thinker_jeff

You have changed the concept from the modern human society to human society. In modern human society there is no health disaster such as Black Death. In fact every body has been provided immune defense by public health care. Everyone knows there are many undeveloped countries in the world in which some health disasters may still happen. However, if you read all of my posts in this topic, you should understand why my concept is different from yours.

LINK: http://www.plosbiolo...al.pbio.1000570 Abstract Inappropriate recollections and responses in stressful conditions are hallmarks of post-traumatic stress disorder and other anxiety and mood disorders, but how stress contributes to the disorders is unclear. Here we show that stress itself reactivates memories even if the memory is unrelated to the stressful experience. Forced-swim stress one day after learning enhanced memory recall. One-day post-learning amnestic treatments were ineffective unless administered soon after the swim, indicating that a stressful experience itself can reactivate unrelated consolidated memories. The swim also triggered inter-hemispheric transfer of a lateralized memory, confirming stress reactivates stable memories. These novel effects of stress on memory required the hippocampus although the memories themselves did not, indicating hippocampus-dependent modulation of extrahippocampal memories. These findings that a stressful experience itself can activate memory suggest the novel hypothesis that traumatic stress reactivates pre-trauma memories, linking them to memory for the trauma and pathological facilitation of post-traumatic recall.

If you want to say that human race should be evolved to be much better form than today's form, I would agree with you. Over here, my point is that in the current human society, Evolution process depended on generic mutation and natural selection has been stopped, regardless of imperfection of human beings. Again, natural selection is the process by which traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers (quote from Wikipedia). In our modern society the marriage system almost give every human being the chance to breed the next generation, and the population in next generation almost same as in current generation. The fact is that they are almost all alive by help of medical system. Therefore, the process of natural selection has been ending, only the process of generic mutation still exists.

This seems an ethical question instead of a scientific question to me. If you do ask a question scientificlly, please make more clear on your point.

To AzurePhoenix and other female members, Do you subjetively think that there is a tradeoff between appearance and intelligence in human males? Or any tradeoff between any other characteristics?

Quote from Wikipedia: Natural selection is the process by which traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers. If the process of Natural Seletion still works in modern society, how it effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers?

Modern Synthesis does not abandon Darwinian Evolution, instead, modified the Evolution Theory with the factor of generic mutation. The key processes are still genovariation and natural selection.

I agree with you that in human beings the Darwinian Evolution is ending. But my reason is somehow different. The classic evolution is based on two key processes: genovariation and natural selection. In our modern society the marriage system almost give every human being the chance to breed the next generation, and the population in next generation almost same as in current generation. The fact is that they are almost all alive by help of medical system. Therefore, the process of natural selection has been ending, only the process of genovariation still exists. This is not Darwinian Evolution but something else happened.

My idea is that because of the civilization, human beings are shaved and dressed themselves so that the appearances are reversed.

I have another question - Why the majority of male animals are more attractive than their females which seems reversed in human beings?

Thanks for the defferent explanation; however, it doesn't contradict my statement. Any of species needs hundreds or thousands of generations to evolve at least.

In short, the brain cortex has a map for your body on which the nerves from each piece of body project to a specific location of cortex. You may search the internet to have tones of answers like that.

This is misunderstanding, I think. The conclusion of the research is that male attractiveness does not have advantage in evolution, no matter it is used to attract females or not. Good question. But how many people who think themselve not attractive like to be the subjects in such research?

LINK: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/02/04/1011876108 Abstract Sexual selection in natural populations acts on highly heritable traits and tends to be relatively strong, implicating sexual selection as a causal agent in many phenotypic radiations. Sexual selection appears to be ineffectual in promoting phenotypic divergence among contemporary natural populations, however, and there is little evidence from artificial selection experiments that sexual fitness can evolve. Here, we demonstrate that a multivariate male trait preferred by Drosophila serrata females can respond to selection and results in the maintenance of male mating success. The response to selection was associated with a gene of major effect increasing in frequency from 12 to 35% in seven generations. No further response to selection, or increase in frequency of the major gene, was observed between generations 7 and 11, indicating an evolutionary limit had been reached. Genetic analyses excluded both depletion of genetic variation and overdominance as causes of the evolutionary limit. Relaxing artificial selection resulted in the loss of 52% of the selection response after a further five generations, demonstrating that the response under artificial sexual selection was opposed by antagonistic natural selection. We conclude that male D. serrata sexually selected traits, and attractiveness to D. serrata females conferred by these traits, were held at an evolutionary limit by the lack of genetic variation that would allow an increase in sexual fitness while simultaneously maintaining nonsexual fitness. Our results suggest that sexual selection is unlikely to cause divergence among natural populations without a concomitant change in natural selection, a conclusion consistent with observational evidence from natural populations.

You have serious logical problem here. I can't believe that a real researcher in science can not wait one month any longer. I don't know how long it had taken for completing your research; however, your book has been published for more than 2 years and your post has been here for almost a month. If you can not wait that long, you should give up right now. I think that I should leave this content based on my adjudgement.

I understand your frustration. However, you might think it from a different angle. Since what you have done is in a very specific domain of physics, most of the people over here might not be able to adjudge whether it is true or false (I’m not able to, anyway.). So what we are trying are giving your advices. Who are able to adjudge your work? Those in peer review group for reputable journals are most likely to meet such quality standard.

I had learned from a textbook that there was some empirical research about the ability related with chess. It might not answer this question as you wished, but might be helpful for your interest. In the experiment, after the chess masters and novices reviewed the actual board situation for 5 seconds, the board was disorganized, and then they were asked to bring back the original board situation. It was no surprise, that the masters brought back about 20 ~25 pieces correctly but the novices brought back about 6 pieces correctly in average. However, if the original board situation wasn’t from an actual game but was from random arrangement, the masters did same as the novice, about 6 pieces correctly in average. The researchers concluded that, when the original board situation was random arranged the masters and the novices treated each piece as one block, so there was no difference between what the masters did and what the novices did; when the original board situation was from an actual game the masters treated multiple pieces as one block, so they could bring back more pieces correctly than the novices. To compare with novices, chess masters remember more actual board situations and more information about chess game, which results the skill difference between them.

This reaction clearly indicates how far away psychology needs to improve. I have no intention to blame the scientists in psychology nor to depreciate this branch of science. In fact I believe this is the most complicate field of science, that is why we're working hard in this field. What I pointed out is undeniable reality which is always the challenge to us. Good. At least the issue about the terminology of "unification" has been dismissed.

This is negative way to argue. If there are general laws of psychology, please show how you can causally deduct some consequence from these laws. In my term, here is the examples about the level of unification in the fields of science, from high to low: physics, chemistry, biology, psychology.

I want to say that psychology should do better to have more generalized principles, such as Laws. The level of unification in a field of science reflects the level of maturity in the branch of science.

Frankly speaking, you have a hypothesis published by your own book. It is very different from the scientific works published in scientific journals. I agree with ajb's opinion, which should be the right way for you. Good luck, friend.

Your case supports what I said. Excellent chess player is likely good in math. Good chess player is likely fair in math. Where you are good at is very useful for playing chess.

I believe that an excellent chess player has great chance to be good in math because both of them very depend on logical thinking. However, some talent for math is not necessary for chess. For example, the comprehensibility about the concepts in math seems unnecessary to play chess. On the other way, the talents for memorizing visual images and strategically planning are very important in chess game but may not be so important in math.

Good beginning, but, poor endings! I like the needimprovement's honesty.