In the new issue of Nature, the neuroscientist Larry Young offers a grand unified theory of love. After analyzing the brain chemistry of mammalian pair bonding  and, not incidentally, explaining humans’ peculiar erotic fascination with breasts  Dr. Young predicts that it won’t be long before an unscrupulous suitor could sneak a pharmaceutical love potion into your drink.
That’s the bad news. The not-so-bad news is that you may enjoy this potion if you took it knowingly with the right person. But the really good news, as I see it, is that we might reverse-engineer an anti-love potion, a vaccine preventing you from making an infatuated ass of yourself. Although this love vaccine isn’t mentioned in Dr. Young’s essay, when I raised the prospect he agreed it could also be in the offing.
Why do we dig tits? Because they rock. All anti-intellectualism aside, I got this from Maggie’s Farm, where The News Junkie quips: “It would eliminate a lot of human misery, frustration, and despair. But it would destroy the music industry.”
Without love, where would you be now?
“Without love, where would you be now?”
Right where I am.
parsnip, they may come out with an “emo” pill for you yet—there is hope! assclown, not so much.
We could have really used some of the “anti” potion for the press during the Obama campaign stops.
“an unscrupulous suitor could sneak a pharmaceutical love potion into your drink.”
I seem to recall an entire Jason Biggs/Mena Suvari vehicle with just such a plotline. Apparently we all dressed like emo spacemen in the year 2000.
I don’t think the writer of that piece understands what the phrase “reverse engineer” means. I’m probably mistaken, though. It is the science writer for the NY Times, after all.
Gawdalmighty!; that’s the best post headline I’ve seen in a long while.
No wonder you make the big bucks!
Thanks for the memory, Dan.
Thanks, Mal. Much obliged.
Tits DO rock. Nice work, Dan.
This research might help fullfill the anti-reproductive dreams of the moron essayist “Freethinkr” at Feministing…
On the plus side though, now that I understand my fascination with breasts, maybe I can get over it…
Then again, mebbe not!
Without love, where would you be now?
I don’t have a study to support my assertion, but I don’t think I would have found love without my tits.
Treasure them, Carin. Lucky.
I don’t understand your quibble with Tierney’s use of the phrase reverse-engineer Showy. Seems pretty straight forward what he’s getting at to me.
As much as I love tits, I and those around me don’t appreciate mine.
Tits = rawkin’ kewl
Moobs = ewwwwwwwwww
SDferr,
I agree, his intended meaning with the use of that phrase was perfectly clear. It was also clearly wrong. “Reverse engineer” has a specific meaning: to systematically disassemble a thing in order to figure out how it works. It does not mean to reverse the function of a thing. My quibble is that a supposed science writer should know the meanings of fairly basic technical terms like that. Or at minimum, he shouldn’t throw them around when he clearly has no idea what they mean.
Aren’t neuroscientists doing precisely “…systematically disassemble a thing in order to figure out how it works….” with the brain? Why yes, it appears that’s right, that is what they are doing. It’s a science of discovery, “how does this work?”, let’s take it apart bit by bit and see.
I’m into backtits, fuckwits!
Just to follow up Showy, I don’t think we ought to assume Tierney doesn’t know the usual meaning of reverse-engineer, for starters. Nothing I’ve read by him would tend to make me think he doesn’t.
Second, I think you’ve read the passage far too narrowly, or put better maybe, pinched his intent a bit too much.
That would be as a result of the straight forward sort of “reverse-engineering”, right? And what one could do with a drug on the positive side of the ledger (in theory), will also engender the knowledge to block with a drug on the negative side, again, in theory (since it isn’t quite doable yet). So Tierney makes a joke about the “infatuated ass[ness]” of a person in the grip of passion and then the hypothetical passion-blocking drug (the knowledge of which would have been obtained in the ordinary sense of “reverse-engineer”) and you squeeze that intention for all it’s worth to make Tierney seem ignorant of the usual sense? Not right, I think.
SDferr,
No. First, Tierney was pretty clearly suggesting that if you already have the love potion, reverse engineering would automatically result in the anti-love potion. Totally wrong. That is like saying that if you reverse-engineer your heating furncace, you will create an air-conditioner.
Second, all science is a science of discovery. That doesn’t mean that all science is reverse engineering. You could sort of argue that when you study one small component of brain function (or anything else), you are reverse engineering that one small component of brain function. Aside from the fact that this would broaden the definition of the term into irrelevance (there’d be no need for the term, you could just use the word “study”), that clearly was not his meaning. If that were his meaning, then not only the anti-love potion, but also the original love potion, and in fact any other active pharmaceutical that wasn’t discovered by purely random happenstance, would have been created through a process of reverse engineering. That’s clearly not what he meant. His intended meaning was clear – reverse engineering means reversal of function. And it was wrong.
And what is a reversible cycle heat pump Showy, if not both a heater and an airconditioner (cooler)?
Reverse-engineering is not the same as reversing function. It’s figuring out the function from the hardware.
“Without love, where would you be now?â€Â
Divorced Guy: Well…I’d have a house…and half my stuff back.
…”I don’t think I would have found love without my tits.”
Don’t sell yourself short Carin.
You have a great ass.
…it won’t be long before an unscrupulous suitor could sneak a pharmaceutical love potion…
That would be as a result of the straight forward sort of “reverse-engineeringâ€Â, right?
As I said above, no. Or more to the point, only in a broadening of the term that evades its actual meaning. To reverse engineer something, you are starting with a thing which was designed to achieve a specific outcome, and pulling it apart in order to understand how it achieves that outcome. Generic study of a natural system in order to determine ways that you might influence its operation simply does not fit this definition.
And what one could do with a drug on the positive side of the ledger (in theory), will also engender the knowledge to block with a drug on the negative side, again, in theory (since it isn’t quite doable yet).
Again, no. Even if one went with your exceptionally broadening definition of the term, you’ve already done all the “reverse engineering” you need to do before you make the love potion. You know how the system works, no more “reverse engineering” is required to make the anti-love potion. That is unless you mistake the word “reverse” in “reverse engineering” as referring to reversal of function, which Tierney obviously did. I’m not sure why you put quotes around “usual meaning”. The meaning is the meaning. And Tierney didn’t know it, based on how he used it. If you want to argue that he purposely misused the meaning in order to make a joke, that seems like a major stretch with no substantiation to me, but I probably couldn’t argue you out of that view, so there we are.
I guess I’d argue Tierney’s intent is what’s generally called wry humor (while also giving a brief survey of the field). Miss that and you miss the lot.
And what is a reversible cycle heat pump Showy, if not both a heater and an airconditioner (cooler)?
The fact that you referred to this suggests to me that you have some mechanical knowledge. Which makes it difficult for me to believe that you think this answered the point my analogy made. Yes, there exist systems with the dual function of both heating and cooling (in a sense, every cooling system does this). That has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that if you reverse-engineer a standard heating furnace, it will not result in the creation of a cooling system, or even in the basic blueprint for creating a cooling system. It will result only in understanding how the heating furnace was designed to achieve its function.
I didn’t put quotes around usual meaning Showy, you did. By indicating usual meaning I merely intended to point to the meaning you (and I) think of when we think, for instance, of a captured piece of military hardware and the process an enemy would undertake to figure out how it works and how to build one for themselves that would also work.
“I guess I’d argue Tierney’s intent is what’s generally called wry humor (while also giving a brief survey of the field). Miss that and you miss the lot.”
Personally, I don’t think I missed anything. His intent with semi-facetiously suggesting an anti-love potion in order to avoid making an infatuated ass out of yourself was obviously what you call wry humor. I get that, and indeed, it’s not hard to get. I don’t see misusing a basic technical term as being an integral part of that joke. As Jeff would say, your mileage may differ. But either way you slice that particular question, the term was misused. If you regard it as intentional misuse for the sake boosting the joke, so be it.
“I didn’t put quotes around usual meaning Showy, you did.”
No you didn’t. My mistake on that. My point still stand though. You referred to the usual meaning and the ordinary meaning as if it was some plastic thing. I don’t believe it is.
Besides which, I think, Tierney isn’t talking about a reversal of function is he (turning love to loathing)? Rather, he’s talking about blocking a cascade of hormones presumed to be involved in bringing about the state of “love” or intense infatuation. What is reversed? The neuro-inhibitors (?) prevent the cascade, I assume. So we are left with the absence of what would otherwise have taken place, rather than a reversal of an already accomplished cognitive/emotional event.
Go back to the military hardware example for a moment though. As I hastily described it, the enemy was assumed to wish to achieve a working copy for its own purposes or uses. But in that process, might we not find that in some cases they may have discovered as well how to block or interfere with the proper function of that piece of hardware when we use it? [An aside: it seems to me that this strain of thought points directly to the underlying logic of the Hippocratic Oath.]
“Besides which, I think, Tierney isn’t talking about a reversal of function is he (turning love to loathing)? Rather, he’s talking about blocking a cascade of hormones presumed to be involved in bringing about the state of “love†or intense infatuation. What is reversed? The neuro-inhibitors (?) prevent the cascade, I assume. So we are left with the absence of what would otherwise have taken place, rather than a reversal of an already accomplished cognitive/emotional event.”
OK, we’re obviously discussing this issue far beyond it’s interest or importance. But come on. The guy said that, starting with the precept you already have the love potion, you will reverse-engineer the anti-love potion, and he wasn’t talking about reversal of function? And no, it wasn’t turning love to loathing, it was turning enhanced feelings of romantic attachment into suppressed feelings of romantic attachment. Even if he had the molecular view in mind, for which there is no substantiation, and was talking about receptor anatogonists vs. receptor agonists, that would not change the fact that this is not reverse engineering. Let’s just leave it at the fact that you think he misused the phrase as part of his joke, and I think he misused it because he didn’t know the actual meaning, and leave it at that.
“Go back to the military hardware example for a moment though. As I hastily described it, the enemy was assumed to wish to achieve a working copy for its own purposes or uses. But in that process, might we not find that in some cases they may have discovered as well how to block or interfere with the proper function of that piece of hardware when we use it? [An aside: it seems to me that this strain of thought points directly to the underlying logic of the Hippocratic Oath.]”
The fact that it is possible, during the course of reverse-engineering, to discover things that you didn’t anticipate discovering does not change the meaning of the term.
I’m worried about you guys. Here we have a thread about tits, and you’re discussing “reverse-engineering.”
And, I’m just teasing ya. Kinda.
I just hope assclown doesn’t come around and contradict you about tits, Carin.
PW is after all, when we boil it right down, all about the tits, eh Carin? I mean, we’re not talking voles here nor lately, I’ve noticed, armadillos neither.
Carin, your rack hooked the fish but its your working of it that reeled him in, you know?
I mean, your guy was putty with a right-of-center woman who can write and who could smother him in a pair of natural C’s…there’s no drug against that.
he never had a chance.
On the other hand, we do seem to have had a go at whales in another thread, so there’s that. And whales have tits, big ones (though not pendulously big ones) even.
PW is after all, when we boil it right down, all about the tits, eh Carin?
I’m just disappointed that the topic drifted and I could trick anyone with a link to my boobs.
(insert “before” into above comment)
How about a compromise? We could reverse-engineer some tits.
Preferably female ones.
Homo Sapien tits (not whales).
I won’t sleep through that lab class.
That’s a nice sammich ya got there, Carin.
THAT’S MY SAMMICH. GET YOUR OWN.
P-90 X really has done wonders for my physique.
“P-90 X really has done wonders for my physique.”
I get tired just watching that infomercial.
You are an uncommonly mean woman, Carin!
It’s been about a year since I pulled that one … last time it was a rickroll. But, the whole moobs things gave me the idea. I’m figuring that those that fell for it last time prolly knew better.
“Here we have a thread about tits…”
Finally!, a topic that I can really focus on…But I’ll at least make an effort at eye contact…
I think Harry Nilsson already explained this in his song “Joy”.
All the people with oppressive ovaries can take the vaccine.
But you must be sure
That the girl is pure
For the funky cold medina.
Showy is right: Tierney used the term “reverse-engineer” improperly in that context.
Take it from a technical writer: you gots to be precise with ur terms.
I still think the meaning in context is ambiguous (even with the most restrictive reading in your terms) and certainly not evidence that Tierney doesn’t know what the term “to reverse-engineer” means, sorry.
hairy mole on cheek
missing spring’s fresh scent, but please
chug all this, handsome
Don’t kiss any cops down on Hollywood & Vine, that’s my advice.
“missing spring’s fresh scent”
No fair if you get half your haiku from a Summers Eve commercial.
The muse points me where she wills, LYBD. Besides it might have been Starkist commercial.
I denounce myself. I’ve said too much.
@50
“Restrictive reading” has nothing to do with whether his phrasing was ambiguous. Either what he wrote was ambiguous or it wasn’t. When he said that, “we might reverse-engineer an anti-love potion”, when the pro-love potion is already in hand, he either meant that reverse-engineering the anti-love potion signifies reversing the function of the already-created love potion, or he did not. To me, it seems fairly clear he did. You seem to be arguing, in part, that what he really meant was that reverse-engineering the human brain results in the ability to produce the anti-love potion. But that does not make sense logically, nor does his actual syntax support that this was his meaning. Logically, and if we adopt your extremely broadened definition of the term, the neurological system in question was already studied and understood, or as you would have it, “reverse-engineered” at the outset, prior to even the creation of the pro-love potion. Therefore, none of this expanded-definition “reverse-engineering” is required to create the anti-love potion (nor is it clear why he would only use the term in that second case if this was his meaning). Syntactically, he did not say “reverse engineer the brain to create the anti-love potion”, he said “reverse engineer the anti-love potion”. As a simple matter of definition, “reverse engineer[ing] the anti-love potion” could not be a part of the creation process of the anti-love potion. It could only be done after the anti-love potion had already been created, and only would be done if, once it existed, you didn’t already understand how it worked.
So as a very simple matter, his syntax clearly and indisputably signified a definition of the term that is flat-out incorrect. Is that judgement too technical or too restrictive? Each reader can make his own determination on that question. However, I find it striking that you seem to be employing two completely independent, and somewhat mutually undermining arguments here. These are that i) Tierney’s use of the term was not incorrect, and ii) even if it was incorrect, that’s a reflection of nothing more than his “wry humor”. The fact that you simultaneously deploy these two arguments suggests to me that your only firmly held opinion is the conclusion, “Tierney knows this term accurately”, and therefore that you judge any underlying arguments solely by the criterion of whether they support this conclusion. Why the contention that Tierney clearly misused the term, and on that basis most likely misunderstood the term, is such a bugaboo for you, I’m having difficulty imagining.