Welcome to Tuesday morning...

There is quite a bit to comment on around school these days, and I am inclined to do it. This takes some thinking, because one must do so only generally, to preserve everyone's privacy. For now let us say that it is busy in such a way that points out our school's weaknesses, and as such points out clearly a direction of growth. Some reflections will follow.

Some of you may find interesting an open discussion that musician Vic Rawlings and I are having over at TASmusicblogw. We are trying to rejigger the music program. Buffy Morgan, one of our art teachers, is helping rework the art program. Both will eventually more deeply rooted in zen practice. We hope.

Our yearly fundraiser is this Friday. Please come to the school, see the performances, and buy at the silence auction. All the money goes to the student activities fund. Some of that goes to our "Books through Bars" program and our gift raising for a family shelter during Christmas.

Finally, every wonder about the relationship between population, metro area, patent application, and wealth? Check out this great graphic and article over at The Atlantic.

Semi-nonsense, as the press simplifies memory research

Here it is:

(Reuters) - A widely available blood pressure pill could one day help people erase bad memories, perhaps treating some anxiety disorders and phobias, according to a Dutch study published on Sunday.

The generic beta-blocker propranolol significantly weakened people's fearful memories of spiders among a group of healthy volunteers who took it, said Merel Kindt, a psychologist at the University of Amsterdam, who led the study.

"We could show that the fear response went away, which suggests the memory was weakened," Kindt said in a telephone interview.

There is quite a bit wrong with the article, but this highlight does it justice. For instance, are "bad memories" really a problem for anyone? That vacation that didn't go so well, or that time I lost my keys and spent a day wondering around my Boston neighborhood until my roommate got home? Or are we talking about trauma here?

The article, and the researchers, make a huge leap from a "mild shock" and "pictures of spiders" (which is merely a type of conditioning) and post-traumatic stress disorder, which may involve and alter entire sub-systems of the brain, including those that involve intense emotions, information processing, planning, and dissociation. Perhaps, as Jennifer Freyd suggests, true trauma is characterized by an altogether different sort of memory processing. The above study may be just a start, but it is also trivial and, I believe, over-generalized. What bugs me is that it assumes that all memory, no matter what the level of arousal or what the amount of disruption it causes in one's life, is essentially the same. This seems intuitively wrong. Being phobic of spiders is different than having been tortured.

"The Coming Dark Age"

Maggie Jackson, a researcher and author, is interview in Wired magazine:

While there is still debate among attention scientists, most now conclude that there are three types of attention. The first is orienting — the flashlight of your mind. In the case of visual attention, it involves parts of the brain including the parietal lobe, a brain area related to sensory processing. To orient to new stimuli, two parts of the parietal lobe work with brain sections related to frontal eye fields. This is what develops in an infants' brain, allowing them to focus on something new in their environment.

The second type of attention spans the spectrum of response states, from sleepiness to complete alertness. The third type is executive attention: planning, judgment, resolving conflicting information. The heart of this is the anterior cingulate — an ancient, tiny part of the brain that is now at the heart of our higher-order skills. It's executive attention that lets us move us beyond our impulsive selves, to plan for the future and understand abstraction.

We are programmed to be interrupted. We get an adrenalin jolt when orienting to new stimuli: Our body actually rewards us for paying attention to the new. So in this very fast-paced world, it's easy and tempting to always react to the new thing. But when we live in a reactive way, we minimize our capacity to pursue goals.

The anterior cingulate is a pretty fascinating part of the brain- these days I am reading a lot about trauma and its neurological consequences and it comes up all the time- and I am intrigued that an "ancient" part of the brain is so key to the functions we consider most human. Another intriguing point might be that our gadgets exploit a similar reward and novelty system that drugs do, and that the very organ systems involved are so fundamental that they are difficult to alter after a certain critical window. For instance, doing everything you can as a parent to prevent drug and alcohol use in early adolescence is crucial, as early addictions become life long struggles. Will it be the same with our futz-pods and futz-phones?

Presidents' Day, early edition

Tomorrow, due to busing complexities, I will picking up a bunch of students in the school van. This means I will have less time than ever to get my morning in, so an early post to tide you all over until later in the morning.

This blog is perfectly analogous to a garage band. More hobby than vision.

As the resident American History teacher, a y-chromosomer, and a member of my generation (lover of lists, maps, and all things almanac), I bring you C-span's presidential rankings, with which I mightily disgree...Moreover, being born in 1965, I have survived NO SUCESSFUL PRESIDENCIES! So I think Presidents' Day is pretty silly.

the top 15:

Abraham Lincoln (of course)

George Washington (sui generis)

Franklin D. Roosevelt (of course)

Theodore Roosevelt (with Lincon, the most brilliant, and certainly the nuttiest. Notice that the modern GOP never mentions him)

Harry S. Truman (give me a break. why why why?)

John F. Kennedy (again, give me a break. If TR gave us modern solutions, JFK passed on most of the problems of the ensuing decade)

Thomas Jefferson (as president, dubious; a bit like Polk. A great man, though, like Ben Franklin)

Dwight D. Eisenhower (c'mon! Did a bunch of 70 year olds make this list?)

Woodrow Wilson (pretentious moralizer who lied us into war. And got pwned by the rest of the world's powers. Sound familiar?)

Ronald Reagan (I promise you he'll be lower and lower on this list. What was his lasting achievement?)

Lyndon B. Johnson (tragic. epic. Who knows where he belongs.)

James K. Polk (violent imperialist who did what he said he was going to do. Lincoln cut his political teeth opposing Polk's Texas policy)

Andrew Jackson (violent imperialist who was nevertheless the first truly democratically elected president. The poor voted for him. They couldn't really vote before.)

James Monroe (stumbled into the War of 1812)

Bill Clinton (will sink like a stone. A very middling man.)

and now the bottom:

Rutherford B. Hayes

Herbert Hoover (He orchestrated the relief effort in Europe after WWI and was one of the most admired men in the world at the time. He couldn't adjust to the new era, that is, 1929.)

John Tyler

George W. Bush (natch, and will drop. Bush will bounce off the floor that Buchanan provides, of course, only if we recover from this economic mess.)

Millard Fillmore

Warren G. Harding

William Henry Harrison

Franklin D. Pierce

Andrew Johnson

James Buchanan (He utterly failed to lead in the years prior to the Civil War. Pennsylvania's only president is a more than adequate stand-in for its political culture of the last 150 years.)

What a bunch of overmatched reactionaries.