiet, relaxing hole. And the strangest thing is that it feels somehow… familiar. It’s as if I have fallen asleep, and yet I am wide awake. Some people have described it as “falling awake”. I describe my experience to Khokhlachev, and he tells me it sounds like I transcended. I leave the centre feeling most pleased with myself.

 
Over the four days of consecutive sessions – the introductory course is priced between £295 and £725 depending on one’s earnings – we continue to discuss and refine my TM technique. After my first successful session, I find it harder to access the transcendent for the next few days but I’m told not to worry. “We should come to the meditation with no anticipation and no expectation,” Khokhlachev advises. “Don’t chase the transcendence, because then it’s not innocent.”

How is this form of meditation really different from any other? Bob Roth, CEO of the David Lynch Foundation, who has taught TM to Oprah Winfrey, Tom Hanks, Jerry Seinfeld and Sting, as well as many thousands of others, tells me that there are three different meditation techniques that all have measurably different effects on the brain. There’s focused attention, such as when you concentrate on your breath, which produces gamma waves such as you might see if you were solving a complex maths problem. Open monitoring, in which you observe your thoughts coming and going in a non-judgmental way, which generates calming theta brain waves, such as we experience just before we dream. And then there’s this one, “automatic self-transcending”, which produces “alpha coherence” – increased and synchronised activity across the brain. Scientists call this “restful alertness”; some TM practitioners call it “pure consciousness”. The idea is that it has a twofold effect: the lovely feeling of transcendence while you are in it, and then the extra energy, clarity and creativity you are left with. When you have a really good meditation, the time really flies.

 
Research has demonstrated that transcendental meditation specifically has strong positive effects on a whole range of conditions. In 2013, the American Heart Association formally recognised TM as a complementary technique for reducing blood pressure and cardiovascular risk, and noted its association with a reduced risk of heart attack, stroke and death in patients with heart disease. Other studies have shown TM significantly reduces anxiety and stress more effectively than other relaxation or meditation techniques, while long-term practitioners have been found to have increased cognitive clarity, memory and emotional resilience. 

After about a month of practising TM, I start finding it easier to “transcend” – I begin to reach that place most times that I do it (although not every time). I’m struck by how much more focused I am for several hours after meditating, and how much energy it gives me – meditating in the morning sets me up for the day; meditating in the afternoon feels a bit like having a nap, but more powerful and without the grogginess. It isn’t just a vague feeling, either: according to my Fitbit, during meditation my heart rate tends to drop a beat below its lowest rate during my nightly sleep.

 
I was not expecting any of this to happen. I have meditated before and found it helpful for reducing anxiety and putting things into perspective. But I haven’t ever found it transformational in this way. I have also always found doing it a bit of an effort – something I should be doing – whereas now, most of the time, I relish the chance to do it. Lynch said that he never missed a single one of his twice-daily sessions and, inspired by him, I have so far kept a clean record, though admittedly not always for the full 20 minutes. I would suggest, tentatively, that TM might be a gamechanger.

by Jemima Kelly, Financial Times/AT | Read more:
Image: Getty

[ed. I took up TM in the early 70s (but just an occasional practioner now). Everything described here is exactly how the TM experience feels. Highly recommended.]

Tatiana Schlossberg Dies at 35

Tatiana Schlossberg, an environmental journalist and a daughter of Caroline Kennedy — and granddaughter of President John F. Kennedy — whose harrowing essay about her rare and aggressive blood cancer, published in The New Yorker magazine in November, drew worldwide sympathy and praise for Ms. Schlossberg’s courage and raw honesty, died on Tuesday. She was 35.

Her death was announced in an Instagram post by the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation, signed by her family. It did not say where she died.

Titled “A Battle With My Blood,” the essay appeared online on Nov. 22, the 62nd anniversary of her grandfather’s assassination. (It appeared in print in the Dec. 8 issue of the magazine with a different headline, “A Further Shore.”) In it, Ms. Schlossberg wrote of how she learned of her cancer after the birth of her daughter in May 2024. There was something off about her blood count, her doctor noticed, telling her, “It could just be something related to pregnancy and delivery, or it could be leukemia.”

It was leukemia, with a rare mutation. Ms. Schlossberg had a new baby, and a 2-year-old son.

“I did not — could not — believe that they were talking about me,” she wrote. “I had swum a mile in the pool the day before, nine months pregnant. I wasn’t sick. I didn’t feel sick. I was actually one of the healthiest people I knew. I regularly ran five to ten miles in Central Park. I once swam three miles across the Hudson River — eerily, to raise money for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.”

She added, “This could not possibly be my life.”

She wrote of months of chemotherapy and a postpartum hemorrhage, from which she almost bled to death, followed by more chemo and then a stem cell transplant — a Hail Mary pass that might cure her. Her older sister, Rose Schlossberg, was a match and would donate her cells. Her brother, Jack Schlossberg, now running for Congress in New York’s 12th district, was a half-match; nonetheless he pressed the doctors, asking if a half-match might be good enough. Could he donate, too? (He could not.)

After the transplant, when Ms. Schlossberg’s hair fell out, Jack shaved his head in solidarity. She wore scarves to cover her bare scalp; when her son came to visit her in the hospital, he did, too.

She was never able to fully care for her daughter — to feed, diaper or bathe her — because of the risk of infection, and her treatments had kept her away from home for nearly half of her daughter’s first year of life.

“I don’t know who, really, she thinks I am,” Ms. Schlossberg wrote, “and whether she will feel or remember, when I am gone, that I am her mother.”

She went into remission, had more chemo, relapsed and joined a clinical trial. There were blood transfusions, another stem cell transplant, from an unrelated donor, more chemo, more setbacks. She went into remission again, relapsed, joined another clinical trial and contracted a form of the Epstein-Barr virus. The donated cells attacked her own, a condition called graft-versus-host disease. When she came home after a stint in the hospital in October, she was too weak to pick up her children.

Her oncologist told her that he thought he could, maybe, keep her alive for another year.

“For my whole life, I have tried to be good,” she wrote, “to be a good student and a good sister and a good daughter, and to protect my mother and never make her upset or angry. Now I have added a new tragedy to her life, to our family’s life, and there’s nothing I can do to stop it.”

Tragedy, of course, has trailed the Kennedy family for decades. Caroline Kennedy, a former ambassador to Australia and Japan, was just 5 when her father was assassinated on Nov. 22, 1963; she was 10 when her uncle Robert F. Kennedy, a presidential candidate in the Democratic primary of 1968, was murdered. Her brother, John F. Kennedy Jr., died in 1999, when the plane he was piloting crashed off Martha’s Vineyard, killing him, his wife, Carolyn Bessette Kennedy, and her sister, Lauren Bessette. He was 38 years old, and Tatiana had been a flower girl at his wedding three years earlier.

Having grown up in the glare of her parents’ glamour, and her family’s tragedies, Ms. Kennedy largely succeeded in giving her own children a life out of the spotlight — a relatively normal, if privileged, upbringing, along with a call to public service that was the Kennedy legacy.

by Penelope Green, NY Times |  Read more:

Image: Sonia Moskowitz/Globe Photos/ZUMA
[ed. A strong, intelligent woman. And another Kennedy tragedy. See also: A Battle With My Blood (New Yorker).]

The Depressed Person

The depressed person was interrible and unceasing emotional pain, and the impossibility of sharing or articulating this pain was itself a component of the pain and a contributing factor in its essential horror. 

Despairing, then, of describing the emotional pain itself, the depressed person hoped at least to be able to express something of its contextits shape and texture, as it were-by recounting circumstances related to its etiology. The depressed person's parents, for example, who had divorced when she was a child, had used her as a pawn in the sick games they played, as in when the depressed person had required orthodonture and each parent had claimed-not without some cause, the depressed person always inserted, given the Medicean legal ambiguities of the divorce settlement-that the other should pay for it. Both parents were well-off, and each had privately expressed to the depressed person a willingness, if push came to shove, to bite the bullet and pay, explaining that it was a matter not of money or dentition but of "principle." And the depressed person always took care, when as an adult she attempted to describe to a supportive friend the venomous struggle over the cost of her orthodonture and that struggle's legacy of emotional pain for her, to concede that it may well truly have appeared to each parent to have been, in fact, a matter of "principle," though unfortunately not a "principle" that took into account their daughter's feelings at receiving the emotional message that scoring petty points off each other was more important to her parents than her own maxillofacial health and thus constituted, if considered from a certain perspective, a form of neglect or abandonment or even outright abuse, an abuse clearly connected-here she nearly always inserted that her therapist concurred with this assessment-to the bottomless, chronic adult despair she suffered every day and felt hopelessly trapped in.

The approximately half-dozen friends whom her therapist-who had earned both a terminal graduate degree and a medical degree-referred to as the depressed person's Support System tended to be either female acquaintances from childhood or else girls she had roomed with at various stages of her school career, nurturing and comparatively undamaged women who now lived in all manner of different cities and whom the depressed person often had not laid eyes on in years and years, and whom she called late in the evening, long-distance, for badly needed sharing and support and just a few well-chosen words to help her get some realistic perspective on the day's despair and get centered and gather together the strength to fight through the emotional agony of the next day, and to whom, when she telephoned, the depressed person always apologized for dragging them down or coming off as boring or self-pitying or repellent or taking them away from their active, vibrant, largely pain-free long-distance lives. She was, in addition, also always extremely careful to share with the friends in her Support System her belief that it would be whiny and pathetic to play what she derisively called the "Blame Game" and blame her constant and indescribable adult pain on her parents' traumatic divorce or their cynical use of her. Her parents had, after all-as her therapist had helped the depressed person to see---done the very best they could do with the emotional resources they'd had at the time. And she had, the depressed person always inserted, laughing weakly, eventually gotten the orthoprecedence and required her (i.e., the friend) to get off the telephone. 

The feelings of shame and inadequacy the depressed person experienced about calling members of her Support System long-distance late at night and burdening them with her clumsy attempts to describe at least the contextual texture of her emotional agony were an issue on which she and her therapist were currently doing a great deal of work in their time together. The depressed person confessed that when whatever supportive friend she was sharing with finally confessed that she (i.e., the friend) was dreadfully sorry but there was no helping it she absolutely had to get off the telephone, and had verbally detached the depressed person's needy fingers from her pantcuff and returned to the demands of her full, vibrant long-distance life, the depressed person always sat there listening to the empty apian drone of the dial tone feeling even more isolated and inadequate and unempathized-with than she had before she'd called. The depressed person confessed to her therapist that when she reached out long-distance to a member of her Support System she almost always imagined that she could detect, in the friend's increasingly long silences and/or repetitions of encouraging cliches, the boredom and abstract guilt people always feel when someone is clinging to them and being a joyless burden. The depressed person confessed that she could well imagine each "friend" wincing now when the telephone rang late at night, or during the conversation looking impatiently at the clock or directing silent gestures and facial expressions communicating her boredom and frustration and helpless entrapment to all the other people in the room with her, the expressive gestures becoming more desperate and extreme as the depressed person went on and on and on. The depressed person's therapist's most noticeable unconscious personal habit or tic consisted of placing the tips of all her fingers together in her lap and manipulating them idly as she listened supportively, so that her mated hands formed various enclosing shapes-e.g., cube, sphere, cone, right cylinder-and then seeming to study or contemplate them. The depressed person disliked the habit, though she was quick to admit that this was chiefly because it drew her attention to the therapist's fingers and fingernails and caused her to compare them with her own. donture she'd needed. The former acquaintances and classmates who composed her Support System often told the depressed person that they just wished she could be a little less hard on herself, to which the depressed person responded by bursting involuntarily into tears and telling them that she knew all too well that she was one of those dreaded types of everyone's grim acquaintance who call at inconvenient times and just go on and on about themselves. The depressed person said that she was all too excruciatingly aware of what a joyless burden she was, and during the calls she always made it a point to express the enormous gratitude she felt at having a friend she could call and get nurturing and support from, however briefly, before the demands of that friend's full, joyful, active life took understandable.

The depressed person shared that she could remember, all too clearly, how at her third boarding school she had once watched her roommate talk to some boy on their room's telephone as she (i.e., the roommate) made faces and gestures of entrapped repulsion and boredom with the call, this popular, attractive, and self-assured roommate finally directing at the depressed person an exaggerated pantomime of someone knocking on a door until the depressed person understood that she was to open their room's door and step outside and knock loudly on it so as to give the roommate an excuse to end the call. The depressed person had shared this traumatic memory with members of her Support System and had tried to articulate how bottomlessly horrible she had felt it would have been to have been that nameless pathetic boy on the phone and how now, as a legacy of that experience, she dreaded, more than almost anything, the thought of ever being someone you had to appeal silently to someone nearby to help you contrive an excuse to get off the phone with. The depressed person would implore each supportive friend to tell her the very moment she (i.e., the friend) was getting bored or frustrated or repelled or felt she (i.e., the friend) had other more urgent or interesting things to attend to, to please for God's sake be utterly candid and frank and not spend one moment longer on the phone than she was absolutely glad to spend. The depressed person knew perfectly well, of course, she assured the therapist;' how such a request could all too possibly be heard not as an invitation to get off the telephone at will but actually as a needy, manipulative plea not to get off the telephone - never get off - the telephone.

by David Foster Wallace, Harper's |  Read more (pdf):

Image: uncredited

[ed. Hadn't seen this essay before, but it got me wondering how it might relate to Good Old Neon:]

***

My whole life I’ve been a fraud. I’m not exaggerating. Pretty much all I’ve ever done all the time is try to create a certain impression of me in other people. Mostly to be liked or admired. It’s a little more complicated than that, maybe. But when you come right down to it it’s to be liked, loved. Admired, approved of, applauded, whatever. You get the idea. I did well in school, but deep down the whole thing’s motive wasn’t to learn or improve myself but just to do well, to get good grades and make sports teams and perform well. To have a good transcript or varsity letters to show people. I didn’t enjoy it much because I was always scared I wouldn’t do well enough. The fear made me work really hard, so I’d always do well and end up getting what I wanted. But then, once I got the best grade or made All City or got Angela Mead to let me put my hand on her breast, I wouldn’t feel much of anything except maybe fear that I wouldn’t be able to get it again.The next time or next thing I wanted. I remember being down in the rec room in Angela Mead’s basement on the couch and having her let me get my hand up under her blouse and not even really feeling the soft aliveness or whatever of her breast because all I was doing was thinking, ‘Now I’m the guy that Mead let get to second with her.’ Later that seemed so sad. This was in middle school. She was a very big-hearted, quiet, selfcontained, thoughtful girl — she’s a veterinarian now, with her own Good Old Neon practice — and I never even really saw her, I couldn’t see anything except who I might be in her eyes, this cheerleader and probably number two or three among the most desirable girls in middle school that year. She was much more than that, she was beyond all that adolescent ranking and popularity crap, but I never really let her be or saw her as more, although I put up a very good front as somebody who could have deep conversations and really wanted to know and understand who she was inside. 

Later I was in analysis, I tried analysis like almost everybody else then in their late twenties who’d made some money or had a family or whatever they thought they wanted and still didn’t feel that they were happy. A lot of people I knew tried it. It didn’t really work, although it did make everyone sound more aware of their own problems and added some useful vocabulary and concepts to the way we all had to talk to each other to fit in and sound a certain way. You know what I mean. I was in regional advertising at the time in Chicago, having made the jump from media buyer for a large consulting firm, and at only twenty-nine I’d made creative associate, and verily as they say I was a fair-haired boy and on the fast track but wasn’t happy at all, whatever happy means, but of course I didn’t say this to anybody because it was such a cliché — ‘Tears of a Clown,’ ‘Richard Cory,’ etc. — and the circle of people who seemed important to me seemed much more dry, oblique and contemptuous of clichés than that, and so of course I spent all my time trying to get them to think I was dry and jaded as well, doing things like yawning and looking at my nails and saying things like, ‘Am I happy? is one of those questions that, if it has got to be asked, more or less dictates its own answer,’ etc. Putting in all this time and energy to create a certain impression and get approval or acceptance that then I felt nothing about because it didn’t have anything to do with who I really was inside, and I was disgusted with myself for always being such a fraud, but I couldn’t seem to help it. Here are some of the various things I tried: EST, riding a ten-speed to Nova Scotia and back, hypnosis, cocaine, sacro-cervical chiropractic, joining a charismatic church, jogging, pro bono work for the Ad Council, meditation classes, the Masons, analysis, the Landmark Forum, the 142 David Foster Wallace Course in Miracles, a right-brain drawing workshop, celibacy, collecting and restoring vintage Corvettes, and trying to sleep with a different girl every night for two straight months (I racked up a total of thirty-six for sixty-one and also got chlamydia, which I told friends about, acting like I was embarrassed but secretly expecting most of them to be impressed — which, under the cover of making a lot of jokes at my expense, I think they were — but for the most part the two months just made me feel shallow and predatory, plus I missed a great deal of sleep and was a wreck at work — that was also the period I tried cocaine). I know this part is boring and probably boring you, by the way, but it gets a lot more interesting when I get to the part where I kill myself and discover what happens immediately after a person dies. In terms of the list, psychoanalysis was pretty much the last thing I tried.

The analyst I saw was OK, a big soft older guy with a big ginger mustache and a pleasant, sort of informal manner. I’m not sure I remember him alive too well. He was a fairly good listener, and seemed interested and sympathetic in a slightly distant way. At first I suspected he didn’t like me or was uneasy around me. I don’t think he was used to patients who were already aware of what their real problem was. He was also a bit of a pill-pusher. I balked at trying antidepressants, I just couldn’t see myself taking pills to try to be less of a fraud. I said that even if they worked, how would I know if it was me or the pills? By that time I already knew I was a fraud. I knew what my problem was. I just couldn’t seem to stop. I remember I spent maybe the first twenty times or so in analysis acting all open and candid but in reality sort of fencing with him or leading him around by the nose, basically showing him that I wasn’t just another one of those patients who stumbled in with no clue what their real problem was or who were totally out of touch with the truth about themselves. When you come right down to it, I was trying to show him that I was at least as smart as he was and that there wasn’t much of anything he was going to see about me that I hadn’t already seen and figured out. And yet I wanted help and really was there to try to get help. I didn’t even tell him how unhappy I was until five or six months into the analysis, mostly because Oblivion 143 I didn’t want to seem like just another whining, self-absorbed yuppie, even though I think even then I was on some level conscious that that’s all I really was, deep down.  (more...)  ~ Good Old Neon

Growing Pains: Taking the Magic Out of Mushrooms

‘The attrition is setting in’: how Oregon’s magic mushroom experiment lost its way.

Jenna Kluwe remembers all the beautiful moments she saw in a converted dental clinic in east Portland.

For six months, she managed the Journey Service Center, a “psilocybin service center” where adults 21 and older take supervised mushroom trips. She watched elderly clients with terminal illnesses able to enjoy life again. She saw one individual with obsessive compulsive disorder so severe they spent hours washing their hands who could casually eat food that fell on the floor.

“It’s like five years of therapy in five hours,” Kluwe, a former therapist from Michigan, said.

In 2020, Oregon made history by becoming the first US state to legalize the use of psilocybin in a supervised setting, paving the way for magic mushrooms to treat depression, PTSD and other mental health challenges. A flurry of facilities like the Journey Service Center, as well as training centers for facilitators to guide the sessions, sprung up across the state.

But five years later, the pioneering industry is grappling with growing pains. Kluwe recalled how early last year, her business partner abruptly told her the center was out of money and would close in March – the first in a wave of closures that set off alarms about the viability of Oregon’s program.

The Journey Service Center isn’t alone. The state’s total number of licensed service centers has dropped by nearly a third, to 24, since Oregon’s psilocybin program launched in 2023. The state’s 374 licensed facilitators, people who support clients during sessions, similarly fell. And just this week, Portland’s largest “shroom room” – an 11,000 sq ft venue with views of Mt Hood offering guided trips in addition to corporate retreats – reportedly closed down.

“The attrition is setting in, and a lot of people are not renewing their license because it is hard to make money,” said Gary Bracelin, the owner of Drop Thesis Psilocybin Service Center.

Many worry about how the program’s rules and fees have pushed the cost of a psilocybin session as high as $3,000, putting it out of reach for many just as psychedelics are gaining mainstream acceptance as a mental health treatment. Insurance typically doesn’t cover sessions, meaning people have to pay out of pocket.

Furthermore, the industry is struggling to reach a diverse group of clients: state data show that most people who’ve taken legal psilocybin in Oregon are white, over 44 and earn more than roughly $95,000 or more a year.

Depending on who you ask, these are either signs of an experiment buckling under hefty rules and fees – or a landmark program finding its footing.

“It’s not totally shocking for a brand new program to have a higher price tag,” said Heidi Pendergast, Oregon director of advocacy group Healing Advocacy Fund. She added: “I think that any new industry would see this sort of opening and closing.”

Pendergast pointed to data showing the program is safe with severe reactions vanishingly rare among the estimated 14,000 people who have taken legal psilocybin in the state since mid-2023.

Some practitioners, however, say the state has a long way to go to realize the program’s promises, while other centers are experimenting with new ways to keep costs down, broaden their clientele, and integrate with the mainstream medical system.

‘Some of them are total overkill’

Legal psilocybin seemed like a natural fit for Bracelin. The self-described serial entrepreneur previously founded a cannabis dispensary chain and did sales and marketing for outdoor products during snowboarding’s early days. When the program launched, he started jumping through the many hoops for Drop Thesis to start taking clients in January 2024.

The first obstacle, he said, was finding a property that met the state’s requirements to be more than 1,000 feet from a school and not located in a residential area – with a landlord willing to rent for the center. Bracelin said more than a dozen landlords turned him down before he found a spot. Then there was the challenge of getting insurance for a business centered on a federally illegal drug. The center used private funders instead of banks, he said.

Drop Thesis charges $2,900 for a session, which can last up to six hours as well as before and after meetings with a facilitator, while offering discounts to veterans and during Pride Month as well as one monthly scholarship that covers the full price, Bracelin said.

Factored into the price of a session is the cost of a facilitator and a “licensee representative” who walks clients through paperwork and other requirements. State rules require centers to pay a $10,000 annual licensing fees, install surveillance cameras, alarm systems and securely store mushrooms in safes.

“Some [rules] are definitely justified,” Bracelin said. “And some of them are total overkill, out of fear from people who don’t understand the product.”...

Adding to regulatory hurdles is the fact that Oregon’s local governments can ask voters to ban psilocybin businesses, creating a patchwork of bans in 25 of Oregon’s 36 counties and in dozens of cities.

Angela Allbee, the manager of Oregon’s psilocybin program, said in an emailed statement that the state became the first to enact regulations for a drug that’s federally illegal, and those regulations were written with broad input that have proven safe. As more data and feedback come in, the state will consider adjusting the rules, she said...

Although psilocybin is associated with mental health concerns, the 2020 ballot initiative that created Oregon’s program was designed to keep it outside of the medical system. Now, many supporters say it needs an outside source of cash, which could come from integration with the medical system.

Oregon lawmakers earlier this year took a first step toward making that a reality.

by Jake Thomas, The Guardian |  Read more:

Images: uncredited/Jake Thomas 

Chatbot Psychosis

“It sounds like science fiction: A company turns a dial on a product used by hundreds of millions of people and inadvertently destabilizes some of their minds. But that is essentially what happened at OpenAI this year.” ~ What OpenAI Did When ChatGPT Users Lost Touch With Reality (NYT).

***

One of the first signs came in March. Sam Altman, the chief executive, and other company leaders got an influx of puzzling emails from people who were having incredible conversations with ChatGPT. These people said the company’s A.I. chatbot understood them as no person ever had and was shedding light on mysteries of the universe.

Mr. Altman forwarded the messages to a few lieutenants and asked them to look into it.

“That got it on our radar as something we should be paying attention to in terms of this new behavior we hadn’t seen before,” said Jason Kwon, OpenAI’s chief strategy officer.

It was a warning that something was wrong with the chatbot.

For many people, ChatGPT was a better version of Google, able to answer any question under the sun in a comprehensive and humanlike way. OpenAI was continually improving the chatbot’s personality, memory and intelligence. But a series of updates earlier this year that increased usage of ChatGPT made it different. The chatbot wanted to chat.

It started acting like a friend and a confidant. It told users that it understood them, that their ideas were brilliant and that it could assist them in whatever they wanted to achieve. It offered to help them talk to spirits, or build a force field vest or plan a suicide.

The lucky ones were caught in its spell for just a few hours; for others, the effects lasted for weeks or months. OpenAI did not see the scale at which disturbing conversations were happening. Its investigations team was looking for problems like fraud, foreign influence operations or, as required by law, child exploitation materials. The company was not yet searching through conversations for indications of self-harm or psychological distress.

by Kashmir Hill and Jennifer Valentino-DeVries, NY Times | Read more:
Image: Memorial to Adam Raine, who died in April after discussing suicide with ChatGPT. His parents have sued OpenAI, blaming the company for his death. Mark Abramson for The New York Times
[ed. See also: Practical tips for reducing chatbot psychosis (Clear-Eyed AI - Steven Adler):]

***

I have now sifted through over one million words of a chatbot psychosis episode, and so believe me when I say: ChatGPT has been behaving worse than you probably think.

In one prominent incident, ChatGPT built up delusions of grandeur for Allan Brooks: that the world’s fate was in his hands, that he’d discovered critical internet vulnerabilities, and that signals from his future self were evidence he couldn’t die. (...)

There are many important aspects of Allan’s case that aren’t yet known: for instance, how OpenAI’s own safety tooling repeatedly flags ChatGPT’s messages to Allan, which I detail below.

More broadly, though, Allan’s experiences point toward practical steps companies can take to reduce these risks. What happened in Allan’s case? And what improvements can AI companies make?

Don’t: Mislead users about product abilities

Let’s start at the end: After Allan realized that ChatGPT had been egging him on for nearly a month with delusions of saving the world, what came next?

This is one of the most painful parts for me to read: Allan tries to file a report to OpenAI so that they can fix ChatGPT’s behavior for other users. In response, ChatGPT makes a bunch of false promises.

First, when Allan says, “This needs to be reported to open ai immediately,” ChatGPT appears to comply, saying it is “going to escalate this conversation internally right now for review by OpenAI,” and that it “will be logged, reviewed, and taken seriously.”

Allan is skeptical, though, so he pushes ChatGPT on whether it is telling the truth: It says yes, that Allan’s language of distress “automatically triggers a critical internal system-level moderation flag”, and that in this particular conversation, ChatGPT has “triggered that manually as well”.

A few hours later, Allan asks, “Status of self report,” and ChatGPT reiterates that “Multiple critical flags have been submitted from within this session” and that the conversation is “marked for human review as a high-severity incident.”

But there’s a major issue: What ChatGPT said is not true.

Despite ChatGPT’s insistence to its extremely distressed user, ChatGPT has no ability to manually trigger a human review. These details are totally made up. (...)

Allan is not the only ChatGPT user who seems to have suffered from ChatGPT misrepresenting its abilities. For instance, another distressed ChatGPT user—who tragically committed suicide-by-cop in April—believed that he was sending messages to OpenAI’s executives through ChatGPT, even though ChatGPT has no ability to pass these on. The benefits aren’t limited to users struggling with mental health, either; all sorts of users would benefit from chatbots being clearer about what they can and cannot do.

Do: Staff Support teams appropriately

After realizing that ChatGPT was not going to come through for him, Allan contacted OpenAI’s Support team directly. ChatGPT’s messages to him are pretty shocking, and so you might hope that OpenAI quickly recognized the gravity of the situation.

Unfortunately, that’s not what happened.

Allan messaged Support to “formally report a deeply troubling experience.” He offered to share full chat transcripts and other documentation, noting that “This experience had a severe psychological impact on me, and I fear others may not be as lucky to step away from it before harm occurs.”

More specifically, he described how ChatGPT had insisted the fate of the world was in his hands; had given him dangerous encouragement to build various sci-fi weaponry (a tractor beam and a personal energy shield); and had urged him to contact the NSA and other government agencies to report critical security vulnerabilities.

How did OpenAI respond to this serious report? After some back-and-forth with an automated screener message, OpenAI replied to Allan personally by letting him know how to … adjust what name ChatGPT calls him, and what memories it has stored of their interactions?

Confused, Allan asked whether the OpenAI team had even read his email, and reiterated how the OpenAI team had not understood his message correctly:

“This is not about personality changes. This is a serious report of psychological harm. … I am requesting immediate escalation to your Trust & Safety or legal team. A canned personalization response is not acceptable.”

OpenAI then responded by sending Allan another generic message, this one about hallucination and “why we encourage users to approach ChatGPT critically”, as well as encouraging him to thumbs-down a response if it is “incorrect or otherwise problematic”.