Let's talk about the glass delusion, the Middle Ages' bout with a mass psychogenic illness marked by people believing they were made of glass.
Glass was a valuable commodity in Europe. It was primarily owned by the noble and well-to-do, and it had a notable purpose in alchemy.
Its perception as the technology of the time was as one that's both fragile and valuable, like the nobility.
Glass was the relatively novel technology people knew, and they knew things could be transmuted into glass. Delusional people also thought transmutation could affect them.
Take King Charles VI.
He truly believed his body was made of glass.
This delusion was such that Charles felt he had to build his life around it.
He had iron rods fastened into his clothing to hold him up, and he didn't allow his advisors to approach him, lest they accidentally shatter him.
This illness set in during his twenties.
The age when his psychotic bouts started is remarkably consistent with when the illness starts today.
Were he alive today, he probably would have been prescribed antipsychotics for his condition.
But Charles was alive long before his condition was understood.
He also wasn't its only sufferer. As alchemy's popularity grew, more people started to suffer the glass delusion.
They understood glass as fragile, and themselves as fragile, and they acted out that script.
For the well-off, the delusion was treated as legitimate. Many nobles came to wear padded buttocks.
But in one case, in Saint Germain, a doctor took a man who thought his butt was made of glass and beat him until he stopped believing in the delusion.
Apparently that worked.
Amusingly, in Rene Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy, he remarked on the glass delusion and used it as an example of how people can see the world in totally different ways.
Of course, he did say that the perception was insane.
Fast forward to the 19th century and factories are beginning to dot the landscape of Europe.
With the change in popular technology, people's delusions followed suit.
With industry, the delusions became industrial. People imagined they were being influenced by vast machines.
Patients who presented with this belief in intricate, far off machines that controlled their actions and influenced their lives could never explain how they worked.
Just as people didn't know how they became glass, they didn't get how machines were affecting them.
Factories influenced the world, machines could obviously influence us, thus...
Schizophrenics' delusions are tailored to what they vaguely know, and they learn about those half-baked delusions from others, the times, etc.
Consider exorcism. Its modern script came from a movie!
People today know about parasites, chronic pain, post-viral conditions, toxic poisoning, and more, and they have an amazing tool for finding and promoting related scripts:
The internet!
Thousands of people today believe they have a skin condition called Morgellons.
It's not real.
They just believe they're developing sores and lesions, and hairs are sprouting from them, but they're really picking themselves raw and getting freaked out by cotton fibers.
The sufferers from this condition are deeply unwell, and they spread their unwellness to other people through posting about their condition online.
People know about all the requisite concepts, and they see something on themselves and imagine it's a real symptom.
But it's not.
There are no demons, there's no Morgellons, people cannot be made of glass, and there's no big machine out there influencing people and miraculously disappearing the moment those concepts go out of fashion and get replaced by other ones with nary a cure invented.
And this keeps happening!
People are always inventing new conditions or imagining they're afflicted by something real when they're not, by reading into symptoms and gaslighting themselves.
And they sometimes act incredibly mad in these bouts of belief.
A subset of people today seem vulnerable to scripts, and some seem to have always been vulnerable to it.
It makes you wonder: must psychotic people always be like this? And what can we do to cure them of their delusions?
I suggest we don't give in with padded buttocks.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So, at least in this propensity score- or age-matched data, there's no reason to chalk the benefit up to the weight loss effects.
This is a hint though, not definitive. Another hint is that benefits were observed in short trials, meaning likely before significant weight loss.
We can be doubly certain about that last hint because diabetics tend to lose less weight than non-diabetics, and all of the observed benefit has so far been observed in diabetic cohorts, not non-diabetic ones (though those directionally show benefits).
The reason why should teach us something about commitment
The government there has previously attempted crackdowns twice in the form of mano dura—hard hand—, but they failed because they didn't hit criminals hard enough
Then Bukele really did
In fact, previous attempts backfired compared to periods in which the government made truces with the gangs.
The government cracking down a little bit actually appeared to make gangs angrier!
You'd have been in your right to conclude 'tough on crime fails', but you'd be wrong.
You have to *actually* enforce the law or policy won't work. Same story with three-strike laws, or any other measure
Incidentally, when did the gang problems begin for El Salvador? When the U.S. exported gang members to it
Diets that restrict carbohydrate consumption lead to improved blood sugar and insulin levels, as well as reduced insulin resistance.
Additionally, they're good or neutral for the liver and kidneys, and they don't affect the metabolic rate.
Carbohydrate isn't the only thing that affects glycemic parameters.
So does fat!
So, for example, if you replace 5% of dietary calories from saturated fat with PUFA, that somewhat improves fasting glucose levels (shown), and directionally improves fasting insulin:
Dietary composition may not be useful for improving the rate of weight loss ceteris paribus, but it can definitely make it easier given what else it changes.
Those non-metabolism details may be why so many people find low-carb diets so easy!
There's a popular belief that family wealth is gone in three generations.
The first earns it, the second stewards it, and the third spends it away: from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations!
But how true is this belief?
Gregory Clark has new evidence🧵
The first thing to note is that family wealth is correlated across many generations. For example, in medieval England, this is how wealth at death correlates across six generations.
It correlates substantially enough to persist for twelve generations at observed rates of decay:
But why?
The dominant theory among laypeople is social: that the wealth is directly transmitted.
This is testable, and the Malthusian era provides us with lots of data for testing.
The Catholic Church helped to modernize the West due to its ban on cousin marriage and its disdain for adoption, but also by way of its opposition to polygyny.
The origin of this disdain arguably lies with Church Fathers like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian🧵
Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho argues with a Jew that Christians are the ones living in continuity with God's true intentions.
Justin sees Genesis 2 ("the two shall become one flesh") as normative.
In his apologetic world, Christians are supposed to transcend lust.
Irenaeus, in Against Heresies, is attacking Gnostics (Basilides, Carpocrates), whose sexual practices he finds scandalous.
To him, "temperance dwells, self-restraint is practiced, monogamy is observed"—polygyny is a doctrinal and moral deviation from creation affirmation.