We argue that a theory of the evolution of Empathizing (E) and Systemizing (S) needs first to clarify that these are personality traits, as distinct from cognitive abilities. The theory should explain both the observed reciprocity of, and the sexual difference between, E and S in a context of the historical emergence of these traits and their balance in relation to local selection pressures. We suggest that the baseline state is that (since humans are social animals) ancestral human hunter gatherers are assumed to be relatively High Empathizers, lower in Systemizing: thus more interested in people than in things. Changes related to the development of agriculture and technology meant that it became economically useful for some men to become more interested in ‘things’ than in people, as a motivation for them to learn and practice skills that were vital to personal and (secondarily) social survival, reproduction and expansion. This selection pressure applied most strongly to men since in the sexual division of labour it was typically men’s role to perform such tasks. We further hypothesize that High Systemizing men were rewarded for their socially vital work by increased resources and high status. Because marriages were arranged in traditional societies mainly by parental choice (and the role of parental choice was probably increased by agriculture), it is presumed that the most valued women, that is young and healthy women thereby having high reproductive potential, were differentially allocated to be wives of economically successful High Systemizers. Such unions of economically successful High Systemizing men with the most reproductively valuable women would be expected to lead to greater-than-average reproductive success, thereby amplifying the population representation of genes that cause high systematizing in the population. This hypothesis makes several testable predictions.
Evolutionary artificial life systems have demonstrated many exciting behaviors. However, there is a general consensus that these systems are missing some element of the consistent evolutionary innovation that we see in nature. Many have sought to create more “open-ended” evolutionary systems in which no stagnation occurs, but have been stymied by the difficulty of quantifying progress towards such a nebulous concept. Here, we propose an alternate framework for thinking about these problems. By measuring obstacles to continued innovation, we can move towards a mechanistic understanding of what drives various evolutionary dynamics. We propose that this framework will allow for more rigorous hypothesis testing and clearer applications of these concepts to evolutionary computation.
I present a checklist of acquisition parameters for inclusion in the methods section of an fMRI paper. The current list expands and updates the list that was given in the 2008 paper from Poldrack et al. (I have reproduced below the section on acquisition that appeared in that 2008 paper.) The emphasis is on fMRI experiments that use 1.5 to 3 T scanners with standard hardware available today, but the list should work reasonably well for 7 T experiments as well. I further assume that fMRI is performed with 2D multi-slice EPI or spiral scanning and uses BOLD contrast, but parameter reporting for 3D sequences and other k-space trajectories as well as non-BOLD contrast should be feasible. The first full version of the checklist, version 1.1, was presented in January, 2013. Version 1.2 was released in December, 2014. This version is denoted 1.3 and will be the final series 1.x release. Release notes for this version appear below. The checklist was initially developed based on my experience with Siemens scanners but I have attempted to use generic descriptions as far as possible. Version 2.0 is planned for the end of 2015 and will include vendor-specific nomenclature under each parameter.
Abstract This paper reviews the problems associated with marijuana abuse and marijuana dependency among college students (Ratini, 2014). It also explores their progressive use of marijuana, causing addiction, and then turning them towards rigorous self-healing through treatment as a personal commitment, and a positive approach towards successful recovery. This paper gathers information on marijuana abuse, leading to addiction and the recovery of a college student. Marijuana Anonymous (MA) organization focuses on the Twelve-step program of recovery that incorporates a belief in a Higher Power as essential for recovery (Marijuana Anonymous, 2016). The National Institute of Drug Abuse explains marijuana and its usage as an illicit drug (“Drugfacts:marijuana,” 2016). According to an article on “Marijuana Use and its Effects,” there are serious psychological, physical, and social effects of marijuana on an individual (Ratini, 2014). Research also indicates a link between childhood trauma and marijuana abuse (Khoury, Tang, Bradley, Cubells, & Ressler, 2010, pp. 1077-1086). The individual experiences of Mike H. are addressed in each section to address the elements of addiction, intervention, and successful recovery. Keywords: marijuana, marijuana abuse, effects of marijuana, Marijuana Anonymous, marijuana dependency, substance abuse and college students