MonDie

That is an interesting point. The average Democrat held state has about 10.5 delegates compared to about 10.166 for Republican held states. However, my math so far suggests that this won't account for the discrepancy of Democratic presidential candidates receiving fewer electoral votes per percentage of popular vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Results_by_state To test whether the explanation is that simple, I determined what the 2016 Clinton-Trump popular vote would have been if each party had won each of their respective states by the same margin. The margin of victory for each state the party won was set to be the average victory margin over all states the party won, and therefore the procedure shouldn't have removed the effect of a Republican skew in the non-normal distribution of Cook PVI scores. I took all the Democrat-won states from the 2016 election, determined the margin of victory for each Democrat-won state, and then the average margin of victory, which came to 18.118%. Next I determined the total votes they would have gotten from these states if they had won each Democrat-won state by that same margin, obtaining a 59.0554% [should have been 59.059%] share of the non-third-party voting in each. Next I calculated the same for Republican margin of victory in Republican-won states. The final result showed Donald Trump winning the popular vote by a nearly 4% lead, instead of losing by 0.5% to 2%. Once again, below in the spoiler is the data and wxMaxima calculations should anyone want to check my work. I excluded Maine and Nebraska because they did not use a winner-take-all system. Furthermore, I attribute Clinton's nearly 2% lead mostly to the district of Columbia, which overwhelmingly voted for her and without which her lead is more like 0.5%. The district of Columbia was not included in the Wikipedia table of voting by state, and so it was not included in the calculations.

I will read it, Delta1212. I forgot to add that the bias toward Republican victories in the electoral college could be explained by a tendency for Democrat held states to vote Democrat more strongly than Republican held states vote Republican. That is, a skew toward Democrat in the distribution of the Democrat/Republican voting of each state. While researching this I found the Cook Partisan Voting Index (Cook VPI) and learned that the opposite is actually true. Republican held states have a stronger voting bias than Democrat held states. http://cookpolitical.com/file/filename.pdf Wikipedia

I've done more research, and now I've moved beyond asking why Trump won to asking why the Republicans get more electoral votes per percentage point of popular vote. Delta mentioned how rare it is to win the electoral college vote without the popular vote. Upon further investigation, I learned that this has only happened when the margin in the popular vote was less than 1 percentage point, which has happened 7 times in our nation's history: 1980, 1984, 1988, 1960, 1968, 2000, and 2016. In only three of these instances did the winner win without the popular vote: 1888, 2000, and 2016. Perhaps most interesting of all is that the Republicans have only won the popular vote once in the past seven elections, but setting that aside we have the question of why more recently they've been winning without the popular vote. The equations are for lines in slope intercept form, with x indicating popular vote and y indicating electoral college vote. The first line is Democrat and the second is Republican. I also included the intersect of the lines. This is, ideally, the percentage of popular vote above which the electoral college starts to favor Democrats instead of Republicans. As we can see, the lines might become more similar as we move further back in time, but at present there is a notable Republican bias wherein they receive significantly more electoral college votes per popular vote percentage point when the popular vote is below the threshold of 60 percent. Democrat function, Republican function, intersection of the lines First I included all data 1952 to 2016. 21.6x-786, 18.8x-612, x=62.1 Removed the 2016 Trump-Clinton data. 21.6x-787, 18.9x-618, x=62.6 Removed 2016 and 2000 Bush-Gore. 21.6x-786, 18.8x-615, x=61.1 1952-1996 21.4x-776, 18.3x-574, x=65.2 1952-1988 21.8x-828, 19.8-655, x=86.5 1952-1980 21.1x-784, 19.3x-634, x=83.3 1952-1972 20.4x-748, 18.9x-631, x=78 1940-1972, added the three preceding elections 22.8x-839, 21.6x-793, x=38.3 I did the calculations in the free, open-source CAS "wxMaxima", and I've included instructions and the data in spoiler tags should anybody want it. I think that third-party voting could explain the disparity if (a) more people vote third-party when their major party candidate is doing poorly and (b) third-parties steal more votes from the more liberal party. This effect might become weaker as we go further back in time because the Republican party used to be the more progressive of the two, working to abolish slavery and defend the rights of African-Americans. In fact, if you look at third-party voting in Wisconsin and Michigan for this election, it is sufficient to explain how Trump flipped these states. Had nobody voted thrid-party, Hillary Clinton probably would have won these states. Special interests is a real problem. Big businesses are using their money to fund the campaigns of politicians who will enact policies that will help their big businesses stay big. I would like him to fight this problem, but I don't have confidence that he will. Firstly, he is a rich businessman who has probably had a money addiction all of his life. Secondly, I believe he exemplifies an us-vs-them mentality. He cares more about whites because he is white, more about men because he is a man. I believe we actually identify with groups in order to benefit ourselves. We help ourselves by helping the group to which we belong. In fact, the desire to punish traitors can be explained from an evolutionary perspective, for punishing a traitor would be worth the effort in a small-sized group wherein the punisher will reap a significant slice of the rewards. It is a sign of selfishness, in my opinion, to appeal to the interests of the groups to which one belongs.

I'm actually wondering how he won. Huffingtonpost reported Clinton having a five percent lead or more all the way to election day. However she only won the popular vote by 0.15%, and she lost by be 74 delegates of the electoral college. 74 delegates is about 7 states, dividing by average delegates per state. There are apparently a lot of tricks that politicians can play to bias the outcome. I found the quoted text particularly interesting because it's probably cities where long lines are a bigger problem, and cities are overwhelmingly liberal / Democrat. "Voters in key states endured long lines, equipment failures" apologies if the linked page doesn't work, but it I recommend it for the content. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/11/08/voting-polls-election-day/93201770/ In 2013 the Supreme Court struck down a major part of the Voting Rights Act, which required specified states, which had a history of disenfranchising black voters, to have changes to their voting system reviewed by the federal government first. Part of the justification was record voter turnout for Africans-americans in recent elections (for president Obama). Ethnic minorities tend to vote Democrat. I don't know whether the system for counting votes is trustworthy, but I would feel the more comfortable if the polling place would give me a unique identifier that would allow me to look up my vote online alongside everyone else's.

There are actually multiple third-party candidates in the race, but only the Libertarian party is on the ballot in all fifty states and they're sucking more votes from Clinton than Trump. They are fiscally conservative but socially liberal, appealing to both ends of the spectrum. I want Jill Stein, but I won't vote for her because she won't win. They're only on the ballot in 44 states for this election anyway, but they might be too progressive as well. If we assume that (a) the Green is more progressive than the Democrats and (b) the Democrats and Republicans are both becoming more progressive with time, then the Green party will always be an outlier. At least the Libertarians represent a recombination of conservative and liberal values. The Green Party doesn't accept campaign contributions from corporations, but Bernie Sanders also says we need to get big money out of politics. He gave Hillary Clinton a decent run in the Democratic primaries despite what seems to have been unfair treatment by the Democratic National Convention. I think Hillary Clinton is more or less a conservative that happens to be female. She was outspokenly against gay marriage fifteen years ago even though she was for womens' rights at the same time. Her disinterest in the cause was revealed when, during the primaries against Bernie Sanders, she mistakenly praised the Reagan administration's (lack of) work on AIDS. The State Department, led by Hillary Clinton, worked to promote fracking here and abroad as a sustainable alternative to coal. In the end we learned that these fracking wells were leaking loads of methane into the water supply and the atmosphere, especially the "super-emitters", because the energy companies care more about digging more wells than fixing the leaky ones. On the plus side however, these wells do not leak much sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides, and fracking could be better than coal if we would fix the wells known as "super-emitters". I'm just doubting that the time spent promoting fracking over coal was time well spent. She also condoned the coup of Honduran president Manuel Zelaya, who wanted Honduras to join the Bolivarian Alliance (ALBA) started by socialist Hugo Chavez. She condoned the coup of what seemed to be a socialist leader making a power grab, and she pushed for a "legitimate" re-election in Honduras to replace the ousted leader. However Manuel Zelaya was also an environmentalist, and corrupt officials in the new, coup government are systematically killing off environmentalist activists. On the other hand, I'm not sure Gary Johnson is much better. I don't know his track record on womens', gay, or ethnic rights like Clinton's, and I can't tell you how informed he is about these matters because he's too focused on drugs. Furthermore, I'm unimpressed with his knowledge of science, and he appears to be against a carbon tax just like he's against the minimum wage and government spending. On the upside however, the Libertarian party is non-interventionist, something the major party candidates cannot lay claim to. The worst criticisms of Jill Stein seem to be that she's sympathetic to anti-vaxxers or the idea that radio waves cause cancer. However I haven't seen her say anything that is clearly incorrect, and I'm not about to punish her for not seeing things as black and white, yes or no. There is some weak evidence that radio waves may contribute to cancer, and we know that the radio waves from your cell phone alter glucose metabolism in the brain. Maybe it's nothing... Anyway, the Green party is even more progressive than the Democratic party, making them an outlier. Having them compete with Democrats for votes will only help the Republicans. At best the Green Party nominee should be seen as a back-up progressive candidate who can step up in the event of some crisis that leaves the Democratic candidate utterly un-electable and decommissioned.

Indeed, it would be wise to include a compliment when critiquing somebody, or an implicit acknowledgement that you read, understood, and appreciated their post. Furthermore, it could be discouraged to focus criticism on a single member or a distinctive group of members. Regarding the corrected content, I had most of the thread OP written on paper, which I hurriedly transcribed. That's why words are missing here and there. I'm sorry that 3 is hard to understand, but ambiguous? Thank you.

Could migration be selective like natural selection is, where it is who migrates rather than who reproduces? The Founder effect can result in a radically transformed gene pool in a single generation. Migratory selection would not require long time spans like natural selection does, but only a highly selective filter. It could introduce extra variation between recently diverged gene pools that would be inconsistent with the recent-shared-ancestor approach. I haven't read the full publication, but this abstract is what brought it to mind. Why Are Immigrants' Incarceration Rates so Low? Evidence on Selective Immigration, Deterrence, and Deportation. http://www.nber.org/papers/w13229

Broadcast - Colour Me In & Poem of Dead Song

I'm very self-conscious about communicating clearly, concisely and properly. I would like a thread where we point out other users' grammatical errors or inconcise, jumbled, unclear phrasing. Either quote or copy/paste the user's text, and add how you would have phrased it.

Indeed, I proposed, contrary to Acme's claim, a potentially positive relationship between dissocation and theory of mind skills to potentially account for the amplified mentalizing in borderline, but conceded that many dissociative individuals have poor theory of mind. Theory of mind and perspective-taking are synonymous, hence the intrigueing phenomenon of depersonalization. However Strange is speaking of perspective-taking on a less perceptual level and more verbal, intellectual level.

No, that's wrong. Dissociation is completely unrelated. It involves abnormalities of memory, perception, and sense of self in response to stress. Dissociation includes: depersonalization - feeling of watching one's own body from third person derealization - feeling that one's surroundings are dream-like or unreal compartmentalizing - blocked memories that may resurface later, or be in the sole possession of one alter-ego and inaccessible to the primary personality. identity disturbance - possibly dissociative? - sudden changes in values, goals, or sense of self accompanied by intense emotions or perceived inconsistency of values and actions. People with borderline personality are prone to dissocation. Many of them have superior theory of mind skills, showing that the disorder has adaptive and maladaptive aspects. They score better on the reading the mind in the eyes test (RMET), which has been linked to verbal intelligence. One could argue that depersonalization is a form of hyper-mentalism where the person not only takes on a third-person perspective of their self, but fully identifies with that perspective. Alas the closely related schizotypal personality throws a monkey wrench in things, for they also report dissociative experiences despite their theory of mind deficits and social disinterest. Dissociation is related to low serotonin and heightened cortisol secretion, both of which tend to be present to some degree in autistics, who have increased susceptibility to schizotypal personality disorder, among others.

From my perspective, logical fallacies seem like commonly used arguments that are assumed to have more validity than they really do. They have hidden premises that may be completely invalid (e.g. involving circular reasoning), or otherwise have less probabilistic weight than commonly assumed (e.g. ad populum fallacy: appealing to an idea's popularity as evidence of its veracity even though popular positions are frequently wrong).

I would really like to see the evidence that the IQ gap has not changed... That flies in the face of the adoption studies and could actually mean that we aren't fighting racism well enough. This is my personal speculation, but I think it would be better to have it said. Of course IQ and other forms of intelligence have genetic contributions. Any twin study would tell us this. Furthermore, there are probably some contributing genetics that will incidentally vary between ethnic groups. How negligible the difference is I do not know, but many genetic contributions are actually mediated by environmental variables — this is the gene-times-environment paradigm. The genetically average African/Asian/Caucasian probably would have succeeded in the environment they were adapted to, leading to healthier development and better cognitive function thereby. This wouldn't matter anymore, however, because the Savanna principle describes the new state of affairs: technology is changing our environment so rapidly that our inherited traits and instincts have stopped serving our survival how they used to. The conflict: Is intelligence selected for in some environments more than others, or is intelligence an emergent feature of overall fitness to the environment?

I couldn't find that right hemisphere language function is more synthesizing. I suppose I inferred this given that it performs context sensitive functions. In pop science, "right brainers" are synthesizers.

Isn't it disturbing. You always seemed to think outside the box and keep asking questions. My name is Patrick Carlock. Feel free to call me by it. Stolen Babies - Spill! And again, more aggressive and profane than I would like it, but I like it. Jack Off Jill - Author Unknown

I would like to see support for this. Compartmentalizing is essentially dissociative amnesia, and I suppose dissociative fugue and dissociative identity disorder too. Blocking out one episode, such as a fugue episode, would be the milder form when compared to dissociative identity disorder (DID) patients, who alternate between "alters" who each possess their own sets of memories. (Yes, there is evidence that they are not faking.) Ben Carson would have to be accessing both his biological memories and his Christian memories simultaneously to preach this. However, one could conceive of "identity disturbance" as being a dissociative symptom that seems more like a mild form of compartmentalizing than like depersonalization/derealizatinon, that is if it doesn't involve (significant) amnesia.

We intuitively assume that conviction and authenticity of belief are at the center of religious behaviors. However, lying for the cause arguably be anti-correlated with authenticity. Many followers posit a societal function of the religion that hinges on ingroup superiority. While ingroup superiority is occasionally a religious teaching itself that would tend to wane along with general general belief, this point is only an argument against the preponderance, not he existence, of "fake believers", which will refer to followers who remain subordinate primarily because of ideas about ingroup superiority rather than veracity of the religious teachings. Below are three Pro/ANti arguments for religious lying by fake believers. Interestingly, the only one that does not hinge on divine approval is Pro. PRO Given that we live in a coherent world where all truths are interconnected, progress toward any truth should tend to contribute to progress toward religious and ideological truths too. Thus the less likely the religion is to be accurate, the more likely it is that lies would protect it. PRO Given that information has fundamental value to ethical decision-making and decision-making in general, which I think most people would agree on, it follows that an all-knowing being would also be aware of this moral truth. Therefore anyone who believes in an omnipotent, omniscient being might be less inclined to lie. ANTI Someone who believes that salvation depends on religious belief may feel that conversion is an even more urgent matter, not being willing to wait for the truth to gradually emerge as more souls are condemned. EXCEPTION Interestingly, lying about the moral character of another person may be an given that this lie specifically relates to beliefs of ingroup superiority. Although the fake believer presumably has an especially strong bias against outgroup members, lying about an outgroup member should raise questions about the basis of their own beliefs of ingroup superiority. However it's still possible that some genuine believers they create would themselves be willing to lie about an outgroup member's character, creating a vicious cycle. Indeed, the presence of such beliefs that would facilitate this process could indicate its contagious nature rather than its basis in the holy texts. The Quest scale of religiosity was introduced by Dan Batson to supplement Allport's Intrinsic and Extrinsic religiosity scales. It measures the value a follower places on questioning and doubt, and so it demonstrates that variation in this trait among religious followers. In the sociology of religion and prejudice, it is the only scale that is consistently unambiguously anti-correlated with prejudice. Research in this field has also produced terror management theory (TMT), the support for TMT coming from experiments that link priming with death related thoughts to more extreme evaluations of ingroup and outgroup members, or, if you will, more extreme prejudices. TMT could help to explain how ideas about ingroup superiority arise in various religions and ideologies. However, I have never seen it investigated how a mortality salience primed subject evaluates ideas. There is research showing that priming with the word DEATH or PAIN induced more extreme evaluations of... musical chords if I recall correctly. I cannot seem to relocate this free-to-read paper. Lastly but most interestingly, this idea is highly testable. Indeed, some TMT research about "atheists" in "foxholes" used arguments for or against religious claims to induce these effects. A similar design could be used to test whether arguments against the religion's veracity would actually make the followers more willing to lie. I suppose anyone could do it over Amazon's mechanical turk, but I don't have the money at the moment. Historical or contemporary examples would be interesting too. Please share!

I have never come across a term that specifically refers to what Strange speaks of, but it does appear in various disorders. Right Hemisphere Language Functions and Schizophrenia: The Forgotten Hemisphere? http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/128/5/963 The paper talks a lot about failing to provide adequate context or ensuring that the listener has enough background information to follow what's being said. This probably relates to the theory of mind (or mentalizing) deficits that you see in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia appears to consist of three subscales: negative symptoms, positive symptoms, and disorganized symptoms, with the latter two being more related to one another than to negative symptoms. Positive symptoms include s hallucinations and various delusions (e.g. paranoid: being followed; persecutory: being slandered; of guilt: having committed some terrible sin). Disorganized symptoms revolve around failures of rational communication: incoherence, tangential thoughts, neologism (inventing new words), disorganized sentence structure, et cetera. The negative symptoms are more akin to autism, and autism was initially thought to be a prodrome to schizophrenia. Negative symptoms include: lacking motivation, social disinterest, flattened affect, and poverty of speech. Poverty of speech involves giving the bare minimum response. Somebody asks, "Do you have any children?" The schizophrenic, "Yes." "How many? Daughters or sons?" "Two daughters and one son." "Do you have any jumper cables?" "Yes, I do." Although I cannot say for sure that they're related, I invented the latter example as an example of both poverty of speech and an indirect request, which is discussed in the paper on right hemisphere language function. An indirect request expects the recipient to consider contextual information, such as the fact that the person asking about jumper cables has their hood up and is indirectly asking the recipient to jump their car. Not only do schizophrenics fail to pick up on important contextual information, but they also fail to provide it. I wouldn't be surprised if this was a negative symptoms that also appears in autism. Autism is more common, or more extreme, among males. Females show greater right hemisphere activation during reading, and they develop their language skills sooner. As the paper explains, the right hemisphere seems to play a more synthetic role, detecting themes and utilizing contextual information to understand the particularities more clearly.

I've grown hesitant about Placebo's aggressive lyrics, but I really like Placebo - You Don't Care About Us.

Sadly I think some may sympathize because most of us will commit an error of this sort at some point, but it's a regrettable mistake that comes down to communication skills and inhibition or disinhibition. It's like second order sexism when you prize disinhibition without regard for another's boundaries. Trump was not using sarcasm because the discussion was not about womens' rights or entitled celebrities. In fact he only says "I admit it" when he is admitting that he failed to seduce a married woman. I think it's evidence of an entitled personality, a facet of narcissistic personality that is especially elevated in men. Trump doesn't seem to possess the values of either camp. He doesn't seem to value honesty/information, cooperation, or general well-being. He doesn't value sexual purity or family values (hitting on a married woman). He doesn't exhibit Christian charity. Maybe the only reason he could compliment Clinton without flinching is because he values the ability to crush one's opponent. In any case, I was reading an article comparing Donald Trump to Bill Clinton's independent opponent, Ross Perot, an article claiming that the Clinton campaign withheld criticism of Trump during the primaries because they anticipated crushing him in the election. Maybe the Republicans should utilize more left-wing style critiques while vetting their candidates.

I recollect Tampitump mentioning not knowing how to interpret a facial expression. Paul Ekman identified five cultural universal expressions: joy, sadness, anger, disgust, and shock. Shock was a merging of fear and suprise, which the aboriginal people could not distinguish. I'm only aware psychotic versus non-psychotic depression. Depression is associated with lowered serotonin, but psychotic depression also invovles heightened cortisol secretion by the HPA axis. You see this heightened HPA activity in PTSD too, and the administration of corticosteroids can induce manic, depressed, or rapid cycling mood changes similar to bipolar disorder.

I don't want to turn this thread into a blog, but I did read through all of the studies. I did not find a lot more information related to omega-3 as a potential treatment. The lattermost experiment wherein researchers administer a form of omega-3 called ethyl-eicosapentaenoate with or without co-administering vitamins E+C turns out to be the study that did not find positive effects. Apparently "levels of PUFA [poly unsaturated fatty acid] at baseline are bimodally distributed, defining two clinically distinct types of schizophrenia (low and high PUFA groups)." Surprisingly, it was the low PUFA patients who showed more evidence of adverse effects. I found these quotes interesting after reading the rat study. A Randomized Placebo-controlled Trial of an Omega-3 Fatty Acid and Vitamins E+C in Schizophrenia (2013) It was conducted in Norway. The Antipsychotic Effects of Omega-3 Fatty Acids in Rats (2015) It is also interesting that the fish oil study used a sample of UHR subjects, many of whom go on to develop mood disorders. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3974689/table/t1-tcrm-10-241/ Omega-3 also has benefits for depressed patients,. Furthermore, the same paper notes that researchers have observed a reduction of symptoms in UHR patients with the administration of antidepressants, ending the section with "an unexpectedly high incidence of depression with psychotic features was observed in UHR individuals receiving antipsychotic therapy".

There aren't many good forums for discussing psychological science, and I thought this thread might appeal to the secular community here. Although I'm not a psych student and I couldn't make the case as well as I had hoped, I will contend that erotic impairments due to abuse or trauma could at times be mistaken for superficial ideology, namely sexually repressive, religious ideology, with terrible consequences. In fact, I have only seen conservatism related to the openness factor in the Big Five, which is mostly irrelevant to psychiatric diagnoses. The disorder I will focus on is OCD. Patients exhibit any of an array of obsessions, including sexual and religious obsessions, the latter being termed "scrupulosity". They may even inflict damage to their own bodies. OCD is comorbid with depression and PTSD, and depression generally involves a dysregulation of negative emotions such as shame and guilt. In fact OCD is treated with SSRIs. As for the etiology of OCD, it was previously classed as an anxiety disorder, but the DSM-5 categorizes it as an obsessive-compulsive related disorder. It is a highly heterogenous disorder associated with PTSD and various forms of abuse and neglect as well as tic disorders and autism. However, types of abuse tend to co-occur, whereas sexual abuse in particular may play a key role. Relationship between childhood sexual abuse and obsessive-compulsive disorder: case control study Caspi, Vishne, Sasson, Gross, Livne, Zohar, 2008 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19398821 Childhood Sexual Abuse and Adult Psychiatric and Substance Use Disorders in Women http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=481660 The first study investigates the prevalence of child sexual abuse (csa) in an OCD sample, a panic disorder sample, and a control group. Although it wasn't tested for significance, we see the same rate of contact-csa (53%) in the two psychiatric samples. The second study looks at monozygotic twins of which only one experienced sexual abuse, and it more or less proves that panic disorder (along with depression, generalized anxiety disorder, and bulemia) is a result of sexual abuse. Caspi et al note that "an interesting question not studied yet is whether OCD after sexual abuse has more sexual themes. This could be the subject for further studies." Are stressful life events causally related to the severity of obsessive-compulsive symptoms? A monozygotic twin difference study Vidal-Ribas, Stringaris, Ruck, Serlachius, Lichtenstein, Mataix-Cols, 2015 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25511316 This study also looks at monozygotic twin pairs, measuring the extent to which they differ in obsessive-compulsive symptoms and correlating it with exposure to stressful life events (SLEs). The introduction mention a previous MZ twin study associated OCD with "particularly sexual assault". Their study identifies "sexual abuse" and "abuse and family disruption" in the "phenotypic relation" section even after controlling for depression, but "when controlling for genetic and shared environment effects, only differences in the factor 'abuse and family disruption' were positively and independently related to differences in OCS severity." However they note that "abuse and family disruption" is not a shared environmental factor in this instance due that being controlled out, so they suggest it relates to either recall bias, or to relations with spouses and children (their own families) or peers or coworkers. However, sexual abuse and non-sexual assault still maintain a positive, though non-significant, relationship for the within pair analysis of this study. It occurred to me that OCD is a highly heterogenous disorder, and it might regain significance if they focused on the factor related to "obsessions (such as aggressive, sexual, religious or somatic)". It also occurred to me that sexual abuse or sexual assault may initiate a downward spiral in which OCD may or may not arise as a secondary effect. Now I will move away from OCD and focus on the direct relationship between CSA and erotic functioning. "The female Sexual Self-Schema Scale includes two positive factors: (a) a tendency to experience passionate/romantic feelings; and, (b) behavioral openness. In addition, women’s sexual self-schemas may include negative elements, such as © embarrassment or conservatism, which deter or inhibit sexual expression." I found it interesting that the only sexually "negative" factor is described as "conservative". This factor appears to be mostly unrelated to CSA. However, the below study finds that female CSA victims tended to score lower on the "personal distress" factor of the Sexual Satisfaction Scale-Women, especially in more severe instances. Sexual Function and Satisfaction in Adults Based on the Definition of Child Sexual Abuse https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2631235/ I look forward to seeing what other users can contribute.

The sit in is interesting. Perhaps the second amendment has more power as a restriction on our federal government because it only applies to state laws through the incorporation doctrine. The federal government could make black market exchange more difficult while leaving purchase restrictions up to the states. Require registered guns to be brought in regularly, and fine those who cannot present theirs. Allow lighter fines with evidence of a break in or stolen information. Use this fine money to subsidize the initial purchase. Additionally fine people caught with unregistered guns and force them to register. Make the distribution of any gun or instructions to make such a gun that can bypass a metal detector (e.g. 3-D printer guns) a serious offense.

The "soul" might be only a meaningless "weasel word". For example religious people make claims about when the soul, rather than the mind, is imparted (zygotes do not have minds). However, they really mean your mind when they talk of your "soul" being rewarded after death. It's not really that interesting to say that a meaningless claim cannot be test.