Good move.

I wish everyone happiness now, and always. 

First, I strenuously object to the new comment form and format.  
 
Second, I was raised in what is now the Community of Christ Church in SW Colorado in a community dominated by Catholics and Mormons. However, my parents were just as happy for me to attend services with whichever friend I might have stayed with Saturday night. Thus I attended Latin Mass nearly as often as I attended any other service. 
 
The only church services I have attended in the last 20 years or so have been those offered by the tiny Community of Christ church in my father's tiny hometown. Two of his sisters serve as co-pastors. Two of my cousins serve as district pastors... or whatever their title is now. I do not keep up with that sort of thing. 
 
From my childhood what stands out is the teaching (however wrong they might be) about South American religions and cultures. The curiosity about Mayans and Aztecs led me to a lifelong interest in anthropology rather than a lifelong interest in religion. 
 
Growing up in this church with very lenient parents as far as religion, coupled with the region (SW Colorado and NW New Mexico) probably gave me a very skewed perspective as far as religion, culture, and race are concerned.  
 
Beginning in the summer of '67, I watched the rest of the world seemingly on fire on TV, while my only my mother -- armed with a shotgun -- was allowed to answer the front door due to threats from Reies Tijerina and his raid on the Tierra Amarilla courthouse. My father, a white sawmiller (though no friend of government timber agents) was seen as their ally merely because of his skin color and occupation.  
 
My 'sense of history' has been warped from childhood. 
 
My parents had two reasons to send me to boarding school rather than high school in Tierra Amarilla -- one, the school was not accredited by the state of New Mexico and two, I was an outcast by both race and my father's 'social' status. 
 
Thus, I spent the next year living in a dormitory with scholarship students from various Indian tribes in northern New Mexico while attending classes with a majority of affluent white (and 'white' Hispanic) "day" students. At the end of that year, my parents moved to E Texas... and I was thrown into a newly integrated southern high school. 
 
To top off my unusual experience, only two girls spoke to me my first day at school -- a black girl and the most popular white girl. Both became my friends for the next two years, but my friendship with the black girl kept me out of the desirable social clubs... I learned the meaning of blackballed first hand.  
 
It's also strange that this black girl who spoke to me and became my friend was the 1st black person I'd ever met. Though she laughed at me because I was so naive, she was thoroughly honest with me about how black people felt about
More....

James A. Donald -- sarcasm?  
 
If not, I truly have no idea what you are trying to say.

I'm curious... Razib. Have you had the opportunity to travel much in the South? 
 
I don't have a point to make from the answer either way, it's just that I found it odd that anyone would ever think Texas was like the 'stereotypical' South other than a few counties in far East Texas.

The only possible advantages I can see in birth order are that the first-born likely gets more attention, but it's inexperienced attention, whereas later born (specifically last born) get both more attention (they are the last to leave home) and more experienced attention. 
 
It's the middle child who gets either the best or worst of both worlds... says the whiny middle child. 
 
Best illustrated by the fact that when we left for college, my older brother got a VISA card, my younger sister a MasterCard, and I got a gas card. 
 
We are all over the age of 50 now and still all incredibly spoiled. We were all the 1st child in some ways as there is 7 years between me and either of my siblings. 
 
Even anecdotal evidence doesn't show much support, eh?

Is it possible that the farther west the early inhabitants of the appalachians went, the more likely they were to breed with native americans?

First, I submit that failings and betrayals are two separate categories. But that doesn't mean that women are equally tolerant of failings. 
 
I think both sexes are very intolerant of betrayal, but perhaps women perceive more actions (or inactions) to be betrayals than do men. 
 
Second, the men in my life have been much more tolerant of the failing of their friends and acquaintances than the women. I think men are more tolerant of female failings than women are of those of either sex. 
 
A particular case: a man belongs to the same union as my husband. My husband, along with several other union members have tried to help this man and his family many times over the years. While I think the daughter is innocent and have offered her our home as refuge unconditionally, I have no more sympathy for her mother than I do the father and would have cut them both off years ago. 
 
My husband and his friends continued to give not only cash out of their pockets, but staked their reputations on recommending him for jobs, which he invariably quit after a few weeks. 
 
For jobs which pay on average $30/hr, with health insurance and retirement benefits... he was a fool to give them up. And I was quite unforgiving of his foolishness. And of his wife for putting up with it. I had little respect for her excuse for not working being not knowing how to drive.  
 
So... yeah, maybe women are much less tolerant.

John Emerson -- given that the study you cite took those 35 years or younger in 1985, how does that correlate to the Great Depression Era which took place 10 to 20 years previously? 
 
Is there a correlation I'm missing?

Wouldn't calorie restriction be partially due to geographic location? 
 
Though surely not true of all rural areas, my parents (both born in 1923) and their brothers and sisters have always talked about how there was plenty to eat, it just might not be exactly what they wanted. 
 
They also joke about not knowing there was a depression because they were so poor in the first place. It seems obvious to me they had lots of calorie resources not available to a city dweller. 
 
Was there still a life expectancy increase in rural areas?

All this reminds me of one of the most menial jobs I ever had... bookkeeper for a group of geophysicists. In reality, they needed about 7 hours a week of bookkeeping services, yet they paid me to be there 40 hours a week. 
 
Part of the reason I was there (as well as several geology students from the local university) was to keep them entertained. And to answer the phone. 
 
Just in case y'all don't understand what geophysicists and geologists do with various phenomenal software, it's often rather tedious and boring. 
 
As a result, office doors were left open and conversation flowed freely. Everything was open to discussion and possibly the only employment requirement was an ability to resist being offended. 
 
(As bookkeeper, I was to make sure that there was always beer and soft drinks in the fridge, as well as booze in the boss's office. And, since one of the partners was a Type I diabetic, I was also charged with making sure the candy never ran out. (I took on the non-required duty of making sure he ate lunch, which some women would deem sexist.) 
 
The worst decision I ever made in my life was to leave this job for one that paid 3X as much. Money don't mean shit, if it means you can't speak your mind and be yourself.

Since I am "retired" due to physical disabilities mostly caused by a brain tumor, I have a lot of leisure time. I'm not on any "official" disability, I just have the luxury of not having to work for an income. 
 
But bored? NO!! There are books to read, the internet to explore and conversations with intelligent people about subjects far and wide. Figuring out whether those far and wide subjects might be related in some way keeps me up at night. 
 
Your assessment of the average human that I'm acquainted with is off... but that doesn't really mean a lot. I am acquainted with a few who seem to have no curiosity at all... and they puzzle me as being "not average". 
 
I am exquisitely aware that this &*#Since I am "retired" due to physical disabilities mostly caused by a brain tumor, I have a lot of leisure time. I'm not on any "official" disability, I just have the luxury of not having to work for an income.But bored? NO!! There are books to read, the internet to explore and conversations with intelligent people about subjects far and wide. Figuring out whether those far and wide subjects might be related in some way keeps me up at night.Your assessment of the average human that I'm acquainted with is off... but that doesn't really mean a lot. I am acquainted with a few who seem to have no curiosity at all... and they puzzle me as being "not average".I am exquisitely aware that this &*#$&%^ brain tumor has rendered me less cognitively able than I once was. If online IQ tests can be considered accurate within themselves... ie, the measurement may be wrong but differences in measurement might be accurate, then I have lost somewhere around 25 IQ points.This seems correct to me in that while I still enjoy and can understand, it takes me longer to do so. Ten years ago, I might read a book in one day. Now it takes me a week. Neurologists laugh at me when I complain of cognitive deficits because I still "test" above average. But I must disagree that the average person finds books boring, though I might agree that my anecdotal sample isn't average. That sample is my family where books are passed around and offered as sustenance as much as potato salad is at a family reunion.%^ brain tumor has rendered me less cognitively able than I once was. If online IQ tests can be considered accurate within themselves... ie, the measurement may be wrong but differences in measurement might be accurate, then I have lost somewhere around 25 IQ points. 
 
This seems correct to me in that while I still enjoy and can understand, it takes me longer to do so. Ten years ago, I might read a book in one day. Now it takes me a week.  
 
Neurologists laugh at me when I complain of cognitive deficits because I still "test" above average.  
 
But I must disagree that the average person finds books boring, though I might agree that my anecdotal sample isn't average. That sample
More....

Perhaps the people I associate with are not average, but few of them appear to think books are boring. 
 
But your desert island scenario makes me shiver with dread. Can we at least have paper and pens?  
 
I admit to being terrified of boredom. I usually have 2 or 3 unread books in the trunk of my car for "emergencies" and my house is scattered with stacks of books (and several full bookcases.) 
 
It's quite possible I have an unhealthy relationship with books. Of course that might be due most of relatives not feeling a bit guilty about leaving with several of my books every time they visit. I've started checking their luggage :-)

There seems to be a wide range of definitions of abuse in these comments. 
 
Though my father spanked me, I never considered it abuse. When my alcoholic husband spanked my 18 mo old for "reading" a book wrong, I thought it was abuse and it triggered my divorce from him.  
 
I would likely have endured years of abuse to myself, but I could not endure abuse of my children. Perhaps I didn't consider myself innocent, but I knew beyond a doubt that they were. 
 
Punishment is so very complicated. If the punishment is designed solely to inflict physical pain, I deem it abuse. Yes, this physical pain might very well discourage certain behaviors... but if the idea is punishment rather than training, it seems to me it is abuse.  
 
It is "I am bigger and stronger than you and I can demand some behavior." 
 
I'm willing to admit that my experience as an abused spouse colors my opinions. However, I was never able to connect the abuse to anything I'd actually done.

My children are now 34, 33, and 28. They are all as successful as any parent could hope. My step-children are 41 and 35... they two are successful. 
 
It's that 33 year old that I pick as the example that spanking doesn't necessarily work. When misbehavior reaches the point where parents/caregivers can think of no other response than spanking that one must wonder if something else is going on beyond the parents' control. 
 
The reality is that if other methods of discipline don't work, spanking is not going to work either. There's another problem. And spanking isn't going to solve that one either. 
 
When a child has problems that disciplinary efforts excluding spanking don't work to correct, spanking is not likely to correct them either. 
 
Children who would respond to time-outs or other non-physical discipline, will likely respond as well to non-abusive spanking.  
 
I think that some respondents here are refusing to see the difference between abusive and non-abusive methods of training AND how the child's and parents' perception of punishment and training are involved and intertwined.

With a few exceptions, I'm thinking not much experience with children and toddlers. One does not need to be an intellectual or rocket scientist to know that: 
 
1) Each child is different. Spanking might work well with some, with others it renders them sullen at best. Those that spankings work well with, a harshly spoken word will likely work as well.  
 
2) Training a toddler is much like training a dog. Different treats and it's not considered good form to put a child in a crate.  
 
3) The truly nutty "intellectuals" are those who now say that time-out is bad because it makes children feel un-loved, yet they offer no alternative. 
 
4) A parent is fairly powerless to stop a full-blown tantrum. But tantrums are usually simply annoying. There are exceptions. (There are always exceptions.) Plus, the funniest people are young not-yet-parents who say "their" child will never act like that.  
 
5) I was spanked as a child and I don't think it did me any harm. I'm not opposed to it on any principle, I just think it's not necessary. The only spankings I remember are those where I very definitely did something wrong (and was old enough to know it) and the worst part of the punishment was my Dad spending so much time explaining to me why it was wrong, why it disappointed him, how it embarrassed the family, etc. After 30 minutes of this, I was begging for the whooping. 
 
6. It's all a matter of degree. Time-out can be abusive if carried too far also. (What else would you consider putting a misbehaving child in a dark closet other than an abusive time-out?) 
 
7. What is punished makes a difference also. For example, why punish a child for feeding the dog from his high chair? You don't want that to happen? Remove the dog during mealtime. It is my wholly unprofessional, unintellectual opinion that most abuse of children stems from unrealistic expectations from parents.

Please don't think I was talking about spanking a one year old. And frankly, I wouldn't spank a 2 or 3 year old either. 
 
I am merely saying that a one year definitely knows when he's doing something he shouldn't.  
 
Time-out is very effective starting when the child begins crawling and exploring. You start with one thing you don't want the child to do, such as touch or pull something off a low shelf. An appropriate time-out for that age is to sit on a parent's lap, facing the parent, but the parent refuses eye contact for 10 seconds. 
 
There's a bit more to it than that, but if some sort of time-out is instituted before age one, fewer and fewer time-outs are actually required. The child will respond to "Time-out if you touch that." 
 
(A quite normal response from a one year old to that is to stare at the parent while slowly reaching for the forbidden item... I've had to leave the room several times when my grandchildren have done this because laughter is not the reinforcement they need at this time. Plus, my daughters have a hard enough time keeping a straight face by themselves.)

John Emerson -- I disagree that a one year old cannot understand exactly what they did wrong. 
 
Of course, that depends on what you are expecting the child to understand!  
 
But if some kind of training and discipline isn't in place by the time a child is one, there will be problems.

Why yes you should, Richard Sharpe. Unless you sign on to being as irreverent as possible, which is my choice.  
 
While I can certainly fall for the idea that a male might consider a more corpulent female to be more fecund than a skinny one, I don't think it follows that a post-menopausal female is desirable at all. 
 
If I were a male (which I am not), I would try to mate with young females regardless my own age. Why should I worry myself with females unable to spawn? 
 
This, of course, requires that one think that all males are interested in reproducing. That in itself is a falsity, I think. Personally, I think that males are interested in sex and love the idea that it might not result in reproduction. 
 
Yet, what do I as a past middle-aged female know? I do have memories of being totally in love with a man older than myself. I wanted to have his baby with all my heart and could not understand why he did not want this baby of his that I could produce. 
 
Do not underestimate the cruelty of the female. I remind my husband that if he's let me have my way we'd now have a teen-aged son mowing the lawn for us.

Cougar goddesses? You mean the ancient precursor to 50 year old women looking for a man half their age?

Ancient Barbies and Kens. Obviously the "ideal" body shape has changed.