6 ms·

> In retrospect it does seem like in the 1950s-70s the military was willing to fund some stuff that was actually not especially close to applications of killing

> In retrospect it does seem like in the 1950s-70s the military was willing to fund some stuff that was actually not especially close to applications of killing people. There's no "seem" about it, what you're saying is true, and it was because of changes in federal law. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Mansfield#Mansfield_Amendments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Mansfield#Mansfield_Amend...

abeppu 6d ago
Thanks for pointing that out; I was not aware of it. At the same time, when I helped with research in a cognitive psychology lab in school (much closer to the present than to that law), our PI said our funding came partly from a grant from the US Navy. We worked on Bayesian models of human learning and reasoning -- so "direct or apparent relationship to specific military function" has perhaps at times been interpreted somewhat loosely?
- justin66 6d ago
  As a practical matter, I'm not sure the Mansfield amendment affected all agencies equally. My impression is that it affected ARPA (later DARPA) most profoundly. (pretty much everything I've read about this was in the context of ARPA and XEROX Parc so my perception might be a little skewed) I'd speculate the Navy had perhaps more discretion over how it spent its research funding. For example, they funded polywell fusion research for years.
- forshaper 5d ago
  Consider that parts of yoga were stripped out and implemented for its effectiveness in reducing overuse injuries. Teaching individuals quickly and at scale is a core necessity for militaries. Whether not or it gets used, the US Army usually has access to whatever is near the edge there (as in some unit or officer somewhere was promoting the method, and had the sign offs necessary to disseminate it, but culturally it was not fully put in place).

6 ms·

> In retrospect it does seem like in the 1950s-70s the military was willing to fund some stuff that was actually not especially close to applications of killing

by justin66 6d ago

abeppu 6d ago
Thanks for pointing that out; I was not aware of it. At the same time, when I helped with research in a cognitive psychology lab in school (much closer to the present than to that law), our PI said our funding came partly from a grant from the US Navy. We worked on Bayesian models of human learning and reasoning -- so "direct or apparent relationship to specific military function" has perhaps at times been interpreted somewhat loosely?
- justin66 6d ago
  As a practical matter, I'm not sure the Mansfield amendment affected all agencies equally. My impression is that it affected ARPA (later DARPA) most profoundly. (pretty much everything I've read about this was in the context of ARPA and XEROX Parc so my perception might be a little skewed) I'd speculate the Navy had perhaps more discretion over how it spent its research funding. For example, they funded polywell fusion research for years.
- forshaper 5d ago
  Consider that parts of yoga were stripped out and implemented for its effectiveness in reducing overuse injuries. Teaching individuals quickly and at scale is a core necessity for militaries. Whether not or it gets used, the US Army usually has access to whatever is near the edge there (as in some unit or officer somewhere was promoting the method, and had the sign offs necessary to disseminate it, but culturally it was not fully put in place).