Hey we need the grant money.

Sorry where is the ‘neuroscience’ in the article?

deleted by creator

Oh my mistake there then. Rockhoppers are one species that are monogamous for life.

That doesn’t explain why the same couples keep coming back to each other season after season.

Dolphins have been observed engaging in purely recreational sex.

Penguins are monogamous and that applies to gay penguins as well.

Here’s two that built a nest together https://mashable.com/article/same-sex-penguin-couple

Animals don’t think “I’m gonna go find another dude to have gay sex with,” they just get the urge and act on it with whoever looks good nearby.

Several animal species are famously monogamous, penguns for example.

Wouldn’t it be more concerning if it was speeding up?

What do you mean, your employer has lots of freedom to exploit you!

Boeing having a normal one.

And when it does, how would you even know?

For now…

Roger Penrose was brilliant, but he got a lot of flack for his Orch-OR theorem which is being alluded to here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction

I still don’t understand what problem his hypothesis was trying to solve though.

That seems somewhat unrelated to this paper about foraging societies.

If I can quote the authors:

We caution against ethnographic revisionism that projects Westernized conceptions of labor and its value onto foraging societies.

What was the context?

Fascinating. It doesn’t look like they controlled for height/weight so it’s not surprising that the grip strength of TW was so much higher than for CW. Agree with their conclusion that a larger cohort is needed for a longitudinal study rather than a cross-sectional one.

Well this paper isn’t about intelligence or psychology, it’s about physiology. Reaction times and rhythmic anticipation tests are all quite well-grounded and established tests.

Secondly, I’ve had a brief scan of that 3.5hr long video and dipped in and out of a few places are familiar to me. Straight away I notice she’s reading out the conclusions from the Anderson paper on Hunter-Gatherers that came out last year (to huge media attention) but which was not well received by anthropologists who went through the stats and found the whole thing to be a biased mess (see: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513824000497?dgcid=author). It would be unfair to blame the original authors since they were all (and I believe still are) undergraduates and so the PI should’ve been more rigorous. Then I briefly dipped into her ‘debunking’ of the selfish gene where she opens with the astonishing take that bipedism isn’t a heritable trait…this is not the voice of an expert and there are better critiques of the shortcomings in evopsych out there.

I am not familiar with that individual, I assume you don’t mean the musician on YouTube that Google found for me?