Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2014 August 3

= August 3 =

Is success of countries due to better human biological capital?
http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/biology-and-human-capital/ As in scientific article above, is there generally any evidence of some societies having greater human capital? Is it due to evolution through natural selection or perhaps through other means?74.14.72.22 (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd say it's cultural, not genetic. That is, it's memes, not genes.  For example, the tendency of a culture to value innovation over tradition is important to the long-term success of that culture.


 * As far as genetics go, they may help a population to succeed in a given environment. For example, natives of polar regions tend to become short and fat after thousands of years, which helps them to retain heat.  However, those adaptations may not serve them well outside their own climate.  StuRat (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * So if populations can dapt like that, perhaps they also evolved different behaviors and cognitive abilities, and because of that some people are more successful than others.74.14.72.22 (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * For such genetic changes to take place, there must be something different in the environment that kills off people who don't adapt. In my example, it's the cold.  What evolutionary pressure would force one population to need to become more intelligent than others, in order to survive ?  (One possible answer might be that in an environment where life is easy there would be no pressure to adapt, but in such an environment population would quickly grow to a point where competition for resources would force adaptation, at least until birth control was invented.)  StuRat (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * These genetic changes did in fact take place in the Ashkenazim Jews, there is a paper on that by Gregory Cochran called Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence74.14.72.22 (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The blog is by Cochran too in case you hadn't realized that already. And he didn't exactly pinpoint the "intelligence genes" and definitively proved that the Ashkenazim genetic changes did "in fact take place". Don't make it sound as if Cochran et al.'s paper has been accepted widely, because it's not. Here's one rebuttal. Here's another. All of Cochran et al.'s evidence in their paper is circumstancial. Even conjecture, e.g. when they linked genetic diseases among the Ashkenazim to increased intelligence, or the assumption that wealth equates to intelligence.


 * Again, the Ashkenazim have only been a distinct ethnic group for a few centuries. How many generations is that? And they somehow evolved the genes for better IQ in that period of time? It is true that Ashkenazim Jews were indeed genetically isolated, preferring to intermarry within their group. They indeed prized intelligence as a trait. But none of these can be demonstrated to translate to actual evolutionary pressure. I mean, Jewish parents did not exactly kill or sterilize children who couldn't understand Algebra did they? Jewish women didn't marry Jewish men for their intelligence alone. Or is Cochran saying that merely the expectations of parents to have smarter children enabled them to bear smarter children? Evolution isn't exactly Lamarckism anymore. So while Ashkenazim may have more Nobel prize winners as of the moment, it's a bit of a leap to declare that it's because they have evolved to be geniuses.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  18:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Warfare, for one thing, would be just such an evolutionary pressure -- people who are smarter can invent better weapons (and more efficient ways of producing them), which would help them kill their not-so-smart enemies in battle while also giving them a better chance to survive to fight another day. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And even smarter people wouldn't engage in warfare in the first place... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * At which point they get conquered by their enemies, as the Romans were. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * See Guns, Germs, and Steel. Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please provide a clear, unarguable definition of "successful" as it relates to countries? HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Economic prosperity, as measured, e.g., by per-capita GDP, would be a pretty much universally accepted definition of a successful country. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Says who? And measured over what timescale? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess that definition just failed "unarguable". HiLo48 (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * What do you mean, "says who"? Are you saying that economic prosperity is not a definition of a country's success, or that per-capita GDP is not a good measure of economic prosperity? 24.5.122.13 (talk) 07:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It may well be. but that wasn't the question. HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Define "success". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oi, I already asked that. HiLo48 (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the OP didn't answer it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * GDP is one marker of success, as is a high level of cultural achievement74.14.72.22 (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Many these days will argue that the way in which a country's wealth is distributed among the populace is possibly more important than total GDP. HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * John Rawls famously argued that the way the most disadvantaged person in a society fares is a good measure of that society's quality. Certainly the median GDP might be a better indicator of popular prosperity than the average GDP. Of course, the "G" in GDP makes every such measure very much problematic - if I total a car and buy an identical replacement, the GDP is plus one car, but the overall state of the economy is the same. Similarly, GDP ignores depreciation of e.g. natural resources. A radical different measure is Gross national happiness.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Distribution of wealth more important than total GDP?! Are you out of your mind?!  By that standard, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, where everyone was equally dying of starvation, would be a more successful country than the USA -- which is patently, outrageously false on the face of it! 24.5.122.13 (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * So.... scientific racism again, eh? From the same guy who thinks homosexuality is the result of pathogens? Not exactly what I'd call persuasive.


 * The argument that some human populations are just more intelligent than others and thus the reason for the economic differences in modern nations only works if you completely disregard such annoying things like warfare, geography, and human migration. Particularly the inconvenience of several centuries of colonial subjugation and cultural rape. The argument that these had absolutely nothing to do with why most of the most economically successful countries today have mostly European populations is naive at best.


 * If 90% or more of the native population of the Americas didn't die of Old World diseases, if Genghis Khan didn't force half the world to flee west, if China hadn't banned ocean-going ships, if the Sahara desert didn't isolate the rest of Africa from Eurasia, if the glacial retreat didn't decimate the large herds of megafauna supporting nomadic human populations, etc. the world might be quite a different place right now. So many ifs, and none of them can be attributed specifically to genetics. I agree that the best counterargument to Cochran's position would be Guns, Germs, and Steel.


 * You don't exactly need to be a genius to know that aiming a gun at someone's head can force them to do what you want them to for your own gain. Even Cochran's favorite supposedly genetically predisposed geniuses, the Ashkenazim, only exists as a distinct ethnic group for a few centuries.


 * While I don't disagree that some ethnic groups do have more accomplishments in some areas than others, I believe this is mostly environmental. Some cultures encourage scholarly interests, some encourage warfare; some encourage unquestioning obedience, some encourage skepticism, etc. None of these are necessarily genetic. Case in point the Ashkenazim who were forced by xenophobia in the Middle Ages into developing a culture focused on trade and finance. Being good at math and economics because their culture encourages it doesn't necessarily mean that it's evidence that they have evolved to become bankers.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  11:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You have given voice to suspicions I share about the OP's premise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * BTW, social Darwinism is the name of the mostly discredited theory that successful nations succeed due to genetic superiority (although this term has other meanings, too). There is one sense in which it is true, I suppose, and that's resistance to disease.  Isolated populations tend not to have much resistance, which is deadly for them when they come into contact with larger populations which carry diseases they have not encountered before.  StuRat (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Success is often a function of superior weaponry. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Which can be bought by whoever wants to avoid spending that money on its less able citizenry. HiLo48 (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that it first has to be developed and produced, so whatever nation has a bigger supply of technological geniuses and a stronger industrial base for turning their blueprints into metal will still have the advantage -- having better weapons as a result will only REINFORCE this advantage. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Being good at war doesn't equate with having a higher average intelligence in the population. Unless you're arguing that the Mongol Hordes had better tech and more scholars than Imperial China and Indian Kingdoms? Or the Germanic tribes that swept through Europe were more civilized than the Roman Empire? Both the Mongols and the Germanic tribes went on to found economically "successful" states after subjugating the existing ones as well. And there are more examples of this. Like the Hyksos conquest of Ancient Egypt, the Islamic conquest of Persia, the Huns rampaging through Europe, etc.


 * For that matter, most of the technology that enabled Europeans to conquer the rest of the world during the colonial period did not originate indigenously or at least were not exclusive to them. Gunpowder and cannons for example, came from China. The various sciences and nautical technology came from more ancient sources, particularly in the Mediterranean and the Middle East. Even more basic technology missing from the Americas, like advanced metallurgy and wheels, are not exactly European-exclusive technology is it? When the purported products of their superior intellect is actually borrowed, how exactly does that prove that they have a "bigger supply of technological geniuses"? It's even more apparent when you realize that the colonial era resulted in a positive feedback of more technology, more resources, and even bigger weapons. All of which borrowed, stolen, adapted.


 * Yes bigger weapons does mean a more successful state. But bigger weapons is not automatically the result of higher intelligence. Nor does it in any way lead to the conclusion that it is therefore genetic. If anything, it proves the opposite. You don't inherit the genes for forging and using a sword. You learn it.--  O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  01:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not arguing for social Darwinism, I am saying that we have proof for changes in genes that mediate behaviors and that behavior and pretty much anything is genetic and heritable (http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/more-behavioral-genetic-facts/ & http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/the-son-becomes-the-father/). That fact can't be disputes, in fact what we call culture is basically expression of these innate behaviors. What my question is asking is when did these adaptations happen in different human populations that led to more successful cultures and societies or less successful.74.14.75.23 (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Where has the OP defined what they think "success" means? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I said its GDP, cultural achievements, etc. Read the article in OP to see what is being talked about.74.14.75.23 (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're making an argument for ethnic superiority. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Perhaps the facts may present something resembling that argument. Doesn't mean we should shy away from its discussion due to some misplaced sense of political correctness.74.14.75.23 (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Playing the PC card only serves to demonstrate what I'm saying. Who decided those criteria GDP and "cultural achievements"? The ones who have a strong GDP and consider their own "cultural achievements" to be superior. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So what if 74 IP is making an argument for ethnic superiority? In science, there's only ONE criteria for evaluating an argument, and that is, whether the argument is supported by the available EVIDENCE!  So just because the argument advocates a certain ideology (NO MATTER how unpopular or seemingly repugnant) DOES NOT give you an excuse to dismiss it right off your baseball bat -- it still has to be evaluated to see if the EVIDENCE supports it or not! 24.5.122.13 (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Evidence" in topics like this consists solely of looking for stuff that supports the pre-determined hypothesis of alleged racial superiority. Figures don't lie, but liars do figure. If you determine that nation A has a higher GDP than nation B, you have not demonstrated that nation A is more "successful" than (i.e. superior to) nation B - all you've demonstrated is that nation A has a higher GDP. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If figures don't lie, then how do you explain that study (quoted in the article Race and Intelligence) which found that blacks have an average IQ of 83 85 (that's borderline close to mental retardation, just so you know), Latinos have an average IQ of 89, but whites and Asians have an average IQ of over 100, and Ashkenazi Jews something like 115 113? 24.5.122.13 (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite easy to explain. (1) Those tests are written by people who would tend to score high on the tests they create; (2) an IQ test measures nothing except one's ability to take that IQ test; and (3) intelligence is not in races or ethnic groups, it's in individuals. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Precisely the kind of politically-correct non-answer that liberals are so famous for. BTW, are you aware that you can't spell LIbeRAl without spelling LIAR? 24.5.122.13 (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (Aside: Man, how I absolutely HATE all sans-serif fonts -- you can't tell between a capital I and a lowercase L!) 24.5.122.13 (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Your response (other than our shared dislike on sans-serif fonts) is a non-denial denial. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would I have to deny a statement that ain't got no leg to stand on? I know you LIbeRAls very well, and I'm VERY familiar with your favorite rhetorical tactic when the evidence contradicts your preconceived conclusions (whether it's the "all races have equal intelligence" concept, as is the case here, or something else like global-warming alarmism, anti-nuclear propaganda, or any of a whole bunch of other pet causes): Instead of disputing the evidence on its merits like real scientists should, you LIbeRAls (1) dismiss the evidence right off the baseball bat without giving any valid reason, (2) try to impugn the qualifications and/or motives of the people who came up with the evidence, and (3) restate your original preconceived notion in the form of a slogan while giving no evidence of your own to support it, as if the contrary evidence had never been brought up AT ALL.  Which is PRECISELY what you did here, except you switched items (1) and (2) around.  Problem is, this relies on AT LEAST THREE logical fallacies -- cherry-picking, ad-hominem fallacy and argument from ignorance -- so by using this tactic, all you're doing is discrediting YOUR OWN credibility! 24.5.122.13 (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, don't you see the irony in summarily dismissing the statistical figures from an entire scientific study right after saying that "figures don't lie"? Perhaps you should have said instead, "Figures don't lie, unless they contradict my preconceived conclusions". 24.5.122.13 (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Rushton & Jensen, if I remember rightly. Nope, not Rushton & Jensen -- this data was quoted in The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, also see The 10,000 Year Explosion and Race, Evolution and Behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.75.23 (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call RE&B a reliable source -- it has good data, but some VERY faulty analysis. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it is far more important to look at the "other means" than natural selection. We know full well that countries like China and Ireland have gone from being bastions of learning and civilization to the objects of discrimination and contempt and back again.  We know that there are obvious causes for lowered intelligence like malnutrition, lead and other toxins, bottle feeding and so forth.  We know that intensive treatment of learning disabilities and an equally intensive investment in education of those who are normal and above can pay off well.  And there is also a gradually increasing body of epigenetics that tells us that we should take some the ideas of Lysenkoism quite seriously - that it really is possible that how one generation is treated may have an effect on several that follow after it.  For all these reasons, it is vital that we understand that human capital - just like financial capital - doesn't just fall from heaven; it needs to be carefully developed and protected. Wnt (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As Wnt pointed out, these studies really do seem to pick and choose their evidence. Ignoring inconsistencies in history. If intelligence was genetic, ethnic groups with "superior intelligence" should have always been successful. Great civilizations should have stayed restricted to particular lineages. But they don't.


 * You can trace cultural influences quite readily, passing down from civilization to civilization (e.g. writing from Ancient Egyptians giving birth to the development of writing in neighboring later civilizations). But the groups remain ethnically separate, e.g. Greeks who later developed a phonetic alphabet that ultimately descended from Egyptian hieroglyphics are not descendants of Ancient Egyptians. In turn, Greece, once the cradle of western civilization, are not exactly an economic powerhouse still. Same with Romans who coopted Greek accomplishments later on, and even later on, the Germanic tribes of the Holy Roman Empire. Germanic peoples are not Romans, Romans are not Greeks, and Greeks are not Ancient Egyptians. It's culture being inherited not genes.


 * Nor can you easily measure the "accomplishments" of each civilization and compare them to figure out which had more intelligent people. Literally a [who domesticated the] apples and oranges [first] thing. Mesoamerican city-state civilizations (Mayan, Olmec, Aztec, etc.) had invented writing, the zero, and had one of the most accurate astronomical observations in the ancient world; yet they never developed advanced metallurgy. The Incan Empire was a vast complex bureaucratic civilization linked by continent-spanning paved roads; yet they never invented writing nor the wheel. Which of these two were more advanced?


 * Determining "success" by economic wealth is also not quite the measurement you're going for if you're gauging intelligence. Economic success isn't the sole result of, or even the main result of, intelligence. A lot of it depends on the starting environment, opportunism and yes, luck. After all, there are numerous instances of less technologically advanced ethnic groups conquering or assimilating older ones (some of them actually being retained as the ruling class). From the Germanic conquest of the western Roman Empire, to the Mongols overrunning the Chinese Empire and Indian Kingdoms, to the Hyksos invasion of Ancient Egypt. You can't argue that these conquerors were "more intelligent" when they were basically skin-wearing savages in comparison to the civilizations they held hostage or destroyed outright.


 * Because culture isn't genetic or innate. Even the linked blog purportedly showing how the "success factor" is genetically inherited because nobility/conqueror and wealthy families tend to stay on the elite strata for generations is a flawed conclusion to real evidence. Occam's razor would point the finger at the pile of gold handed down through generations rather than DNA. A healthy well-nourished kid with first-class education will almost always have better IQ results than impoverished kids whose parents didn't even have enough money to send them through primary school. IQ results are far more greatly affected by level of education, familial environment, childhood nutrition, and even language comprehension than it is affected by how smart your parents are. There are papers upon papers of this. That is a factor too large to be ignored by these studies. And yet they do ignore it.


 * There are several links and other books given already on criticisms and counterarguments to Cochran et al.'s The 10,000 Year Explosion, have you read them? Because this assertion that the success of countries is due to genetic superiority isn't as noncontroversial as you make it out to be. Just because they published books doesn't mean it has gained a lot of traction in the scientific community. And for the last time, be aware that the blog you originally linked to is by Cochran. "Proving" it by linking papers and books also by Cochran is circular sourcing. Unless you're just imploring everyone else to agree with you, then we're just wasting time here. They are not non-answers. There really is more to the objections than just being "not PC". -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  00:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I call rubbish on your statement that "IQ results are far more greatly affected by level of education, familial environment, childhood nutrition, and even language comprehension than it is affected by how smart your parents are" -- most studies actually indicate that IQ is a HIGHLY heritable trait, with between 45% and 80% heritability. So in fact, it's the OTHER way around -- how smart your parents are is a far bigger factor in determining your IQ than what school you go to or what you eat for breakfast! 24.5.122.13 (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And as for your statement that "If intelligence was genetic, ethnic groups with "superior intelligence" should have always been successful", that is a non-sequitir -- IQ studies indicate that intelligence indeed does have a strong genetic component, but as StuRat and some others correctly pointed out, superior intelligence does not always translate to a nation's success. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Eh? We are discussing whether the success of nations is due to genetic superiority aren't we? Not simply that IQ is inheritable. Because let me quote something from the article for you: "Estimates in the academic research of the heritability of IQ have varied from below 0.5 to a high of 0.8 (where 1.0 indicates that monozygotic twins have no variance in IQ and 0 indicates that their IQs are completely uncorrelated). Turkheimer (2003) found that for children of low socioeconomic status heritability of IQ falls almost to zero." Emphasis mine. If that isn't a clearer indication of the far stronger effect of environment, I don't know what is. It's not how smart your parents are, it's how rich.


 * And you haven't exactly shown why that statement is non sequitur. Can you explain then why the dominant ethnic groups today are not the same dominant ethnic groups in the past? Linking me to Heritability of IQ doesn't exactly prove anything regarding that, does it? --  O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  01:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Because, as you YOURSELF pointed out, there are other factors besides intelligence that determine a nation's success -- factors like natural resources, culture, economic system (capitalism promoting success much better than any other system), geography, etc., etc. In fact, inherited intelligence is only ONE of many factors that determine a nation's success.  So just because some ethnic groups are smarter than others (which they are) DOES NOT mean they will always be more successful, and it IS a non-sequitir to use the success argument as evidence for a nation's intelligence level -- in fact, this is PRECISELY the same non-sequitir that many racialists used in the past, i.e. "such-and-such a nation is backward, therefore they must all be stupid", only turned on its head!  As for what we are discussing, why not ask the OP: Are we discussing whether genetic human capital is A factor in a nation's success (i.e. one factor out of several), or whether it is THE MAIN factor in a nation's success?  Because these are two VERY different questions, and the answers to them may well be completely different. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As for Turkheimer, that is only ONE study out of many -- Nagoshi and Johnson found that the heritability of IQ did not vary as a function of parental socioeconomic status in the 949 families of Caucasian and 400 families of Japanese ancestry who took part in the Hawaii Family Study of Cognition (emphasis mine), and Asbury et al. actually found that not only did economic status not have any effect on most IQ categories, but the heritability of verbal ability was found to be higher in low-SES and high-risk environments. If that isn't a clearer indication that wealth doesn't affect IQ, I don't know what is! 24.5.122.13 (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And that's the crux of the matter right there. And just so the liberal posters don't prattle on about "environmental effects on IQ," could you post the links to to those two conclusive, mainstream papers? Thanks, hopefully we can move on and accept the fact that some races simply have lower or higher IQ on average. That is something to accept and live with, not derideand stay in denial of due to one's ideology.74.14.75.23 (talk) 04:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, here's the link to Nagoshi & Johnson: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=344705&fileId=S0021932004007023 and here's the one to Asbury et al.: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605000218 And just in case you missed it the first time, here's my question to you: Was your original question regarding whether a nation's genetic biological capital A factor in its success (i.e. one factor out of numerous others), or whether it is THE PRIMARY factor in the nation's success? 24.5.122.13 (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And in case people doubted that European society is generally better than many others, read this74.14.75.23 (talk) 04:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't I know it! In fact, anyone who had ever read about King Philip's War would know that the so-called "peaceful" Indians were anything but!  24.5.122.13 (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Seriously? An "Amurikka Fuck Yeah" circle-jerk after you just gave us a lecture about cherry-picking, ad hominems, and argument from ignorance? If that's an example of your ethnic superiority... no comment. LOL I see your Nagoshi & Johnson and raise you with a couple of more recent papers:
 * "Genetic and Environmental Influences on Cognition Across Development and Context" (Tucker-Drob et al., 2013) (layman's overview here)
 * "On the Nature and Nurture of Intelligence and Specific Cognitive Abilities: The More Heritable, the More Culture Dependent" (Kan et al., 2013) (layman's overview here)
 * And yes, it's strange how you're actually agreeing with everyone else you called a lIbeRaLIarlivERlyRewhatever (regardless of citizenship apparently), and yet you're so mad about it. Not really that relevant on the actual question posed however - is the success of nations due to genetic superiority of the dominant ethnic group? But then again, OP already took a side to the nature vs. nurture on the basis of a blog entry and hasn't read a single link that goes against his chosen premise. No to mention that somehow (despite claims to objectivity) this thread became yet another confirmation that apparently some Americans still can't get over the Civil War Indians. So yeah, this was not a question and we did waste our time. I'm off. :) -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  17:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Is success of countries due to better human biological capital? (arbitrary break)

 * "children of low socioeconomic status heritability of IQ falls almost to zero" No wonder. They have nothing to inherit. Studies of identical twins reared apart have shown that every piece of behavior is genetically determined. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not only that, behavioral geneticists basically understand the biogenetic causations of most behaviors, even complex ones likes schizophrenia, intelligence, sexual deviance etc. It is also known how these behaviors differ between human populations.74.14.75.23 (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with the last poster. It is also interesting to observe even on this page how people cannot accept such basic and well established truths. All kinds of declarations are made, environment is praised, poverty is condemend as if poverty is not a function of IQ. It is not that the IQ is a function of poverty, it is precisely the other way around. I recall that years ago people denied that homosexuality is genetic. Now it is well established: something is wrong with sex chromosomes. It is all in the genes. Examples may go on and on. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I recommend a little care with those words. Saying that homosexuality is the result of a fault involves making a value judgement, one that I'm sure many would disagree with. HiLo48 (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, you are correct. I've made a mistake, how could I? In fact their genes are perfect, it is our genes that are screwed up. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, to Obsidian, the 10,000 year explosion is a generally accepted book, basically is has very little criticism against it, it represents the latest in genetics and psychology and other fields.74.14.75.23 (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nah. You know the one thing 10,000 Year Explosion, The Bell Curve, and Race, Evolution and Behavior have in common? The Pioneer Fund, founded in the 1930s by an American adherent of the Nazi ideology. Are you perhaps a member?-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  03:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a complete non-argument. I invite you to provide me any critical peer-reviewed reviews of The 10,000 Year Explosion. I doubt you will be able to.74.14.75.23 (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is. If you're arguing about its acceptance in the scientific community. Or its purported "objectivity". Because despite your earlier victim-posing, the side with the clearer ideological agenda is your side (probably including you). Everyone you have given so far from Rushton to Richard Lynn to Cochran to Murray all have connections to the organization and some are vocal proponents of eugenics. And I have given you the links. You haven't really read anything in this thread have you? You're just using this for a soapbox. Let me link you again. Here and here. Enjoy.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  08:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

One of the main criticisms of the idea of race seems to be that although human populations do cluster into groups with various genetic distances between them, the number of clusters you chose to value is arbitrary; the computer can divide all of the genomes into however many clusters are pre specified and which number of clusters you give importance to depends on social preconceptions of what race means.

The problem is sometimes described as one of resolution and granularity. This is how I conceptualise it: presuming that you have a diagram of population clusters on a computer screen (with proportional genetic distances shown), and you have information for 1 to 100 clusters, you could ‘zoom in’ to look at each of the 100 degrees of resolution and see a different number of races (although presumably zooming in still maintains the presence of the larger clusters but just gives more minute detail). In my diagram, the dot or blob representing a population could be sized according to population size to show significant outliers like South Asians…and as you zoom in the blobs differentiate into smaller ones. Any preference for a particular number is said to be unjustified and chosen to support socially popular preconceptions. Am I getting this right?

Lets say you look at the highest resolution image you can practically fit on a computer screen and still show genetic distance accurately; would it not be visible to the eye that there are a certain number of major clusters in the data? A cluster *obviously* being a group of populations in which the two most distant from one another are significantly closer than either are to the nearest population from another major cluster. Would that not then give you something that can be reasonably described or meaningfully described as major races? You could then have as many typologies of minor races as you wished.

Note that demanding less clusters than the true amount would give a misleading picture but you could not demand more major clusters than there are…after a certain point, you would see all the major clusters and further zooming would only lead to more detail in each cluster.

Or is it messier than I am making out? Aren’t such clusters obviously apparent in the data itself? Would this still hold (that most populations are part of a major cluster, of which there are x amount) if you literally had data for every human genome…or are the clusters appearing more separate due to selective choosing of populations, leaving out intermediary populations?

Would the clusters not correspond to major geographic areas like continents and also patterns of migration out of Africa such that you could add lines connecting the dots to shows lineage and splits between clusters and populations over time? You could presumably also map the cluster diagram onto a map of the world- showing all the correct distances between all the populations on the same diagram would presumably produce a diagram in which the clusters would take the same relative positions as the continents, though not necessarily in proportion to the geographic distances. In this case the different approaches to race (genetic populations, lineages, geographically isolated populations) are seen as simply different parts of the same picture, not mutually exclusive arbitrary conceptions. They ARE genetic population clusters and at the same time they ARE lineages that migrated, moved to relatively isolated locations, formed breeding populations (populations in which the members breed with each other at a significantly higher frequency than with outsiders), and diverged genetically (which is why there are the clusters). Other (pre-scientific?) conceptions based on looks are crude and antiquated…they could tell something was going on but we can now understand what.

The striking thing is that before genetic analysis, we could so accurately identify major genetic clusters by looking, though this wasn’t infallible and could lead to mistakes- there are south east Asians that look very very like Africans despite large genetic distance because they have the same equatorial adaptations to climate. I could even tell the difference between some of the minor clusters. For example, I’m confident I could tell the difference between a group of Irish men and Dutch men by looking at them- that’s how visible even a relatively small amount of divergence can be. We could tell a lot by looking, even if we could also make mistakes that way. The traditional classifications were not completely arbitrary- they did correspond to genetic groups.

Social classifications are not ‘completely arbitrary’. You couldn’t just make up one and say it is equally valid as the traditional classifications. For example: ‘there are five races: those from the west side of continents, east, north, south, and central.’ Or a completely arbitrary ‘race 1: South Asians and Australian aborigines; race 2: Native south Americans and Europeans’ etc. None of these definitions could find any genetic support whatsoever, whereas the traditional classifications can.

One could say that there is no single valid conception of race because there are so many possible racial typologies, from ones that identify 5 races to ones that identify 100 or 1000. But even from that point of view, it is not strictly accurate to say that ‘race’ however defined has no biological validity. All the typologies have biological validity. And if it can be operationalsied in a simple, clear way (like Chuck’s genetic similarity principle) then it is meaningful and potentially useful. Its simply up to us whether we chose to use it. Plus as I have argued, there conceptually could a definite number of obvious major clusters, meaningfully described as races. Or perhaps not, depending on whether you chose to use that word.

In any case, even if you think that genetic variation is too messy to fit traditional conceptions of race, or there is no definitive typology emerging from the data itself, or you just choose not to use the term race because you think it could be in some way harmful, and so you don’t call the clusters races and you abandon the language of race and just talk about populations and clusters, this doesn’t in any way undermine the arguments about population average IQ differences being genetic. So you can talk about this in either racial or non-racial terms, as follows: Option 1) The European race has a higher IQ than the African race. Option 2) European populations have higher average IQs than Sub Saharan African populations (due to differing frequencies of IQ boosting alleles in those populations.) Or if you want to be more specific, for example, 3) the national average IQ of Nigeria is significantly lower than the national average IQ of Britain due to variation in the frequency of IQ boosting mutations. Same could be true for any number of other traits.

So, the issue of whether or not races exist is academic. To say that they don’t doesn’t really make all that much difference to anybody and doesn’t circumvent the problem of group IQ differences and whether they are genetic. Or any number of other contentions.74.14.75.23 (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Except that you're putting way too much importance on a flawed measurement - IQ. There is still really no totally foolproof way of quantifying something like "intelligence". Even the measurement of choice of these studies - "cognitive ability" - is actually measured by learned things, as pointed out by Kan et al., and vary wildly from methodology to methodology. And you're completely ignoring the differences of social and economic factors involved, as if ignoring them somehow makes them irrelevant. In your example of Nigeria and Britain, one of which has comprehensive education, far higher living standards, and an older statehood. Do you really think these have no effects? AboutFace 22 argued earlier that poverty is the result of stupidity and that "everything was genetic" (so incredibly ridiculous and ignorant of literature published so far on this question that it doesn't even warrant a reply). Do you really believe that? There are geniuses in Nigeria just like there are stupid people in Britain. There are poor professors and there are rich idiots (which is actually almost always the case, the academia is not a profession for getting rich). Inheritance does include money too, you know. India is one good example of that. A country mired in poverty and overpopulation, with a relatively low average national IQ. But they are also the source of some of the most brilliant physicists, mathematicians, and doctors in the world. Not to mention an ongoing phenomenon that shows you pretty much that intelligence is really not genetic alone - the fact that IQ scores are actually rising all around the world as living standards improve (see Flynn effect). Or what about the fact that East Asians score far higher than Europeans. But they're not exactly the dominant ethnic group, are they? You're obviously just rehearsing things you're already convinced in. But do read our articles on Race (human classification), Nations and intelligence, or the criticisms on Lynn's IQ and the Wealth of Nations. Might help if you actually listened to the objections and not just parrot KKK Monthly or whatever it is you're reading. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  08:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh man, can someone say "strawman argument"?! Because this IS a strawman argument -- nobody said that IQ was EXCLUSIVELY heritable, but by far the majority of studies indicate that it's MOSTLY heritable (between 45% and 85% heritable -- see Heritability of IQ), and none of this blather about Nigeria vs. Britain can disprove THAT!  (Not to mention that the statement that East Asians score "far higher" than Europeans is a LIE -- they actually score SLIGHTLY HIGHER (106 for East Asians vs. 103 for Europeans)!)  So shut your trap already and quit spreading all this BS!  24.5.122.13 (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And yes, if IQ is in fact 75-85% heritable, then your precious "social and economic factors" ARE mostly irrelevant, and can be safely ignored! 24.5.122.13 (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Who creates the IQ tests? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL. Did you just say 45% to 85% and then contradict yourself by saying 75% elsewhere? And no, YOU may not have said that. But AboutFace 22 and 74.14 certainly did. No one is disputing that IQ is inheritable, the question is to what extent is it affected by environment. Those questions haven't been answered yet. "Figures" notwithstanding of IQ tests taken without consideration given to socioeconomic backgrounds. If anyone is spreading BS it's you. And I have a very good idea of why. Your political spectrum (again, I'm not even American) isn't exactly famous for being objective when it comes to race. Something bafflingly unique to American Southerners.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  00:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Getting up
Why do humans experience a mild loss of balance when getting out of bed in the middle of the night for example to go to the toilet but not in the morning when waking up? 90.194.60.138 (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If you get up quickly, say if you need to go to the bathroom immediately, there can be a drop in blood pressure to the brain that causes you to get dizzy. Sitting up first, then standing up a minute later, is a good way to prevent this.  (I believe the heart beats faster to maintain pressure to the brain, but there's a lag between the low blood pressure signal and when the countermeasures take effect.)


 * If you gradually wake up in the morning, then your heart will have time to speed up and increase your blood pressure before you get up. StuRat (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * See orthostatic hypotension. --catslash (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In the middle of the night it is quite dark, and you cannot orient yourself so easily, while in the morning you can see what is where. I only speak from my own experience. Edison (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Cats and Kittens
Hi everybody, I was wondering when do cats develop their solitary nature. When both of our cats had litters of kittens, the kittens seemed to enjoy being around other kittens and playing with each other. When and why do they go on to develop such a solitary nature? --Andrew 13:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * In my experience, they are rather flexible. If you have a house full of cats, they learn to tolerate one another.  In nature, however, they would tend to separate from their mother once they reach adulthood, and avoid other adult cats, except for mating, after that.   StuRat (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Feral cats tend to stick together in colonies. Wild cats, however, are solitary. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Puberty. μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

How are instincts encoded in genome and get converted into information in the brain? Is the process known?
How are instincts encoded in genome and get converted into information in the brain? In asking the question, I'm making some assumptions: I'm puzzled by how the process works. Consider the example of arousal in postpubescent human males at the sight of human female breasts. It seems that the information needed to enable the instinct is quite complex: I compare the human brain to a computer. From that perspective, the question is about how complex programming instructions get decoded from genome and (pre-)installed into the human brain.
 * 1) Instincts are based on information in the brain
 * 2) The information is not encoded as gross structures in the brain, but like memory
 * The instinct should be activated when the individual has reach a certain maturity level
 * The individual needs to recognize that the "trigger objects" are on the body of a female member of the same species; recognizing the latter by sight seems itself a complex task
 * The individual needs to distinguish breasts from other objects that bears superficial geometric similarity

How much does science know about the mechanism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.41.240 (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Coincidentally, I was thinking about to asking the very same thing! I've been watching our tiny puppy grow up into a gigantic beast.  He wasn't brought up with other dogs - so his opportunity to learn things comes only from my wife and I.  So how does he know to do a "Play bow" when he wants to play, or lick your chin as a sign of submission?  There are lots of "instinctive" doggy behaviors that he has in common with all other dogs that can only come from his genome.
 * My suspicion is that finding the genetic trail that causes such a complex behavior as chin-licking may be exceedingly difficult...and most likely, the answer is "We Don't Know...yet".
 * But let's find out whether anyone here knows.
 * SteveBaker (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Instinct and alike precognition is usually simple subconscious logic or logic based on subconscious informations received. So its just "using your senses and brain" in a natural but usually not conscious way.
 * Its much like your field of view: You can not recognize objects at the edge of your sight - you need to focus to identify objects - but you will recognize something big suddenly moving even 90 degrees out of your focus and your reflexes will process these information in a surprisingly sophisticated way without "needing" your consciousness.
 * Your genes "only" contain a master plan how all your cells get build and thus how they work (together). Everything beyond that is a consequence of the collected capabilities of all your organs and thus are "extended" capabilities like "instinct" but also "limitations" (like instinct is subconscious). --Kharon (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Such behaviors are medicate by chemicals, appropriate hormones, some of which perhaps haven't been discovered yet. Others are well known, sexual steroids for example, etc. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a hugely complicated issue with no one definition of or mechanism of "instinct". Studies on various types of voles, for example, have shown that genetically determined levels of oxytocin determine (ceteris paribus) whether the males of a vole species are monogamous or promiscuous.  Various wasps and other lower animals follow fixed action patterns.  Whether they experience pleasure from this in the same way we do masturbating or shooting up is an open question.


 * No one has any idea what the mechanisms are in beaver brains for building dams, but a simple set of genes that cause pleasure in felling trees, hoarding wood, and blocking running water might explain the issue in five easy steps or less.


 * Human sex seems to require two whole "instincts". The opposite (or sometimes same or both) sexes smell good, and rubbing is pleasurable.  The problem at this point is simply that we don't have instruments delicate enough to probe the brain to determine such obvious truths.  We may, or may not achieve such knowledge before skyfall. μηδείς (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It might be interesting to note that Charles Darwin devoted a whole chapter of On the Origin of Species (chapter 7) to instinct, he saw it as one of the strongest theoretical challenges to his theory.. Vespine (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * See Genetic programming for an idea of how people think the whole business works. Except the genetic programming in an organism does not work directly to say where each thing should go but in setting up an environment where they automatically form. See for where people are trying to simulate the cells of a nematode worm including its 302 neurons - to push the analogy we'll need to crawl (or wiggle) here before walking. And by the way simulating a single cell properly would be much more complex than simulating a worm with general models of cells. Dmcq (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Aerobic exercise
Why is it that walking up a steep hill works your cardio more than cycling. When you're walking up a steep hill or a mountain for a while, you get more out of breath than if you cycle. When cycling, you don't really get out of breath regardless of the distance. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.244.21 (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to cycle up steeper mountains. Or cycle faster. Or both ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It's all about gearing. Like any 'engine', our bodies are most efficient at certain energy conversion rates and inefficient at others.  The wonderful thing about the bicycle is that it can adjust the gearing to the terrain and the speed you want to go to best match the output that our legs can generate.  All our bodies have is shifting gait between walking and running - which isn't so good at that.


 * So when you're walking up that hill, you're demanding more energy than your body is comfortable at generating, so all of the panting, muscle cramps and exhaustion sets in pretty quickly. On a bike, when the going gets tough, you can just drop down a gear and it gets easier (albeit slower)...and when the ground levels off, you can click up through the gears and get more speed for the same, comfortable, energy input.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, we may be answering someone who lacks a gearshift, or who lacks a hilly road. Many of us are blessed with both and the will to use them. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What about rowing machines? Does that work cardio more or less than walking up steel hills and cycling? Rowing machines also don't really get you out of breath. 82.132.244.31 (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I try to do most of my aerobic training with a heart rate monitor (because I'm lazy, and it helps me to overcome the tendency to go slower than I should for good cardio). I can raise my heart rate to more-or-less the same level on a cross-trainer or on my bicycle, or walking up many levels of stairs. I don't measure while walking or hiking. On a bicycle, it's somewhat harder to maintain a constant level because of traffic, turns, and the general need to concentrate on the road, not the heart rate. But on a purely physiological level, I have no trouble to reach the same level on the bike as on the training machine. Of course, I can also cruise at 20 km/h with little exertion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The power to weight ratio of most people is below 3 Watt/kg. This means that the maximum sustainable speed for cycling up a hill at 30 degrees inclination will be below 2.2 km/h for most people. People will tend to overexert themselves as they are used to cycling uphil for small distances or running uphil much faster than is sustainable. For short busts it's not a problem for an unfit person to expend a kW of power. But of it's a long stretch you have to cycle, then the effort you need to do to move at the 2.2 km/h snail's pace will be demoralizing to most. Count Iblis (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Concurrent properties in materials?
Can a material be transparent as a clear glass and conduct electricity? Be soft as rubber and conduct electricity? Be like soft as rubber and conduct heat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.250.94 (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * To combine good transparency with good electrical conductivity is a little difficult. Light is an electromagnetic wave, and if a material conducts electricity at optical frequencies, then it will necessarily be reflective (and shiny if its surface is smooth at a wavelength scale). However, there will be a frequency above which the charge-carriers in the material cannot 'keep up' (the plasma frequency), so that the material will cease to conduct and become transparent (while remaining conductive to lower frequency currents). Unfortunately this frequency is higher than that of visible light for all metals. Some metals are transparent in ultraviolet though, and so only just miss being transparent to our eyes. Generally metals start to become transparent in the X-ray band. --catslash (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * See Transparent conducting film and Conductive polymer for our relevant articles on the first two substances. Soft materials with high thermal conductivity are common - see thermal grease for an example. Tevildo (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Like Water? --Kharon (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really. Water itself has a very low (non-zero, but still very low) conductivity, though ionic solutions are clear, conductive liquids.  -- Jayron  32  01:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A simple material may not be - but composites can have these properties. Salty water is very conductive, and transparent.  Rubber that's impregnated with carbon is reasonably conductive, and it's soft.  A thin-walled, carbon-impregnated plastic bag full of liquid mercury would be soft, and very conductive. SteveBaker (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thermally conductive pads are rubber-like and are reasonably good conductors of heat. They are used as a contact material between a heat-producing device and a heat sink. They are likely composites, like the carbon-impregnated rubber mentioned above.--Srleffler (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

pelvic hip question
4 yrs ago I was in wreak. many injuries im not trying to sue anyone my problem is other than im 60 is all I was told was I shattered the cap that the ball at end of leg fits in. drs wouldn't let me rehab they said at least a year. I don't know the proper names of the bones cant pronounce them either for that im sorry.now my question is that part of hip. theres a commercial on tv wear att. are advertising metal to metal hip replacement law suit. im not out for money my dislike for lawyers is well I don't use them don't want to help them make a penny. I was I county hospital no regular MD.is this something I need seen about im having some lower back pain now not that often. I just don't want problems down the road I already have a limp from it. if this don't qualify as a question you answer that's cool I will understand. sorry about my 1st grade spelling THANK YOU69.19.14.43 (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're asking for medical advice, which we cannot provide. You need to see a doctor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To answer the part of the question we're allowed to answer, that part of the hip is called the acetabulum. See also Hip replacement for our article on the procedure.  You do need to contact a doctor for medical advice and a lawyer for legal advice, as Bugs has mentioned. Tevildo (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you've had a dose of freaky ghost, who you gonna call? The Canadian Haunting and Paranormal Society! Because they're free. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously though, get well soon. I know how hip pain feels, but not enough about how to fix it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Medicine: non mainstream therapies
Hi all,

I am not a native English speaker, and I should name a therapy that is inside the field of established science (e.g.: not Chinese medicine, or homeopathy) but not really mainstream. It's ok if I say "unconventional therapy", or in this case it would look like something related to "alternative medicine"?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.217.52.241 (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You might need to clarify "inside the field of established science but not really mainstream".  Complimentary medicine might be closer than Alternative medicine; regretfully, both of links redirect to the same page.
 * This article from the National Institute of Health might shed some light: Complementary, Alternative, or Integrative Health: What’s In a Name?  — 71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Complimentary medicine? Is that like when someone says you look great and you start to feel better? Matt Deres (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I mean a treatment about which already a lot of scientific literature in peer reviewed journals exists, with good results, but that it's not among the most used ones for a given disease.

188.217.52.241 (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe I understand what you mean; but I can't find the proper term. "Emergent (new or nacent)  medical treatments" might be semantically correct, but that term is used differently in the medical field.  Unless somebody has a better idea, I'd go with  "unconventional", since "alternative" has a (sometimes unfair) negative connotation. —71.20.250.51 (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Off-label" is the term for this use of drugs - I don't know if there's a more general term for other forms of medical treatment. Tevildo (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You seem to be describing mainstream, so "unconventional" might not be entirely appropriate. You seem to be referring to therapy that I would refer to as "not currently the dominant therapy". Just because it is not amongst the highest-ranked treatment does not make it "unconventional" or "alternative". Many factors can influence which treatment is dominant, including factors such as cost, availability and practitioner familiarity and bias. You may also be wanting to distinguish the degree to which a treatment has been established, as in whether it has been through clinical trials etc. Various phrases come to mind: "not established", "not trialed", "emerging", "promising", "in minority use", "unproven", "not approved", whatever, depending on exactly what distinction you're trying to make. I do not know what the best medical terminology is in each case though. —Quondum 01:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There are variations between countries about what exactly constitutes "normal" clinical/medical provision. I was amazed to find that physiotherapy, which is mainstream in the UK, is not mainstream in the US, for example. The term in the UK for such therapies (physiotherapy, occupational health, dietetics, for example) is associate health professions. They are not clinically trained so not doctors or nurses, but still have some medical training (usually anatomy and physiology, sometimes pathology). However, here in the UK it is possible to be treated by a homeopath on the NHS, so that might meet the OP's criteria. Also at the Christie hospital in Manchester, therapies such as reflexology are routinely used on patients - as they are in many hospices in the UK. So it depends on your viewpoint. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Every therapy to be accepted by official medicine in the United States must be demonstrated to be superior to placebo. From what I've heard about UK "therapies" it is far from the case. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Classification of various things.
Hi there. I am looking for a system of classification (in public domain) of various everyday things, in short, things a person runs into during their lifetime. I googled a bit and found many websites aimed primarily at high school students or perhaps their teachers like this one. This is not what I want. I don't need a lot of Latin, I don't need biological classifications, I don't need it to be pictorial. I will give an example of what I want but I am not sure such a thing exists.

''Living things that move (a category) ==> human (a subcategory) ==> face (subcategory) ==> nose (a subcategory) '' A lot of this stuff, as you can see, is trivial, however, it takes a lot of brainstorming to make it really comprehensive. Does anybody know of such a classification? Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It is indeed a hard problem to provide such a general classification. OpenCyc and WordNet and two such databases of knowledge, but I don't know if they are public domain. OpenCyc has taxonomic classifications and WordNet has notions of semantic similarity. --Mark viking (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting references although hardly applicable to what I have in mind. Nonetheless I appreciate what you posted. Thanks. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Roget's Thesaurus is based on this sort of classification system - I'm not sure if it has a name, though. You may also want to look at Leibniz' characteristica universalis (or "universal characteristic" if you don't like the Latin) and Aristotle's Categories. Tevildo (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The Suggested Upper Merged Ontology aims at providing such a thing. Note that the example given above is not strictly correct. "Human" is-a subcategory of "Living things that move", but face is not a subcategory of human. Instead, a human has-a face, and a face has-a nose. I am-an incorrigible know-it-all, but at least I have-a sense of humour. ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * On reading this question, I immediately thought of the semantic web, including its many efforts to standardize a data scheme. You might also find WikiData's knowledge base, which is a collection of structured data in a hybrid MediaWiki / WikiBase format (which is an evolving, amorphous "standard").
 * For example, you might be looking for OWL - but in order to make use of the OWL language for structuring and defining a data model, you need to understand OWL's context and how it fits into the rest of a semantic environment. Arguably, this kind of data abstraction gets pretty meta: you need a semantic model of your semantic model before you can use it to model your semantics!  Nimur (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * My tenth-grade chemistry book had a taxonomy of existence. The first division was between pure and impure substances.  Pure substances included elements, particals, and pure molecular chemicals.  Impure substances included mixtures and composites.  Mixtures included solutions and gross mixtures.  Composites included conglomerations (native copper and quartz formation, mountain, planet) and biological entities.  Biological enties included organisms, their products, parts remains and artifacts, such as a mollusc's shell, a bird's nest, and a hammer.  You might also look up ontology and categories, like Categories (Aristotle).  It's also important to remember that what is, is.  Our concepts are tools made by humans, not restraints upon nature. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The Oxford Historical Thesaurus, which is unfortunately not public domain, has this kind of classification. "Nose," in the relevant sense, has the classification: the external world > the living world > body > external parts of body > head > face > nose, with further subclassifications. John M Baker (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * See Category:Classification systems.—Wavelength (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I really appreciate all contributions, John Baker's especially. I want to emphasize though that chemistry things are beyond the scope of what I need. It is all for visual perception really, so I need to classify things people ogles during their lives. They must be in front our noses visible and available to touch. Thanks --AboutFace 22 (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As a computer programmer (using "object oriented programming") we often have to deal with these kinds of classifications...and it can be quite difficult. One thing that's well-understood in my field is that it's critical not to muddy the concept of "is-a-kind-of" and "is-contained-by".   Your initial example ("Living things that move (a category) ==> human (a subcategory) ==> face (subcategory) ==> nose (a subcategory)") makes exactly that mistake.  A human is-a-kind-of livingThingThatMoves which is-a-kind-of thingThatMoves which is-a-kind-of thing.   But a face is-contained-by a human...it's not a kind of human   so you have 'human contains face contains nose'.    However, these categories are rarely as strictly hierarchical as you're imagining.  After all, a tree is "a thing that doesn't move"...but the category "living thing" is neither a kind of thing-that-moves or a kind of thing-that-doesn't move...so it has to be a kind of thing.  Now both trees and humans are living things - and they are also (respectively) things that move and things that don't move.   So you don't have a clear-cut unidirectional break-down of everything.   It's a web.   It's also a tangled web.   Mathematics is a kind of set-of-ideas which is a kind of "set" which is a kind of mathematical concept.


 * Is a human corpse a kind of human? Not really because it's not a living thing or a thing-that-moves.  Is Queen Victoria not a human because of that?  What about Harry Potter - is a 'fictional human' a kind of human? This gets very difficult.  If you decide to split dead objects entirely away from living so that you can keep "human" as a "thing that moves" then you need categories like "Dead Frenchman" alongside "Frenchman"...or do you put Frenchman into both the "Dead Human" or "Human" categories?  That's going to become EXCEEDINGLY messy!    "Human" can either be both a "living thing" and a "dead thing" but not an "inorganic thing"...which would be fine if you didn't have ikky things like "Queen Victory Action figure" - which is inert plastic but has ought to be in some sub-category of "representations of humans"...and where you'd hope there was some higher level category that contained living human, dead human, unborn human and "representation of human"....


 * So life isn't going to be quite as simple as you may imagine.


 * Evidence of this is the Wikipedia category system - where there can be loops (both deliberate and accidental) in the category tree and where almost everything belongs to multiple categories.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

SteveBaker, thank you. What you said is interesting of course and it is not something that has not been uderstood. Sure, I understand how complex the whole undertaking is. However my goal is to avoid complexity as much as possible. One of the reasons is that classification should result in computer code, so it must be workable. Also as I said it will be limited to the things we see or potentially can see and even touch. Thus (I hope) abstract concepts will be either minimized or completley set aside. The whole thing is for visual perception, this is why I will most likely be able to impose such limitations. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

SteveBaker, did you mean "Queen Victoria Action figure?" --AboutFace 22 (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

To help you in your search, it might help to know that you are basically looking for an ontology. Some additional info is at Ontology_(information_science), which is basically the same concept but tied to a specific application. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Electric weapons
Have Leyden jars, Tesla coils, etc. ever been used in warfare? 24.5.122.13 (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ever? It's impossible to know: we can't possibly expect everything that ever happened to be documented!  But I am not aware of any famous instances.  If you're willing to broaden the definitions of these to mean largely anything similar to a Leyden jar or Tesla coil - like any battery or capacitor, or any coil with a spark-gap - then we can almost certainly say that similar devices were used in early electronics.  That would include radios, telegraphs, and so forth - and these technologies were used in support of military activities and warfare.
 * Leyden jars in particular represent a very primitive type of capacitor. Almost as soon as inventors found practical use for stored charge, large bulky jars were supplanted by more modern forms.
 * "Tesla coil" is, today, a generic term to refer to a coiled wire with an air-gap for discharging current. Again, if you are willing to suitably generalize this, we could say that Heinrich Hertz's induction coil radio transmitter was built from a Tesla coil - except that Hertz's work predates Nikolai Tesla's!
 * Nimur (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is some speculation that the ark of the covenant may have been an electric weapon.  See .  My mentioning this is not an endorsement of the idea, but it is at least a well covered one.   You can find discussions of the ark in this vein using a simple Google search.  -- Jayron  32  22:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this fits the category that you are asking about, but the railgun is "an electrically powered electromagnetic projectile launcher", although a practical weapon is still in development. Alansplodge (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not quite what I'm asking about -- I was asking specifically about weapons that directly use electric shock for antipersonnel effects, not to launch a projectile or find a target for other weapons. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Would electric fences, tasers, electrolasers, cattle prods, parrillas, picanas or electric chairs count? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Are any of these used on the battlefield (as opposed to domestic law enforcement)? 24.5.122.13 (talk) 05:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The fences and the electrolasers. But the others are often used when the line between "domestic law enforcement" and "war against citizenry" gets really blurry. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note also, many of these have been used on people captured from the battlefield often by people who are much more associated with those on the battlefield than anything which can be considered "domestic law enforcement" (although the lines between the two are often blurry among those who used such things). Nil Einne (talk) 06:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There are electric fences being used as anti-piracy/boarding measures. Google "Secure-ship" for one.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * True, but I was thinking more along the lines of offensive weapons, not obstacles. But yes, electrified barbed-wire fences were used occasionally in World War 1 as anti-infantry obstacles. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 05:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There's Raiden (Mortal Kombat). His existence is dubious, but DARPA has probably at least considered his combat characteristics. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, Lord. Why is it that it is so much easier to think up weapons than anything else?  I ought to toss this idea out of mind with the others, but I suppose that the agencies who imagine themselves the new Gods would already have arrogated such a power: it strikes me that if a Lightning rocket can bring lightning to the ground for research, then surely the drones that patrol the air must have an option to pass through the most highly charged part of the cloud and shoot a much smaller rocket that crosses the same distance going downward that releases the same payload.  Even when lightning strikes from the blue nobody gives it a second thought. Wnt (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Did men really become feminized 50,000 years ago?
Several science articles report without any criticism or scientific analysis a paper published by a Utah graduate student who analyzed a few skulls from tens of thousands of years ago, along with numerous recent skulls, and concluded that mens' testerone levels dropped suddenly, or that receptors for testosterone decreased, 50 thousand years ago, and that as soon as men became thus feminized. great things such as art and technological advances ensued. The reports mention there suddenly occurring "agreeableness and lowered aggression and that, in turn, led to changed faces and more cultural exchange." This is based on the skulls becoming less "masculine" looking 50,000 years ago, in the authors' estimation. I have no access to the original paper, so I would appreciate input and analysis by anyone with access who can evaluate the paper. Has anyone provided alternative explanations of the findings? What on earth would have caused a sudden lowering of testosterone levels in males? Was the paper contrasting Neanderthals, with brow ridges, versus Cro Magnons, without brow ridges? How did they assess the difference in testosterone levels in fossils? By chemical assay or by conjecture and hand waving? Why would women suddenly dig metrosexuals as sex partners 50 thousand years ago, as opposed to the manly men they previously preferred? Edison (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Good old sexual selection for neoteny maybe?-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  23:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You can't make such far-reaching conclusions from skull shape alone -- this sounds like 18th-century phrenology bullshit, not solid science. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The original press releases are here. The original paper is paywalled. But as far as I understand it, differences in testosterone lead to differences on skull shape. The authors have measured 1400 skulls and found changes that indicate such a change took place. They speculate that increased population density gave an advantage to less aggressive, more cooperative people. It's not the choice between Chuck Norris and Boy George, it's the choice between Darth Vader and Jean-Luc Picard. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't read the paper (except the first page on JSTOR), but from what I have read it seems clear that they just looked at skull shapes, that the correlation between skull shape and testosterone is based on modern medical evidence, and that their association of this change with contemporaneous cultural changes is pure guesswork. "Suddenly" probably means over thousands or tens of thousands of years. I have to assume they only looked at human skulls because otherwise the comparison would make no sense. -- BenRG (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (The reason this is showing up in newspapers is that a university PR department wrote a press release about it and the newspapers' science reporters regurgitated the press release. There's nothing to suggest that this paper is scientifically important; a marketer just identified it as likely to generate buzz and free advertising for the university.) -- BenRG (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * (ec)The premise that our direct ancestors became "feminized" does not square well with the hypothesis that it was our direct ancestors who extinguished those supposedly more "masculized" Neanderthals. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Why not? Do you really think that the Neanderthals were beaten to extinction with clubs? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you think they were beaten to extinction with? Feather boas? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have seen no evidence that they were beaten to extinction at all. In as much as they are extinct (which isn't entirely true, since a significant proportion of the human race has some Neanderthal ancestry), it is almost certainly a result of lower reproductive rates, rather than physical violence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Almost certainly"? How CAN you be so certain about what happened a gazillion years ago? 24.5.122.13 (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The normal term is gracilzation, and it is earlier than 50kya. The women lost their brow ridges and heavy bonse structure as well. Men didn't sprout breasts and labia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 00:03, 4 August 2014


 * Why would this also have happened to people in Africa and other populations that were isolated from Europeans around that time? Count Iblis (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The arrival of modern humans led to the replacement of Neanderthals. It's true that modern humans show signs of decreased testosterone.  Modern humans appear to use intelligence more than brute force, to their advantage.  For example, a comparison of spears used by each seems to show that Neanderthal spears were only used for thrusting, which would put them in harms way from the large prey they were trying to kill.  Modern humans, on the other hand, developing throwing spears, which put the humans out of range of the dangerous animals they were hunting, particularly when paired with an atlatl.  Over time, improved survival rates in modern humans would allow them to spread further, and, when it did come down to a direct fight between the two, throwing spears would again be a distinct advantage.  StuRat (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Which is yet another plausible hypothesis why the Neanderthals died out -- the Cro-Magnons were more efficient hunters (due in part to their throwing spears), so in times of food scarcity (such as during the Ice Age), they were less likely to die of starvation than the Neanderthals! 24.5.122.13 (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 'mens' testerone levels dropped suddenly'? Did hairs on the head suddenly increased their vulnerability to testosterone too or why do men go bald? I don't notice bald gorillas or chimpanzees. I see no evidence there that men's skulls have changed more than women's, are they saying women used to be more masculine and became more feminine too? Used neanderthal women go bald? I think perhaps this whole idea needs a bit more thought and that the testosterone bit is probably some copy editors invention. They tend to have too much testosterone perhaps. Dmcq (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that the whole idea has had "a bit more thought", at least some of which would be obvious if one reads the full paper, and even more if one acquired the prerequisite training and knowledge to understand the methods and previous state of the art in the field? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * One of the cornerstones of the scientific method is to look for things which might disprove one's hypothesis. It is pretty clear to me that such has not been done in this case - for instance I have pointed out one straightforward indication that what they say is unrelated to testosterone and others have pointed out neoteny as a more likely explanation and as another one can I also point out we don't need such strong muscles in our heads as our ancestors because of cooking. What they have is interesting but their talk about testosterone is just something they have jumped on and is a just so story without something much better being demonstrated. If there was something more convincing than skull measurements I'm sure they'd have said so. Dmcq (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Neoteny may be achieved by reduced testosterone levels, so those are not incompatible. StuRat (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding lowered testosterone in women, yes, that would likely also be the case. As for other primates going bald, this does happen, but the longer lifespan of modern humans presumably explains why a larger percentage of modern humans go bald.  It is also possible that humans are more genetically susceptible to balding, too.  After all, the tendency toward baldness is an inherited trait, so it could vary in a population over time, if there was an advantage to being bald (perhaps the bald were revered as elders, and thus treated better, increasing their odds of survival and passing on their genes). StuRat (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Well I just had a look up on the subject and it seems human adult male testosterone levels are pretty similar to those of adult male chimpanzees. Really all this looks to me like people grabbing headlines with no basis in science. Dmcq (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not that that's impossible, especially the headline part, but are you sure that you are more qualified to judge this than the editors and reviewers of Current Anthropology? I wouldn't expect an anthropologist to understand model construction using transfinite induction, or how to use SAT solvers to handle the travelling salesman problem, or even why NFAs and DFAs are equivalent. I try to assume I'm similarly handicapped in assessing anthropological research, or in performing brain surgery, or in translating first century Aramaic texts... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I'll stick with my assessment that their conjecture about testosterone is BS. I intend to keep hold of my critical faculties and not automatically accept as gospel everything every scientist says. If it becomes more mainstream then fine I'll accede I was wrong but I'll be surprised. Dmcq (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

.
 * Anatomically modern human in Africa, well before 50kya. μηδείς (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Are people here commenting on the paper or the PR? If it's the later, I'm not sure that's particularly useful on the science desk, except in a manner similar to StS's PHDComics link.
 * For example, I'm not sure the usefulness of all this comment on anatomically modern humans 50 kya ago. It's not like they don't know that. They said
 * "This 100–150,000 year gap between the emergence of modern human morphology and the consistent expression of symbolic behavior is often referred to as the “problem of behavioral modernity” and has generated heated debate about the cognitive and cultural capacities of the earliest modern humans"
 * And from what I can tell (as somewhat hinted by their abstract) they're discussing what they think are gradual changes from sometime in the "Middle Pleistocene to recent times" (I think 200,000 is roughly their starting point). I'm not saying 50,000 BP is irrelevant, they consider it important for various reasons but if I'm understanding them correctly, they're not saying that these cranio-facial changes happened suddenly at 50,000 or stopped then.
 * They don't seem to mention gracilization in the paper, but do mention it in their reply. From what I understand they're not sure that the changes they observed are a part of gracilization and in any case, gracilization seems to have happened to several different species but they're not sure that it's the same for their observed changes. (Although one of the respondents believes it is.)
 * Similarly while they don't mention neoteny per se (although one of their cites is "Heterochrony in human evolution: the case for neoteny reconsidered"), they do mention
 * "Support for a link between reduced aggression and craniofacial feminization again comes from the breeding experiment conducted with the silver foxes. In addition to the behavioral and physiological changes that were evident after 20–40 generations of selection for tameness, the morphology of foxes changed relative to the wild type. These changes included decreased sexual dimorphism in canine size, coat depigmentation and piebald coloration, reduced cranial capacity, and feminized craniofacial skeletons, with later generations of male foxes possessing skulls significantly shorter and wider (and thus more like female foxes) than the wild type"


 * and also:
 * "Finally, the more socially tolerant bonobo exhibits reduced craniofacial sexual dimorphism relative to common chimpanzees (Cramer 1977; Fenart and Deblock 1972, 1973, 1974; Shea 1989), as well as a degree of paedomorphosis in cranial ontogeny"
 * (And a bunch of other stuff that may be relevant that I didn't include.) So whatever you may think of the data they're using and resulting conclusions, it seems likely that they consider this feminisation part of what most would call neoteny. (And it also seems clear they're saying the changes in androgen reactivity have lead to reduced sexual diamorphism, so it's not they haven't considered females either.)
 * They also mention why they think the brow ridges changes are "temperamental variation" and not because of "masticatory mechanics". And analysed differences between "foragers" and "agriculturalists".
 * And why do people keep discussing testorene levels anyway? Again even the abstract mentions it could be levels or receptor sensitivity (they use the term "androgen reactivity to include both).
 * I'm not saying the paper is right by any means, not am I saying that they didn't miss anything or weren't too quick to make conclusions or whatever. Instead, while I mostly agree with StS, I do think if people are going to criticise it, they should at least try to read it (even if as StS suggested, they have difficulty understanding it) rather than coming up with random stuff based on their own presumptions. This is the science desk not your personal blog or usenet after all. And personally, I find Sheela Athreya's, Trenton W. Holliday's, Teresa E. Steele and Timothy D. Weaver's + Richard Wrangham's criticism much more compelling than anything here, even though I'm pretty sure I don't understand all they're saying. (Not saying there's anything wrong with April Nowell's comment, simply that it doesn't particularly relate to that discussed here except I guess the last comment. Although I forgot about BB's stuff.)
 * Nil Einne (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I have an unusual liking for "Lamarckist" notions (even if Darwin expressed the ideas more cogently and Michurin pioneered the practical aspects). So I can't help but note that certain social circumstances, such as competition, can affect testosterone. It looked like in a few papers testosterone wasn't actually shown to change on a transgenerational basis, but other factors can, accounting for the qualities of domestication. I would suggest investigating the possibility that the humans showed less testosterone-affected types not due to lower testosterone, but due to other epigenetic factors that might have changed on a transgenerational basis to cause a similar reduction in the visible "masculinity" of the domesticated humans. But this is absolutely just a wild speculation! Wnt (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thermolysis
Is it possible to predict the rate of thermal atomisation of gas into its elements under ideal conditions, as a function of temperature. Primarily, the conditions include a pressure and concentration approaching values of zero, so as to minimise particle interaction. The enthalpy of atomisation, as well as the activation energy are known. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The Saha ionization equation can be used to describe the process of dissociation as well as ionization. Application of the equation to dissociation of molecular hydrogen is described here. --Mark viking (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)