Genetic markers of stress, resilience and success

January 21st, 2026

To qualify for training as elite U.S. Army Special Forces (SF) soldiers, candidates must complete the extremely stressful 19–20 day Special Forces Assessment and Selection (SFAS) course:

At SFAS, soldiers must excel at stressful cognitive and physical challenges including team problem solving, foreign language testing, land navigation, timed loaded road marches, timed runs, and challenging obstacle courses. Approximately 70% of soldiers who attempt SFAS fail.

To investigate genetic factors associated with cognitive and physiological biomarkers of resilience and success at SFAS, single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs; n = 116) from 47 genes associated with psychological function, resilience, circadian rhythms/sleep, and biomarkers of stress (cortisol and C-reactive protein [CRP]) were examined. Study volunteers were 800 males enrolled in SFAS (age=25±4y; height=178.1 ± 7.5 cm; body mass=82.5 ± 9.2 kg; mean±SD).

Genes associated with resilience and their functions included: tryptophan hydroxylase 2 (TPH2; serotonin synthesis); catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT; catecholamine catabolism); corticotropin-releasing hormone receptor1 gene (CRHR1; resilience to stress); Period3 (PER3; circadian rhythmicity); FK506 binding protein5 (FKBP5; steroid receptor regulation).

In summary, several genetic variants are associated with cognitive function and resilience in healthy volunteers exposed to 19–20 days of severe physical and cognitive stress designed to select the best candidates for several years of training. This study extends findings of research on resilience genetics to a novel population and situation, mentally and physically stressed soldiers competing for the opportunity to be trained for an elite unit. The findings indicate that several genes known to be associated with resilience exert their effects on the resilience phenotype under very difficult circumstances than usually studied.

The family of birds that was rated most deliberate was herons; the family of birds that was rated quickest was swifts

January 20th, 2026

I Have Known the Eyes Already by Morgan WorthyAfter doing some content analyses, Morgan Worthy (I Have Known the Eyes Already) asked 100 ornithologists to make blind ratings of large families of birds on “quick-versus-deliberate” behavior related to flight, feeding, and escape:

Twenty-one agreed to do so. Some left out those families with which they were not very familiar.

I included in the analysis all large families of birds for which at least 15 ornithologists had made ratings. When size was partialed out, the eye-darkness measure and the combined behavioral measures correlated .56 [d.f. = 33, p < .001]. As you probably know, John, that means that differences in eye-darkness, even using a two-point scale, accounted for about 31% of the rated differences in quick-versus-deliberate behavior. That is not trivial. The family of birds that was rated most deliberate was herons; the family of birds that was rated quickest was swifts. Whereas the reaction time differences with humans were small in absolute terms, in this study of birds, the behavioral differences were large.

Own the night or die

January 19th, 2026

Own the night or die, John Spencer says:

In three major conflicts involving forces that range from professional to semiprofessional—the 2020 war between Azerbaijan and Armenia, the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, and Israel’s campaign against Hamas after October 7, 2021—large-scale night operations have been notably rare. Outside of highly specialized units conducting limited raids, most decisive fighting has occurred during daylight. At night, both sides tend to pause, reorganize, and recover. In effect, the night is ceded rather than dominated.

That reality stands in sharp contrast to what the US military demonstrated in Operation Absolute Resolve. US forces executed a complex, high-risk mission deep inside a dense capital city at night. The operation required joint and interagency integration across air, land, sea, and cyber domains and fusing intelligence, special operations forces, and other capabilities. Power was cut. Targets were overwhelmed. The mission concluded with zero American casualties and zero loss of equipment. It was a near-flawless demonstration of a capability that takes decades to build and years to sustain.

That success is even more striking when viewed against earlier US experience. Operation Eagle Claw remains a cautionary case of what happens when night operations exceed institutional readiness. The 1980 hostage rescue attempt in Iran required unprecedented joint coordination and depended on a complex, multiphase plan involving long-range infiltration, helicopters, and clandestine ground movement deep inside hostile territory, much of it planned for execution under conditions of limited illumination and degraded visibility. Mechanical failures, severe dust storms, and navigation challenges reduced the assault force below the minimum required to continue the mission. During the withdrawal from Desert One—a staging area where the mission was aborted—a helicopter operating in degraded visibility collided with a transport aircraft, killing eight US servicemembers. Eagle Claw exposed serious deficiencies in joint planning, rehearsal, and integration. Strategically, it revealed the limits of American power projection in denied environments and directly drove sweeping reforms, including the creation of US Special Operations Command.

A decade later, Operation Just Cause marked significant progress but also underscored how darkness magnifies the challenges of identification, control, and coordination. The 1989 invasion of Panama involved approximately twenty-seven thousand US troops and successfully dismantled the Panamanian Defense Forces within days. The operation deliberately began at night, with major assaults initiated around midnight and continuing through hours of darkness, requiring near-simultaneous airborne and ground attacks against multiple objectives across Panama. During the opening night of the operation, including the seizure of Torrijos-Tocumen International Airport and other key sites, fratricide occurred amid limited visibility, compressed timelines, and the rapid convergence of aircraft and ground forces. The Joint Chiefs of Staff history of the operation highlights the extraordinary command-and-control demands created by this nighttime tempo, illustrating how darkness, density of friendly forces, and speed of execution strained identification and coordination even within an increasingly capable joint force. Just Cause demonstrated growing US proficiency in large-scale night operations, but it also showed that darkness punishes even small lapses in control, communication, and situational awareness.

The difference between those operations and more recent successes was not technology alone. It was mastery earned through relentless training, professionalization, and a force-wide expectation that fighting at night is not exceptional. It is preferred.

Simple reaction time is not related to skin color, but it is related to eye color

January 18th, 2026

I Have Known the Eyes Already by Morgan WorthyMorgan Worthy explains (in I Have Known the Eyes Already) some independent research done at Pennsylvania State University by people he had never met:

They tested the reactivity hypothesis with human subjects by studying eye color and reaction time in a laboratory setting. They first found that simple reaction time is not related to skin color, but it is related to eye color. They found that dark-eyed blacks and dark-eyed whites have faster reaction times than do light-eyed whites. They then focused just on comparing dark-eyed Caucasians to light-eyed Caucasians on how quickly they could react to a visual or auditory stimulus. They did a number of well-controlled laboratory studies, and then did a meta-analysis of all those studies. Read this quotation which reports the results:

Thus, the findings across studies have consistently shown that dark-eyed subjects have shorter pre-motor time and simple RT latencies than light-eyed subjects. Considering that Worthy’s hypothesis has been experimentally tested seven times with seven different samples … a combined probability value would more accurately reflect the reliability of the eye color phenomenon. Using a z-transformation procedure … a z value was obtained that could not occur by chance any more than one time in 10 million. Worthy’s hypothesis, therefore, reliably predicts RT differences between eye color groups from one study to the next (Hale, et al. 1980, p. 61).

I can live with a probability of one in ten million that my hypothesis is wrong. I wanted you to read that in order to make it clear that the association between dark eyes and quick reactions is very well established in humans.

He concedes that the differences not large in absolute terms:

I had reached the same conclusion by studying performance records of professional and college athletes. Even small differences in the general population can matter when looking at a heavily selected group like professional athletes.

Adding radars, LiDARs, and other sensors to cameras does not meaningfully advance us toward full self-driving

January 17th, 2026

Adding radars, LiDARs, and other sensors to cameras does not meaningfully advance us toward full self-driving, Genma_Jp argues:

Here are the six main reasons:

Marginal information gain: RADAR and LiDAR primarily provide depth and relative velocity — data that modern neural networks can already derive sufficiently from camera images alone, especially given that precision requirements decrease at longer distances.

LiDAR’s fundamental weaknesses: It performs poorly in rain, fog, and on reflective surfaces (blooming), produces sparse and noisy returns requiring fragile clustering, and lacks the angular resolution for reliable classification at distance.

RADAR’s practical limitations: Despite better weather penetration, it delivers extremely sparse detections, suffers from clustering and classification challenges, and often masks weaker objects behind stronger reflectors — particularly problematic for static infrastructure in low-speed scenarios.

Irreplaceable role of vision: RADAR and LiDAR cannot detect critical semantic information — traffic signs, lights, lane markings, or pedestrian intent cues. Stellar computer vision is mandatory anyway; the other sensors cannot compensate for its absence.

Cameras are robust enough: Modern imagers match or exceed human-eye performance, and practical mitigations (wipers, airflow) handle issues like raindrops. In truly degraded visibility, the safe response is to slow down — something an AV can do systematically, just as humans do.

Fusion as a crutch: Multi-sensor approaches deliver quick early wins by patching vision weaknesses, but they mask the need for true mastery of computer vision through massive data and compute. Companies end up over-investing in complex fusion logic instead of solving the hard problem.

Amount of melanin in the iris is correlated with amount of neuromelanin in the central nervous system

January 16th, 2026

I Have Known the Eyes Already by Morgan WorthyThe amount of a black-brown pigment, eumelanin, in the iris is the main determinant of eye color, Morgan Worthy explains (in I Have Known the Eyes Already):

If there is a high enough concentration of eumelanin, the eye will appear brown. If the concentration is very high, the eye will appear black. If the particles of melanin are very small, a light-scattering effect will cause the iris to appear blue (for the same reason that the sky appears blue). Eye color is also determined by the amount of a yellow-red pigment, pheomelanin, in the iris. There are other factors involved, but that is the basic difference between dark eyes and light eyes. If you like, I can give you a recent article (Borteletti et al. 2003) that discusses various other factors that can influence iris color.

[…]

Amount of melanin in the iris is correlated with amount of melanin in the inner ear (Bonnaccorsi 1965) and with amount or distribution of neuromelanin in the central nervous system (Happy and Collins 1972). In terms of the link to motor behavior, it is perhaps significant that neuromelanin can function as a semiconductor (McGinness et al. 1974). Eye color is polygenic and the specific genetic causes are still being sorted out (Zhu et al. 2004). I just use eye color or eye darkness as a marker variable that is external and easily observed. In fact, eye color was used as a marker variable in many of the early studies of genetics.

The greatest lie that textbooks teach is that the hard part is coming up with an answer

January 15th, 2026

How to Solve It by George PolyaSome problems come to us demanding to be solved, John Psmith notes, like an invading army or a looming bankruptcy:

But others we go hunting for because they are economically or intellectually valuable. Or for sport. An entrepreneur and an academic are both a kind of truffle-pig for good problems, and it pays to develop a nose for them. Eventually you learn to notice its spoor, the rank taste in the air, “a problem has passed by this way, moving downwind, two days ago.” One of the many ways school fails us is by actively harming this capacity, it lies and lies to us for decades, teaching us that good problems will be delivered on a silver platter. This is why so many people who do well in school never amount to anything. They never develop a taste for the hunt, never learn that this, actually, is the most important part of the entire site survey: “is this problem worth solving by anybody?”, “am I uniquely well-positioned to solve it?”, “can I amass the resources to solve it?”, “do I have any chance of success?”, “is there some other problem that it is more valuable for me to solve?” The greatest lie that textbooks teach is that the hard part is coming up with an answer. No, the hard part is usually coming up with a worthwhile question.

One is a stalker; the other is a chaser

January 14th, 2026

I Have Known the Eyes Already by Morgan WorthyIf you are out in the yard with your pet, Morgan Worthy explains (in I Have Known the Eyes Already), and it sees a squirrel nearby, what it does next will probably depend on whether your pet is a cat or a dog:

The immediate response of a cat is to freeze, then crouch and start to stalk in preparation for an ambush. The immediate response of most dogs is to run, without delay, toward the squirrel and chase it. One is a stalker; the other is a chaser and uses immediate, direct pursuit. The first responses of cats and most dogs on sighting prey are very different from each other. Only after the prey has come close to the waiting cat or the cat has slowly worked its way close to the prey, does the cat suddenly pounce.

The typical dog makes quick moves; the cat makes sudden moves. Understanding the difference between those two words, quick and sudden, is necessary to understand everything else we will talk about. Quick implies an immediate reaction; sudden implies an abrupt move after some delay. The origins of the two words make this plain. “Quick” means “swift, lively.” “Sudden” means literally “to approach secretly” and comes from two Latin words that mean “secretly” and “to go.” One way to remember it is immediate quick and delayed sudden.

Another way to state this is that one is quick and the other is deliberate. If we can agree that most dogs tend to be quick and most cats tend to be deliberate, we can then move on to differences in eye darkness between the two. The reactivity hypothesis is that dark eyes are associated with quick responses and light eyes are associated with deliberate responses. Using our example, we can predict that dogs are darker-eyed than cats. A simple way to get a measure of eye darkness is to say that only brown eyes and black eyes are considered dark and all others are considered light.

[…]

Dogs tend to be significantly darker-eyed than cats. Of the 27 breeds of domestic cat, none are dark-eyed. They are all in the range of yellow-amber-orange-blue-green. None are at the other end of the scale—black, dark brown, brown—that we are treating as dark-eyed. The same is true for cats in the wild. Look with me here at the database (Worthy 2000, p44). In the wildlife literature we found eye colors for 15 species of cat. All had yellow or yellowish eyes except for one, the Ocelot, and its eyes are reddish brown. So, for 27 breeds of domestic cat and 15 species of cats in the wild, using our 2-point scale of eye darkness, every one of them gets a score of 0.

[…]

Most dogs react to prey by immediately giving chase. One group of dogs, though, employ an initial response to prey that is very much like the initial response of cats. Pointers and setters, like cats, freeze when they first sense prey nearby. Pointers adopt a standing pose and setters crouch. In regards to this initial response, I think any fair observer would grant that pointers and setters are more deliberate or cat-like than are other dogs. If the reactivity hypothesis is correct, those breeds (all are often just referred to as Pointers) should be less likely than other breeds to have dark eyes. That is, indeed, the case. Whereas 70% of other breeds are dark-eyed, only 28% of the pointer or setter breeds are dark-eyed. A difference that large, given the sample sizes, could occur by chance less than one time in a thousand.

[…]

Pointers are bred for “freezing” as first response to prey; hounds are bred to track and chase prey; terriers are bred for not only chasing the prey, but for following it into burrow or den—which requires a high level of persistence and courage. Simon & Shuster’s Guide to Dogs (Pugnetti 1980) uses a symbol to indicate adaptation for each of those three behaviors.

There is a progression. Fifty-five per cent of pointer breeds have yellowish eyes; for hounds, it is only 10%, and there is no breed of terrier that has yellowish eyes. Yellow eyes seem to be associated with hesitation or freezing behavior, which is good for animals that stalk. Hesitation would tend to be a liability for animals that hunt by means of direct pursuit. And that would be especially true for terriers, which are expected to pursue the prey into its den.

[…]

Dark-eyed animals show active courage; light-eyed animals that freeze when predators are near show passive courage.

One of the main things to remember, though, from our talking about cats and dogs, is that predators that depend a lot on freezing, ambush, lying-in-wait, stalking, or any other form of surprise to take prey will not only be light-eyed, but most likely will have yellowish eyes. I know we have only covered three examples so far—domestic cats, cats in the wild, and dogs that point or set—but the same pattern is seen with all classes of land vertebrates. Any type predator that uses surprise to ambush prey (in less than total darkness) tends to have yellowish eyes. That can be noted by anyone who cares to look within various orders or sub-orders of animals: frogs, snakes, lizards, crocodilians, carnivores, primates, raptors, owls, heron-like birds, and various other orders of birds.

No one can deny that statement, but they can ignore it. Given human history, people of good will are now reluctant to acknowledge any evidence that pigmentation can be related to behavior. We seem always to go from one extreme to the other.

[…]

Helen Mahut (1958) did a study in Canada in which she compared ten breeds of dog on response to novel stimuli and categorized the behavior as “fearless” or “fearful,” depending on how bold or inhibited the dogs were in their responses. I no longer remember the particular breeds, but when I checked the eye colors, the most fearless dogs were also the ones with the darkest eyes.

[…]

Asdell (1966) described wolves as being cautious, cowardly and fearful of novel stimuli. They pursue prey in a circling or zigzag manner in order to set up an ambush. That is not direct pursuit as is seen in terriers or weasels. Nor is it as non-reactive as the behavior of cats and pointers. Because wolves are lighter eyed than most dogs it is significant that Asdell also reported that wolf-dog hybrids exhibit “passive defense reactions” more than do most dogs.

This tactic pairs two tanks with continuous drone support

January 13th, 2026

Recent statements from the Russian Ministry of Defense indicate that Russia is adopting a new tank tactic:

This tactic pairs two tanks with continuous drone support. One tank operates from a standoff position to deliver fire, while the second conducts a rapid forward maneuver toward the line of contact. Drones help coordinate movement and fires by providing target detection, fire correction, and battlefield awareness. The two tanks switch roles frequently to avoid becoming stationary targets, while still laying down a significant amount of fire against adversarial lines. This approach emphasizes desynchronizing enemy sensors and strike systems while pushing forward to achieve immediate, decisive penetration.

[…]

Large movements are quickly detected by reconnaissance drones and subsequently targeted. In the urban terrain where many of these units operate, natural bottlenecks are common, such that a single destroyed tank can block movement and bring an assault to a halt. Once immobilized, the remaining tanks become easy targets, as seen during a tank assault near Pokrovsk in early 2025.

[…]

While dismounted assaults have achieved limited penetration into Ukrainian lines, they generally lack the firepower required to hold captured positions. The new tank deployment tactic has the potential to provide this additional firepower, enabling dismounted troops to penetrate more deeply and retain control of seized terrain.

Ukrainian tactics are starting to prevail over Russian infantry assaults

January 12th, 2026

Russian pro-Kremlin blogger Alexei Chadayev concedes that Ukrainian tactics are starting to prevail over Russian infantry assaults:

The enemy is increasingly mastering the ‘playing second fiddle’ strategy — a situation where Russian forces are constantly advancing almost everywhere, and their task is to make our offensive as difficult, bloody, and resource-intensive as possible. And this is not just about the ‘drone line’ anymore.

For example, we are now seeing tactical techniques like this: their artillery is positioned deep in their battle lines, beyond the reach of our main drones, and they keep their own forward positions and key objects on it well-fortified with well-positioned fire.

Accordingly, as soon as our forces start moving, they knock out an enemy stronghold with drones and go to capture it. The enemy then waits for our forces to enter and eliminates them along with the incoming troops.

Their drone operators, in turn, not only habitually scavenge on supply and reinforcement routes, but also catch our forces engaged in any activity near ‘formerly ours’ objects.

Add to this constant mining, including remote detonation, and the active use of ‘ambushers’ on the few (and well-monitored) logistical lines.

If our forces try to quickly deploy a second echelon – for example, drone operators – the enemy immediately launches a local tactical ‘offensive’ and, even at the cost of losing equipment and personnel, achieves its goal: preserving the ‘kill zone’ between our forward positions and the nearest rear areas. In Kupiansk, for example, they successfully applied this tactic several times – which led to the current situation there.

Since this situation repeats itself not once or twice, our forces, at all levels, are increasingly less willing to advance at all, and they can be easily understood – it’s an inevitable trade-off of kilometers covered for lives, and very valuable lives of soldiers: those who actually know and are able to act in this very kill zone (the untrained ones will simply die without any result). Therefore, the problem of ‘map coloring’ is not just about headquarters’ lies.

It’s also about the difficult moral choice that commanders make: if I really go all out in an unprepared offensive now, I’ll lose many people, but if I just send a few teams forward to plant flags and report on the drone footage about the physical presence at the necessary positions – I’ll save lives and equipment.

However, as a result, this leads to situations where it’s impossible to request strikes on already ‘colored’ (i.e., ‘our own’ on the headquarters’ maps) positions — neither by artillery, nor by the Aerospace Forces, nor even by drones. Everything there is already ours! And as a result, we still have to pay with lives.

Reality becomes input, not a corrective signal

January 11th, 2026

Data Republican (small r) argues that late-stage empires do not fail because they are weak or poorly intentioned:

They fail because they become autopoietic.

Autopoiesis is a term from systems theory. It means this: a system responds to reality only through the constraints of its own internal organization.

You’ve almost certainly encountered autopoietic institutions, even if you didn’t have a name for them:

  • A corporation where middle management defines OKRs that have no relationship to customers, yet performance reviews insist everything is “on track.”
  • A bureaucracy that measures success by compliance with procedure rather than outcomes.
  • A late Soviet state in which leadership was reassured by reports everyone knew were false, but which could no longer be contradicted without threatening the system itself.

Autopoietic systems lose the capacity for the environment to redefine their purpose. Inputs still arrive, but they are reinterpreted until they are compatible with the system’s existing outputs. Feedback loops close. Contradictions are absorbed. External signals stop producing corrective changes in internal behavior.

At that point, the system is no longer adaptive relative to its original purpose. It becomes self-referential. It is capable of internally justified expansion without reference to external success.

That’s a long-winded way to explain that none of these institutions were lying in the usual sense. They were maintaining equilibrium.
This is the key point: autopoiesis becomes pathological when stability is prioritized over external correction.

[…]

The current unrest in Minnesota is an example of an order that has reached equilibrium through mutual dependency between antagonistic subsystems.

After the Cold War, the Western world organized itself around a single moral injunction: Never again. Never again fascism. Never again totalitarianism. Never again a unified ideology capable of subordinating it to a single vision of man.

To prevent another Nazi Germany or another Soviet Union, the post–Cold War order built immunity to totalitarian ideologies.

Grand narratives were treated as dangerous. Politics was re-engineered away from totalizing visions and towards norms and institutional mediation.

[…]

Dissent was absorbed into civic infrastructure: NGOs, foundations, advisory boards, grant programs, legal advocacy, compliance regimes, and professionalized activism. Radical energy was translated into careers and metrics.
The result is a structural inversion. The Western order that was constructed to neutralize Communism now depends on its managed presence to generate legitimacy. At the same time, contemporary revolutionary movements depend on the same institutions they once sought to overthrow; for funding, protection, and survival.

[…]

The institutional networks require managed dissent to justify their expansion, funding, and moral authority. The revolutionary networks require institutional cover to survive in a system that would otherwise suppress them. Together, they form a closed loop.
This is not hypocrisy alone, nor betrayal alone, nor even corruption alone. It’s systems logic.

[…]

They form what I call managed antagonism.

  • The revolutionary layer produces instability that forces attention.
  • The institutional layer prevents that instability from becoming existential.
  • The revolutionary layer cannot survive sustained repression.
  • The institutional layer cannot justify its expansion without crisis.

Each makes the other necessary.

No conspiracy is needed; every system selects for actors who can survive within this loop.

[…]

Reality (such as the ICE video that was released today) becomes input, not a corrective signal.

The output is always the same:

  • More NGOs
  • More taxpayer dollars
  • More institutional capture
  • More managed disorder

This is equilibrium.

All enterprise software sellers today speak a common vocabulary, and that vocabulary was invented by John McMahon

January 10th, 2026

Qualified Sales Leader by John McMahonIt’s interesting to consider which professions obsess over lineages, John Psmith says:

For instance an academic philosopher and a Brazilian Ju-Jitsu fighter may not have much in common, but they can both tell you not just who their teacher-mentor was, but who that guy’s teacher-mentor was, and so on, sometimes going back centuries.1 This is not true in most fields, but you may be surprised to learn that it is true in B2B enterprise software sales. Talk to a successful sales guy, and he will find a way to slip into the conversation that he came up under so-and-so, and that so-and-so worked for the legendary Mark Cranney (Ben Horowitz’s head of sales). But talk to enough of them, and you will start to notice that a huge proportion of their lineages all converge back on a single guy named John McMahon.

You may never have heard of John McMahon, but he’s one of the most influential people alive today (there are many such people, because the world is fractally interesting). American economic growth is increasingly dominated by a handful of companies that sell software subscriptions at eye-watering margins to other large companies, and most such companies are run by John McMahon’s disciples. All enterprise software sellers today speak a common vocabulary, and that vocabulary was invented by John McMahon. Enterprise software sellers, like all professions, have weird feuds and religious disputes about what exactly the letters in various acronyms should stand for, but the acronyms were invented by John McMahon. The rival factions and schools in enterprise software sales mostly argue about the correct way to interpret John McMahon’s thought, because he is the great teacher and systematizer who laid down the laws of their world.

The reason certain fields care about lineages is that they are dominated by process knowledge that cannot be written down, so the best signal of quality is not some credential, but rather which master you trained under. Imagine how silly it would be to think that you could read a book about martial arts, and then you would know as much as the person who had written it. Some things can only be learned through grueling practice, preferably grueling practice under the observation of somebody who notices all the tiny little indescribable things you get wrong, and shows you how to do them right instead.

[…]

Selling software (really, selling anything) is another such activity. And while John McMahon is the guy who has done the most to change it from an art into a science, he is acutely aware that nothing he writes down in a book can help you unless you already understand the thing that he is trying to say. So like all good religious teachers, he speaks mostly in koans and riddles and parables. It worked for the Zen masters, it worked for Nietzsche, it worked for Jesus Christ, so why wouldn’t it work for John McMahon? The whole book is an extended allegory in which John McMahon is called in to advise a failing software sales team, notices the defects in their technique, and says or does something, at which point they are enlightened.

(Hat tip to Byrne Hobart.)

Yellow-eyed predators use a tactic of wait without moving

January 9th, 2026

I Have Known the Eyes Already by Morgan WorthyMorgan Worthy, in the opening to his memoir, I Have Known the Eyes Already, explains his hypothesis about eye-color:

One day, probably in early 1971, I was looking through a magazine dealing with (American) professional football. I noticed, once again, that there were many African-American players who had made it to this advanced level of skill and that they were not evenly distributed across all positions. As I neared the end of the magazine, I had the strange, vague, feeling of being reminded of some remote association. I had lingered on this page looking at a photograph of a white player with very light eyes. Then I had my aha moment: earlier in looking at the magazine I had stopped to look at another photograph of a white player with very light eyes, and in both cases the player was a quarterback. Now I recognized, consciously, what had unconsciously caused the vague feeling of remote association. Of course, it might have been a coincidence not worth remembering at all, but then again, I had learned, in military intelligence, to pay attention to even minimal bits of matching information.

Almost at once, I began to wonder if white players at different positions had different levels of average eye darkness and, if so, whether this rank order of positions was positively correlated to the rank order of positions based on percentage of African-Americans playing the position. When I later tested my speculations, the answer was “yes”, on both counts. The two rank orders were positively and significantly correlated and both had quarterbacks at one extreme, with defensive backs at the other.

Defensive backs (especially those playing man-to-man) are much more dependent on immediate, quick reactions than are quarterbacks, who depend more on delayed, sudden reactions. Having already been thinking about the role of quick reactions in sports for several years, I jumped to the potential conclusion (i.e. hypothesis) that dark eyes are associated with the ability to make quick reactions. That started me thinking some more.

It occurred to me that eye darkness (not race or skin color) was the key dimension that could incorporate all the data. I thought in terms of eye darkness rather than eye color because, fortunately, I had been looking at black and white photographs in the magazine.

Also, it occurred to me that eye darkness, as a variable to study scientifically, had the advantage, unlike race, of retaining similar meaning across species. The more I thought about it, the more I thought of eye color, or eye darkness, as potentially important in scientific research.

[…]

A series of studies were done at Penn State University by Daniel Landers and his colleagues to test what has been called the “Worthy reactivity hypothesis.” This is my idea that dark eyes are associated with quick reactions. (The hypothesis is not suggesting anything about you or anyone else as an individual.) After finding the hypothesis confirmed in seven straight studies using laboratory equipment designed to detect small differences in reaction time, they calculated that the chance that dark eyes are not associated with quick reactions is less than one in ten million. I can live with those odds of being wrong.

They demonstrated that the results were not related to differences in skin color. It is an eye-darkness phenomenon. Most of their studies involved comparing brown-eyed Caucasians with blue-eyed Caucasians.

[…]

Partly because the differences between humans were small in absolute terms, I started in the 1970s to collect, mostly from field guides, published information on eye color for different species of land vertebrates. By the time this database, in its final form, was published in 2000, my wife and I had found published information on eye colors for 5,620 species of land vertebrates. Thousands were species of birds, hundreds were species of amphibians, reptiles or mammals. I need to make clear that my reactivity hypothesis is intended, now, to apply only to adult land vertebrates–not children, fish or invertebrates.

After comparing eye color information to behavioral information, it seems to me that the pattern holds across all classes of land vertebrates. One can see this by looking, first, at birds and bats. It is only the darkest-eyed families (mostly comprised of species with black or dark brown iris colors) that specialize in feeding on the wing in an open environment. That behavior is very dependent on speed and quick reactions. At the human level, that is analogous to outfielders in baseball; they, too, must have the speed, quick reactions, and developed skills to catch flies in an open environment.

At the other extreme, lightest-eyed, one finds herons. Their eye colors are mostly not dark at all, but yellowish, as are the eyes of families of frogs, cats, geckos and vipers. (These are the lightest-eyed large families in our database and come from all four classes of land vertebrates.) These animals are all hunters that lie-in-wait or slowly stalk prey before a sudden strike or pounce. All have some form of spring-loaded anatomy, such as folded neck, coiled tongue, or coiled body, that aids in making a sudden strike. At the human level, this is somewhat analogous to a slow-running quarterback in American football who, nevertheless, manages to be successful because of his ability and developed skill to just wait, with cocked arm, in a “pocket” of blockers, until the right moment to make a sudden strike downfield to an open receiver. Waiting, good timing and sudden release are all critical elements in the sequence.

It is easy enough to see in nature that yellow-eyed predators and black-eyed predators differ. Yellow-eyed predators use a tactic of WAIT WITHOUT MOVING. Black-eyed predators, such as those that feed on the wing, rely on a tactic of MOVE WITHOUT WAITING. Animals with eye darkness in the midrange between yellowish colors and dark brown or black (blue, green, gray, orange, red, hazel, light brown, brown) tend not to be skilled hunters, but, rather, rely more on finding immobile food (e.g. fruit, carrion, grubs, grass, eggs, ants, spiders). I have characterized this behavior as self-paced, or CAN WAIT. At least on the timing dimension, this is analogous in human sports to activities that are self-paced, such as pitching in baseball, shooting free throws in basketball, and the sports of golf and bowling.

[Land vertebrates that can hunt in total darkness tend to be dark-eyed and rely heavily on KEEN senses other than vision-such as hearing (e.g. Barn owls), touch (e.g. Boat-billed heron) or smell (e.g. pittas).]

To make sure that I was not “cherry-picking” my observations, I had twenty-one ornithologists make blind ratings of quick-versus-deliberate behavior for large families of birds. Those ratings confirmed that, in birds, controlling for differences in size, light eyes were associated with deliberate behavior and dark eyes were associated with quick behavior. Herons were rated as most deliberate and swifts received the highest ratings for quickness.

It was Purnell who had first advanced the belief that two bombs would end the war

January 8th, 2026

Now It Can Be Told by Leslie M. GrovesAdmiral Purnell and General Groves had often discussed the importance of having the second blow follow the first one quickly, as General Groves explains (in Now It Can Be Told: The Story of the Manhattan Project), so that the Japanese would not have time to recover their balance:

It was Purnell who had first advanced the belief that two bombs would end the war, so I knew that with him and Farrell on the ground at Tinian there would be no unnecessary delay in exploiting our first success.

Good weather was predicted for the ninth, with bad weather to follow for the next five days. This increased the urgency of having the first Fat Man ready still another day earlier. When the decision to do so was reached, the scientific staff made it clear that in their opinion the advancement of the date by two full days, from the eleventh to the ninth, would introduce a considerable measure of uncertainty. I decided, however, that we should take the chance; fortunately all went well with the assembly, and the bomb was loaded and fully checked by the evening of August 8.

Six Pumpkin-carrying planes were assigned various targets in Japan for the eighth, but because of weather only two of them reached their primary targets; three of them reached secondary targets, and one aborted and returned to Tinian. In the field order for the second atomic mission there was nothing to indicate the extraordinary nature of the bomb, although anyone reading it would realize that this was by no means a routine assignment.

There were only two targets designated this time: Kokura, primary; and Nagasaki, secondary. Niigata was not made a third target because of its great distance from the other two cities.

[…]

The Kokura arsenal was one of the largest war plants in Japan. It produced many different weapons and pieces of war equipment. It extended over almost two hundred acres and was supported by numerous machine shops, parts factories, electric power plants and the usual utilities.

Nagasaki was one of Japan’s largest shipbuilding and repair centers. It was important also for its production of naval ordnance. It was a major military port. The aiming point was in the city, east of the harbor.

[…]

It was not possible to “safe” the Fat Man by leaving the assembly incomplete prior to take-off, as had been done in the case of the Little Boy. There was considerable discussion among the technical staff about what would happen if the plane crashed, and possibly caught fire, while it was taking off. They realized that there would be a serious chance that a wide area of Tinian would be contaminated if the plutonium were scattered by a minor explosion; some thought that there was even a risk of a high-order nuclear explosion which could do heavy damage throughout the island’s installations. Of course, we had gone into all this at length during our preliminary planning, and on the basis of my own opinion, as well as that of Oppenheimer and my other senior advisers, that the risk was negligible I had decided that the risk would be taken.

As happens so often, however, there was constant interference by various people in matters that lay outside their spheres of responsibility. Throughout the life of the project, vital decisions were reached only after the most careful consideration and discussion with the men I thought were able to offer the soundest advice. Generally, for this operation, they were Oppenheimer, von Neumann, Penney, Parsons and Ramsey. I had also gone over the problems at considerable length with the various groups of senior men at Los Alamos, and had discussed them thoroughly with Conant and Tolman and with Purnell and Farrell and to a lesser degree with Bush. Yet in spite of this, some of the people on Tinian again raised the question of safety at take-off at the last moment. Their fears reached a senior air officer, who asked for a written statement to the effect that it would be entirely safe for the plane to take off with a fully armed bomb. Parsons and Ramsey signed such a statement promptly though with some trepidation, possibly with the thought that if they were proven wrong they would not be there to answer. Ramsey then advised Oppenheimer at once of the various design changes that must be made to ensure that future bombs would in fact be surely safe.

One very serious problem came up just before take-off, which placed Farrell in the difficult position of having to make a decision of vital importance without the benefit of time for thought or consultation. Despite all the care that had been taken with the planes, the carrying plane was found at the last moment to have a defective fuel pump, so that some eight hundred gallons of gasoline could not be pumped to the engines from a bomb bay tank. This meant that not only would the plane have to take off with a short supply of fuel, but it would have to carry the extra weight of those eight hundred gallons all the way from Tinian to Japan and back. The weather was not good, in fact it was far from satisfactory; but it was good enough in LeMay’s opinion, and in view of the importance of dropping the second bomb as quickly as possible, and the prediction that the weather would worsen, Farrell decided that the flight should not be held up. Just before take-off Purnell said to Sweeney, “Young man, do you know how much that bomb cost?” Sweeney replied, “About $ 25 million.” Purnell then cautioned, “See that we get our money’s worth.”

Because of the weather, instead of flying in formation, the planes flew separately. To save fuel, they did not fly over Iwo Jima but went directly to the coast of Japan. Their plan was to rendezvous over the island of Yokushima, but this did not work out. The planes were not in sight of each other during their overwater flight and only one of the observation planes arrived at the rendezvous point. The missing plane apparently circled the entire island instead of one end of it, as it was supposed to do according to Sweeney’s plans. Although Sweeney had identified the one plane that did arrive he did not tell Ashworth. Unfortunately, because it did not come close enough, Ashworth was unable to determine whether it was the instrument-carrying plane, which was essential to the full completion of the mission, or the other, which was not. Sweeney’s orders were to proceed after a short delay of fifteen minutes but he kept waiting hopefully beyond the deadline. The result was a delay of over half an hour before they decided to go on to Kokura, anyway.

At Kokura, they found that visual bombing was not possible, although the weather plane had reported that it should be. Whether this unexpected condition was due to the time lag, or to the difference between an observer looking straight down and a bombardier looking at the target on a slant, was never determined.

After making at least three runs over the city and using up about forty-five minutes, they finally headed for the secondary target, Nagasaki. On the way they computed the gasoline supply very carefully. Ashworth confirmed Sweeney’s determination that it would be possible to make only one bombing run over Nagasaki if they were to reach Okinawa, their alternate landing field. If more than one run had to be made they would have to ditch the plane—they hoped near a rescue submarine.

At Nagasaki, there was a thick overcast and conditions at first seemed no better for visual bombing than at Kokura. Considering the poor visibility and the shortage of gasoline, Ashworth and Sweeney decided that despite their positive orders to the contrary, they had no choice but to attempt radar bombing. Almost the entire bombing run was made by radar; then, at the last moment, a hole in the clouds appeared, permitting visual bombing. Beahan, the bombardier, synchronized on a race track in the valley and released the bomb. Instead of being directed at the original aiming point, however, the bomb was aimed at a point a mile and a half away to the north, up the valley of the Urakami River, where it fell between two large Mitsubishi armament plants and effectively destroyed them both as producers of war materials.

On the way to Okinawa warning ditching orders were announced; but the plane made it with almost no gas left. Sweeney reported there wasn’t enough left to taxi in off the runway.

The Nagasaki bomb was dropped from an altitude of 29,000 feet. Because of the configuration of the terrain around ground zero, the crew felt five distinct shock waves.

The missing observation plane, which fortunately was the one without the instruments, saw the smoke column from a point about a hundred miles away and flew over within observing distance after the explosion. Because of the bad weather conditions at the target, we could not get good photo reconnaissance pictures until almost a week later. They showed 44 per cent of the city destroyed. The difference between the results obtained there and at Hiroshima was due to the unfavorable terrain at Nagasaki, where the ridges and valleys limited the area of greatest destruction to 2.3 miles (north-south axis) by 1.9 miles (east-west axis). The United States Strategic Bombing Survey later estimated the casualties at 35,000 killed and 60,000 injured.

While the blast and the resulting fire inflicted heavy destruction on Nagasaki and its population, the damage was not nearly so heavy as it would have been if the correct aiming point had been used. I was considerably relieved when I got the bombing report, which indicated a smaller number of casualties than we had expected, for by that time I was certain that Japan was through and that the war could not continue for more than a few days.

To exploit the psychological effect of the bombs on the Japanese, we had belatedly arranged for leaflets to be dropped on Japan proclaiming the power of our new weapon and warning that further resistance was useless. The first delivery was made on the ninth, the day of the Nagasaki bombing. The following day General Farrell canceled the drops, when the surrender efforts of the Japanese made any further such missions seem ill-advised.

Microbes may hold the key to brain evolution

January 7th, 2026

In a controlled lab experiment, researchers implanted gut microbes from two large-brain primate species (human and squirrel monkey) and one small-brain primate species (macaque) into microbe-free mice:

Within eight weeks of making changes to the hosts’ microbiomes, they observed that the brains of mice with microbes from small-brain primates were indeed working differently than the brains of mice with microbes from large-brain primates.

In the mice with large-brain primate microbes, the researchers found increased expression of genes associated with energy production and synaptic plasticity, the physical process of learning in the brain. In the mice with smaller-brain primate microbes, there was less expression of these processes.

“What was super interesting is we were able to compare data we had from the brains of the host mice with data from actual macaque and human brains, and to our surprise, many of the patterns we saw in brain gene expression of the mice were the same patterns seen in the actual primates themselves,” Amato said. “In other words, we were able to make the brains of mice look like the brains of the actual primates the microbes came from.”

Another surprising discovery the researchers made was a pattern of gene expression associated with ADHD, schizophrenia, bipolar and autism in the genes of the mice with the microbes from smaller-brain primates.