Many species reproduce asexually - many plants, for example, or bacteria (although they can share DNA plasmids directly). Evolution happens just fine, as variation is supplied by mutation. Nevertheless, sexual reproduction is the norm.

In terms of selection, it is sexual reproduction that is a massive disadvantage. From the gene's eye point of view, sex involves a "two-fold cost". Essentially any given gene has only a 50% chance of being in an offspring, compared with 100% for asexual reproduction.

Something needs to overcome this two-fold cost, most probably the fact the sexual recombination allows discovery of fitter genotypes for disease resistance and host/parasite coevolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction

Yes, fair enough. Parthenogenesis can be different.

Asexual reproduction is not incest at all. The problem with incest is that it can expose recessive homozygous combinations (e.g. from heterozygotic parents) that can be deleterious. But asexual reproduction won't do this as the offspring is the same as the parent.

>Personally, I think all of the other personality tests--with the possible exception of the Millon tests--are silly wastes of time, no better than horoscopes.

You think that Big Five scales are silly and no better than horoscopes? I've never heard such an opinion from a psychologist before!

Sure there is good science in personality research. The "Big Five" is a good example of a well validated model that passes the checks you would want for a scale (reliability, validity, explanatory power etc.).

Myers-Briggs is an example of a personality test that is highly flawed.

If you are asking specifically whether personality is a good predictor of job performance, then yes, there is evidence for that. However, an issue is that you can very easily lie about your answers on the test. So if you know what the "correct" answers are you can fake it. A good use of such tests would be when you don't know what the correct answers are.

Myers Briggs is not a derivative of the Big 5 - it long predates it.

But it is a crock of shite.

Myelination in human continues up to around 20 years. It improves the speed and efficiency of neurons. Not sure if it is implicated in memory formation, although conditions like multiple sclerosis (loss of myelination) can involve memory loss. Note that myelination is not to do with connections between neurons.

Here are some properties which can change at the synapse:

1. The sensitivity of the post-synaptic membrane, making it require more or less input to respond with an action potential at the axon.

2. The amount and type of receptors present in the post-synaptic membrane.

3. Production of neurotransmitters in the pre-synaptic terminal.

4. The branching of axons in the pre-synaptic membrane e.g. after nerve damage you can get axonal sprouting of one axon into a now vacant section of dendrites.

The precise physical basis of memory is still largely unknown.

Generally in development, maturation stops once adult size is reached (at least in most animals - a few grow throughout life). This tends to coincide with sexual maturity i.e. when the animal becomes reproductively active.

But the process can be different for different parts of the body. For example, humans reach maximum number of neurons just before they are born - from then on it's downhill all the way. But brain maturation continues until about age 20 with myelination of axons.

Lysenkoism and Lamarckism are not the same as epigenetic inheritance and are entirely wrong.

Here's an interesting recent historical example of where a major superpower had a very different scientific (mis)understanding.

The Soviet Union's leadership rejected the scientific ideas of Darwin and Mendel, that genes were selected through evolution. Instead, they favoured the Lamarckian view that acquired characteristics could be inherited.

Geneticists were fired, imprisoned, and even executed, and Lysenko (the chief scientist) tried to increase crop yields using this technique, which of course failed. As a result crop yields fell and there were food shortages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

I would speculate that it has always been with us in centuries and millennia past. Here are some writing arguings that we see descriptions of what we now call PTSD in Ancient Greece and Mesopotamia through to the US Civil War and today:

https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/the-hidden-evidence-of-ptsd-in-the-ancient-world-eb83752b7d4e

https://militaryhistorynow.com/2012/09/17/walking-wounded-ptsd-from-ancient-greece-to-afghanistan/

Evolutionarily speaking, it makes sense. The world was more violent in the past and many men would have been exposed to horrific violence and death of close comrades. Our evolved psychology was the same then as now, so I would guess our response to war was the same too.

>Yes, but—such skeletal differences only amount to 2-3 BMI units or so
>
>...
>
>That's why some people have a baseline BMI of 18, whereas others will have a baseline BMI of 25. That's quite exceptional though, for most people 20-23 will be normal

This is really interesting. Do you have sources for this you can share?

The fundamental answer is Newton's first law of motion: things tend not to move unless a force acts on them, in other words the principle of inertia.

In this case, not much force acts on the hair because the water is not very viscous and so does not transmit the rotational force much over distance (compared to more viscous fluids).

If you want to know where Newton's law comes from, I think it "just is" i.e. it's an axiom.

A fair if predictable result.

The standings throw up some wild results though. Sane and Salah above Son and Haaland (and I'm a Liverpool fan)?

https://www.sportingnews.com/uk/soccer/news/ballon-dor-live-results-winners-rankings-awards-benzema-2022/bieyhgyuifdmvchg6fqtctbj

>Hypermodern materialistic chess is focused on maximizing material, so there are no dramatic sacrifices or grandiose positional moves. (Romantic chess/sacrifices/positional play is a very human form of chess. Hypermodern/material is a very computerized form of chess)

This is muddled. Modern chess, and engine chess still has sacrifices. It's just that the romantic era was characterised by unsound sacrifices, which people would still make because opponents would invariably take the material on offer. You can find many fascinating sacrifices in recent games featuring top engines like leela.

Early engines were great at tactics (winning material) and less good at positions. But modern engines are much better at positional chess, albeit with some weakspots. Many initially incomprehensible moves can only be understood much later in a game when they reveal a subtle positional advantage.

The rough eras of chess go like this:

romantic - unsound sacrifices which are accepted.

modern (late 19th / early 20th century) - focused on position rather than (just) material. Effectively killed the romantic era because it is superior.

hypermodern (post WW1) - broadened modern ideas to include indirect control and other ideas like overprotection, outposts etc. It is also a positional form of chess.

Averageness is attractive in faces (and many other things). However, the most attractive faces are not just average.

https://www.nature.com/articles/368239a0

Perrett, D. I., May, K. A., & Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness. Nature, 368(6468), 239-242.