Peterkin

Because the X chromosome is bigger than the Y? But the metabolic enzyme and brain function information on the X chromosome wouldn't show up in physiognomy ?

As to the title question : No. People are more likely to resemble the parents who has the most dominant genes. How much more likely depends on the presence of recessive genes in both parents. The only thing always determined by the father's chromosomes is the sex of the offspring. Their appearance depends on a large number of quite random factors.

Hallucinations can be caused by many different health conditions that affect the senses. This is a simple outline of hallucinations and possible causes.

That's why soaking baths are so relaxing, I guess. Maybe not for everyone, but it's a widely used escape for women who find being pulled in opposite directions by the obligations of work, home and relationships quite stressful at times. My daughter's bathroom is also thick with candles, so I guess there is a component of that different quality of light. Hers are icky scented ones, so add in aromatherapy.

Yes. I'm holding out for the ambiance - the lightness of body, the soft motion of water, the gently waving plants, the quiet, and especially the diffuse green light. I find the quality of light, even in an ordinary room, has an effect on my mood. I wonder whether translucent green and blue patterned bedroom curtains would help with some issues, like anxiety and overstimulation.

It has to be clear. No entrapment.

It would have to be a statement of intent with the option of acceptance or refusal, before anyone joins the forum. Something like: Do you agree to having your ratings and comments monitored for the purpose for research? Then you'd have to explain who does the monitoring, for what reason, and what privacy safeguards are guaranteed. Including the promise of not reading comments by people who opt out. I'm not sure anyone who actually read the site guidelines would still join, or if they did, whether they would make use of the rating and comment option. After all, there is no anonymity behind the scenes; a mod can out you at any time. (I've seen that happen.)

Certainly - with the subjects' informed consent. Same with organs: the donor should be able to specify the purposes for which they consent to have their organs used. This could also apply to tissues surgically removed. As to behaviour, observations are made all the time in treatment facilities, institutions, many work-places and schools. To what extent these data are analyzed, and to whom they are reported depends on the purpose of the observation. When psychologists conduct studies and publish the results, the identity of subjects is never revealed, to prevent any potential harm. Scientific studies, of course, need to be very strictly defined and controlled to be as bias-free as possible, while observations of office interaction require a much lower standard of precision to be useful in removing stress points or impediments to efficiency.

It's not clear to me. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02495/full In the articles I've seen, the therapy is mainly for gangrene and would healing, though they've been finding it useful for emotional trauma. Don't know about chronic illness. It wouldn't work for me: I have an almost pathological dread of having to enter one of those things.

I doubt it. But I can see the underwater environment having a soothing effect, the same way a forest does: the green, diffused light, in particular may be responsible. Plus the lightness of body and ease of movement, the solitude, absence of pressure to conform and the expectations of other people. Other people can be extremely trying, even if one is well adjusted; if one has emotional issues, the fear of judgment is an additional burden. Deep salt water lifts a lot of that burden, both actually and metaphorically. I'm not sure you can always draw a clear distinction between psychological and physiological effects.

For a while. You don't see a lot of horse-drawn carriages and buggies on the roads (Mennonite regions excepted, and there, they're restricted to the gravel shoulder, so as not to impede car traffic.) There comes a time when enough of the infrastructure has adapted to the incoming technology that it becomes more costly and inconvenient to keep using the old.

I think that's a very limited perspective. The gridlock is not due to an insufficiency of roads, but to heavy reliance on personal vehicles. However roads are built, more cars make more trips and spew out more CO2. That's inefficient, unintelligent use of the roads. If you built more roads, they'd fill up in a few years, blocking migration routes, cutting habitats in half, killing wildlife and endangering one another. Why is there even a "rush hour" in every city? Where on Moses' tablets does it say everyone has to live on the outskirts of a city and work in the center from 9 to 5 every weekday? Why are cities so badly designed and organized? It's an erroneous one. The general idea for autonomous cars, atm, is to provide cheap taxi service. At least that's the plan in China. That, of course, would reduce the number of cars downtown. They'd still have to spend a lot of money on something that sits idle most of the time. Having robotaxis on call would be way more convenient: you'd still get to surf the net, without the hassle of looking a parking space at the end each little trip. The robotaxis themselves would be on the road most of the time, doing the work of a hundred private vehicles. Anyway, it's all speculative. What will be will be. You sure can build a mountain!

Better than the 1980 miniseries? I'll see it as soon it's streaming - we don't go to movie theaters.

That was the Nixon strategy. Reefer Madness predates that by about three decades or more. At first, cannabis was the main target, in order to aggrandize and enrich the He used Jim Crow and fear of Mexican migrants to promote the ant-drug agenda. When prohibition ended, the FBI and Customs police were facing cuts to their budget and power. They jumped right on board, waging valiant battle against a new bogeyman. That the subsequent disproportionately harsh sentencing happened to damage the nonconformist subcultures was a bonus; the vast amounts of money and manpower suddenly available to law-enforcement was the real payoff. The infamous movie Not unusual in other areas, either. Can you imagine how The Law would react if Leon D. Washington uttered as many threats as Donald J. Trump has?

It would be a derail to go into detail here. Suffice to say, I had extensive radiation and chemo therapy for stage III squamous cell carcinoma of the throat in 2008. I was unable to swallow any solid food for several months; was feeble and miserable. Medical marijuana might have helped, at least with the nausea, but none of my doctors prescribed it. Touchy subject under a conservative government - they tend to make wars on things that don't hurt anybody, to collect in the religious vote. Besides, I sure wasn't about to start smoking again three months after quitting. It comes in tincture for vaping, but not a form you can add to the nutritional liquid muck in a feeding tube, so it wouldn't have been much use to me anyhow. What did help some was club soda.

I couldn't; had a feeding tube for six months. But pot didn't become legal and readily available until several years too late. Mary Jane was never a culprit; only a scapegoat - the whole reefer madness mania was a farce.

Yes, it seems the situation keeps developing. Last I heard, Level 6 autonomy was not yet cleared to roam free without human supervision; only under testing conditions. That may already have changed. In Ontario, it's still a pilot program, under strict regulations. Some states seem to have permitted Level 4 and 5 autonomous vehicles and several have not yet drafted the pertinent legislation. Then the autonomous car would be reduced to calling for help, just like a human driver. Only, it would happen less frequently, because the autonomous vehicle never leaves its storage garage less than fully charged (while many human drivers leave home with less than half a tank, assuming fill-up opportunities along the way). They would unobtrusively listen in on weather, traffic and road condition reports at all times and be warned in time to avoid the detour, as a human driver rarely is. The dangers and foreseeable problems are very similar to those confronting all drivers - minus fatigue, distraction, diminished capacity due to emotion or chemicals. The possible sources of danger include mechanical malfunction, error, infraction and bad judgment by other drivers, weather, sudden hazards like runaway cattle or truck wheels - plus hostile action by humans who resent autonomous vehicles. Certainly, the problems are real - but then, they already exist. Some will be solved, some won't, as has always been the situation. Change happens: some people welcome it, some don't, but it happens anyway.

That's not difficult. My outmoded cellphone indicates the level of battery charge and signals when it needs to be plugged in. As all autonomous cars will eventually be electric, they already "know" when a charge is/will be required. They also have GPS and there is no magic to an app showing where the charging stations are. Automatic debit or credit payments are also common. Pretty soon, too, the charging stations will be robotic, so the passenger need not even insert the plug. https://www.roboticparking.com/ In fact, you can do that a hundred times, since the fully driverless incarnations are not yet allowed on public roads without a human pilot. You can already choose a number of destinations for your GPS; no reason your car can't remember your usual commute, shopping and family outings. For tour-buses, it's a piece of cake. What you can't anticipate are routes and destinations for robotaxis and delivery vehicles.

Superficially, yes. But people brought up in Saudi don't adapt so readily to the Finnish sauna and westerners sojourning in Arab countries regularly run afoul of alcohol laws. Even when they overcome, intellectually, the taboos of their native culture and assume the mores of a more permissive one, the deep shame regarding body, sexuality, profanity, unclean food, etc is never wholly erased; whereas, moving from a liberal to an authoritarian environment, they may obey the letter of the law and keep up appearances, but never develop a sense of shame if they get away breaking a rule. Dogs, btw, don't seem to be abashed unless they're caught in wrongdoing. Sometimes they'll even pretend innocence in the very teeth of overwhelming evidence. It's easier to adapt in childhood and becomes more difficult to impossible as a person grows older in an environment where some behaviours carry social stigma. It's not all that easy, breaking older dogs of learned behaviour patterns, either. There are other factors besides age: intelligence, imagination (have you always secretly or overtly questioned the validity of your culture's mores?) subservience/emotional dependency on others; the consistency of early indoctrination and how stringently it was enforced in your formative years; the level of disapproval you've encountered from peers...

Yeah - so?

Or Mao or the Fatherland or King George. So? The root of organized religion is patriarchy. The Father is the arbiter of right and wrong, virtue and vice, pride and shame. It's still early, internalized socialization.

Even if we accept that a psychologist can read what's encoded in DNA, all that means is that shame is an evolutionary adjunct of socialization. It is exhibited by dogs, who have no religion beyond reverence for the human master, who makes and enforces the rules which puppies internalize and they make the appropriate gestures of shame when caught in a transgression. Parrots don't, and they're arguably smarter than dogs, but less obedient.

I can't see why you would put shame at the center of religion. Shame is a secondary emotion, a byproduct of indoctrination. Whatever rules a society has for the demeanour and behaviour of its members is taught to the young in their most impressionable formative years. Whatever they were consistently punished for in early childhood, they internalize as a taboo. In effect, we all carry some version of a police force inside our heads. The same rules are lodged in our neighbours' , colleagues' and rivals' minds; they're always watching and judging and shaming. We fear the threat of censure, of exclusion, of derision and shunning. This is the most cost-effective way to insure relatively smooth operation of a society. In that sense, yes, it's a survival strategy. Religion is later superimposed to lend more weight to the rules: a supernatural carrot and stick enforcement of social norms.

People are working on this. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437522001268 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437522001268 The road surface can be divided for different uses, with barriers between vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian lanes. Just as commuter trains are now separated from roads. Private vehicles - autonomous and human-driven - can be restricted to roadways to which pedestrians have no access. If a tree falls on the rails, trains can be warned (though it's unlikely, as the verges of the rail lines are usually kept clear) in a timely fashion. If there is construction, signs are usually posted and car traffic directed around or through it - autonomous vehicles would be no exception. At this time, those 30 million cars are either not yet on th open road, or not really autonomous Some gaps still need to be filled and some bugs combed out.

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/17/1006495476/after-50-years-of-the-war-on-drugs-what-good-is-it-doing-for-us None. It's unthinking fear. "Drugs" as a boogeyman has been a specter in American life for so long that the very word conjures up evil cabals and ruthless cartels. It tends to prompt otherwise nice people to demonize a wide swathe of their fellow citizens and vote for 'law-and-order' (aka conservative) candidates. It's not values or virtues; it's fear. Meanwhile, the "war" on drugs (aka war on the poor) has been an excuse for militarizing the police and brutalizing the justice system. Overall, not a very positive effect on society. Sensible laws in classifying substances and legalizing the relatively harmless recreational ones. Making arrests and sentences proportional to the degree of involvement in trafficking. Making safer alternatives and rehabilitation available to addicts. And the hard one: improving the standard and quality of life so that fewer people need an escape from their reality. There would be one less thing for people to worry about and one less excuse for police to harass and shoot them. Plenty more bad staff left to make life difficult.