Yep 
http://health.allrefer.com/health/lordosis-info.html

Mike, "lordosis", I wonder if that is the same thing as swayback. 
 
"WHR is also sometimes used as a factor in judging female attractiveness. Women with a 0.7 WHR (waist circumference that is 70% of the hip circumference) are often rated as more attractive by men, regardless of their culture. Such diverse beauty "icons" as Marilyn Monroe, Twiggy, Sophia Loren, Kate Moss, and the Venus de Milo all have ratios around 0.7. The ratio may act as a signal of fertility?as women age, their waists typically thicken while their fertility declines." 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist-hip_ratio

Razib wrote: "The most important point about the new research that is emerging over the past 15 years is just how banal and conventional many of the cognitive processes are which result in normal theism. For example, consider the common motif of sacred relics, the Buddha's tooth or fragments of the cross upon which Christ was crucified, this is easily explained by the tendency of the human mind to imagine contagions all around us. In this case, the sacred contagion is one we actually wish to encounter." 
 
That's an interesting point. But regarding the example you gave, is this a sort of inverted contagion- avoidance hypothesis? Seems convoluted. Who has developed this idea? Sacred relic collecting behavior is better explained by a cognitive module that seeks to possess things that are perceived to have healing properties. Surely such behavior originally served to ward off physical disease, but has in these instances morphed into seeking spiritual balms - which may have actual psycological benefits.

Me: "The Greek heyday of science and civilization was long ago. It?s entirely possible that whatever genes controlling for trust and cooperation have changed in frequency since then or are not activated. Who knows. Now they can just barely put together their own Olympics." 
 
- and before you said: 
 
Me: "Naturally, the genetic endowments of a population are not fixed, but they may not change much either. " 
 
- you can't have it both ways. 
 
Razib, I'm not trying to have it both ways. I'm just pointing out on the one hand genes can remain relatively fixed, on the other hand they may not. And within different populations in Europe, either or both could have happened. 
 
Regarding individual or kin selection. 
 
Well, on the one hand it would seem that any gene that tends towards causing an altruistic behavior would have to be selected for via kin selection. You have a gene that causes an individual to engage in altruistic behavior that acts against his own self-interest, thereby decreasing his reproductive fitness which causes him to have fewer children. Future generations who inherit this gene will also tend to have fewer children until natural selection just weeds it out. But if the gene survives long enough for cousins to profit one another?s reproductive fitness, then you?ve got kin selection.  
 
On the other hand, say there is one individual who has this gene. If the cost to the individual doing the sharing is not so great as to do away with his own existence, that person may simply cause other individuals who benefit from his altruism to become dependent on him. This dependency might ultimately result in, well, some form of sexual gratitude, resulting in more offspring for this individual and his descendants who inherit the gene and do the same thing. Individual selection. 
 
OK, here?s a more detailed hypothesis. I?m suggesting it more than advancing it. And to be sure, a great deal of the shared behavior that I write about is learned, and other historical factors that people are writing about explain a lot in my view. But you?ve asked me to attempt to flesh out this hypothesis - not that I mind giving it a try. 
 
I would hazard a pretty safe guess that there is more than one gene, or groups of interacting genes that cause altruistic behavior. Assuming this, take individuals from two populations who have their population-specific different genes for altruism, and who come into contact. Their altruism-related genetic differences could make it relatively difficult for them to get along because their sharing behaviors may be different; they may not recognize the other?s behavioral sharing cues and expectations as readily as they would recognize similar behavior from someone of their own population with whom they have more genes coding for altruism in common. This would cause an eas
More....

Razib, although you haven't explicitly said it, you seem to disagree. That's fine. But I think not all of your criticisms are warranted. Of course there are implications to this hypothesis, but many / most implications of a hyptothesis to a question of this magnitude cannot be taken into account in a comment section. The issue that you raise in the post is very broad. People will and have spent years studying it. I attempted to elucidate my hypothesis in response to your criticisms. The Greek heyday of science and civilization was long ago. It?s entirely possible that whatever genes controlling for trust and cooperation have changed in frequency since then or are not activated. Who knows. Now they can just barely put together their own Olympics. 
 
The fact that the idea is reasonably possible means that if it gets a mention, there is no need to dismiss it. I don't understand why you think that the fact that you have thought about this idea before means that nobody on this board should bring it up. 
 
I know you want citations, but I?m not aware that a gene has been found that codes for trust and cooperation. And after taking a look around, no surprise. I haven?t found any studies linking a tendency towards trust and cooperation with any particular gene - or widespread differences in cooperative predispositions between different races - much less any information about how widespread such a gene may be in different races. I will look some more when I have more time. But I would not expect to find this kind of information. I would think that doing a study that would show such tendencies independent of environmental influences would be one heck of a difficult undertaking, as you say. You?d have to have some solid control groups. Something like twin studies. Perhaps there is some information from the Minnesota Twin Studies about this. They tested dozens of traits. 
 
Sailer also thinks that we are years away: 
 
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050925_fraser.htm 
 
"Only a people such as the English, characterized by the ?non-kinship based forms of reciprocity? associated with Protestant Christianity, monogamy and companionate marriage, nuclear families, a marked de-emphasis on extended kinship relations, and a strong tendency towards individualism could possibly succeed in creating such a 'society of strangers.?" 
 
Fraser speculates that these attributes have genetic roots. While that?s certainly possible scientifically, we're still a number of years away from being able to test that idea empirically.? 
 
Or, more speculation, perhaps cooperation and trust may not be a function of a single gene or group of genes in the same way that other traits are. Perhaps cooperation and trust are functions of how closely related genetically individuals are to each other in relation to others individuals in a population. Cousin marri
More....

John, I agree that it makes sense to take all cultural/institutional factors into account, not just the genetic angle. But I'm also pointing out that some of these instutitions may have come into being because of certain innate predispositions; particularly a tendency towards cooperation that is necessary for them to exist. 
 
Razib, I use the term "genetic endowments" to mean whatever the genetic traits of a population or populations are during a certain period of time. Selection over 2000 years may or may not change a certain group of endowments significantly. Naturally, the genetic endowments of a population are not fixed, but they may not change much either. Perhaps I should use 'phenotypes'.  
 
I'm mostly speculating here, and I don't think it's wild speculation. Certainly, sporadic interaction between environment and genes may cause certain phenotypes to exercise greater effects on the environment at very particular times. Not that I can pinpoint what the interaction is that allows a relatively strong tendency towards cooperation to either simply occur or result in such unique achievements. At any rate, in the end, such a wide swath of startling achievements in one area of the world over such a long time span seems rather well explained incorporating a substantial amount of genetic causation - "one underlying explanatory variable". (Not to the exclusion of lattitudes and longitudes, domesticatable animals, and good grub, etc.). 
 
Granted, 'for the good of the entire society' might be giving those avaricious Europeans a little too much credit. But the idea of the existence of an innate tendency towards sharing with a wider group, and thereby fostering greater cooperation, again seems reasonably possible. 
 
True, cheating strategies certainly limit the things that cooperation can achieve. And the idea of say, Galileo benifitting from a culture of cooperation is at first a little hard to square with the greedy machinations of the Medichi family (sp?). But at the same time, for some reason, the Medichi's were happy to bankroll him. And, if I recall correctly, the Medichi's were one of those families you may be referring to that the Catholic Church found itself in competition with.

John E. You argue that many European artistic and mathematical achievements could not have been acheived spontaneously, but only with a prexisting cultural foundation that was not present in the East. I think most people would agree. But you also argue that this makes any genetic causation less likely. I'm not so sure. It seems like gradual cultural construction, generation after generation, is how a society with unique genetic endowments favorable towards these artistic and mathematical achievements would develop. It wouldn't happen overnight. In fact, it might be that the uniquely favorable genes are those that encourage this kind of construction on which others can build. 
 
This is the kind of cooperation in the West that I think is ultimately responisible for its unique achievements. The willingness of Westerners to share information and resources for the good of the entire society, while at the same time allowing - or sometimes just barely tolerating - great or unorthodox individual acheivements and ideas (unlike the Asian philosophy of holding everyone back equally) has been a sort of organizing principle that has given it such success. It's the way many Wesern societies naturally seemed to organize themselves.

Interesting. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4989281 
 
There is hope. Pres Jimmy Carter is a self-described evangelical born-again Christian with a degree in nuclear physics.

What book DQ? Maybe the link isn't coming through no my screen.

This one I linked to before - it's free. 
 
http://www.booknotes.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1714

"i think humans have cognitive biases to be interested in stuff that relates to our own species." 
 
The field of genetics, for example, is a science that strongly relates to our own species. That relation may not be as apparent as it is in history, but youngsters could be made to see it with good guidance.

"Unfortunately, most human beings don't have any real interest in the rigorous abstracted esoterica which science truly is." 
 
That's true. But there are plenty of fields of study outside of science that, when undertaken correctly, are rife with rigorous abstracted esoterica. Smart people frequently choose those fields not because they can't do science, but because they don't see much of an emotional reward in working an equation or understanding / developing a scientific theory - they get these rewards in the study of humanities, history, etc. I think that could change if we had more wonderment-packed science classes taught by enthusiastic teachers at, say, the junior high school level.

Thanks, that clears some things up. 
 
Personally, when I am intrigued by an article about some new scientific discovery, I sometimes feel like I am having a spiritual experience. That sounds corny, but when I am understanding something new about the physical world, I feel a very positive emotion that I might call enlightenment. I feel like I am coming a tiny step closer to unlocking some transcendent, universal, timeless mystery about the significance of life. If you can make other people, especially laypeople pick up on this feeling when they are young, this may be the best way to ensure that science endures.  
 
Basically, encourage science to take the place of religion in humanity's mental mystery module.

I don't get it. Maybe it?s beyond me, but I read the post twice, and its main points seem to be things that we already know: 
 
1) New science builds on and sometimes displaces old science, which can be a useful or, like Gould's theories on race, a fraud. 
 
2) Scientists are biased. 
 
3) It is difficult to transmit scientific ideas to the general public because much is lost in the communication. 
 
4) Science is like religion in many ways (Well, that is a new and interesting analogy to me.) 
 
Is the point that science, a relative newcomer among competing world views, needs to mimic some characteristics of religion in order to survive because it is, in some fundamental ways, like a religion - significantly in the way that it interacts with the hardwiring of the human brain?

"I think though that a peoples's sense of place and purpose strongly infleunces their willingness to have children or not - all other things being equal." 
 
But PConroy, there seem to be an awful lot of directionless youth out there, with no place or purpose, who are having lots of babies. (Are some other things not equal?). I think the reason for West has created a society that is not very conducive to raising children. It's too commercial and impersonal, not enough community cohesion and group pride - IMO perhaps the result of a little too much focus on money and the rat race. It's made things too difficult on adults to raise children. Or at least that is the impression of a lot of childless young people with whom I speak. They worry they will not be able to raise their children properly, or that their children will just bring them heartache, so why bother.  
 
"IMO our only purpose here is to reproduce and care for some of our own kind, and we have been programmed by evolution to do that and find solace in it. To not do so, leads one away from nature and ultimately into a nihilistic abyss." 
 
True more for women than for men. But for men also, just perhaps to a lesser degree. I don't understand women who don't want to have children, create families and communities. Seems like a natural role. Then again, that role is more easily played when there are ready ways to create cohesive communities, and young mothers are not stuck in a box all day with screaming kids. 
 
I wonder what community life is like in Ireland.

pc conroy is right about this: 
 
"On a more mundane level, I would pay attention to creating and caring for offspring, as this I believe is the only way to feel truely part of the world, and part of the cycle of life. This is what gives you immortality, in a sense. I think that any culture that has strong, positive family values, is likely to succeed against others." 
 
I think the West is failing in this regard, and no culture that fails to reproduce itself can reproduce itself. Of course, things could turn around, but only if all the smarties stop moving to the cities and not having babies.

Q: How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? 
 
A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY!!

I think Pat has a point.

Scottm, isn't it obvious? This is the kind of trash we need to get off the streets. The country has been overrun by undesireable immigrants, and Sesame Street is no exception. Because of these immigrants, and generations of misguided welfare policies, the once wholesome Sesame Street gang has succumbed to blighted urban ruin. 
 
I don't even want to think about what Big Bird is up to.

I picked 7. But I was a little sloppy in adding the numbers. In the first set, I missed the negative sign and got four. The last two sets I saw the negative sign and added correctly to zero. 
 
But I wonder. Has anyone tried just asking people on paper to pick a number between 12 and 5 and see if 7 comes up as often as in this experiment? I kind of felt that I was quickly adding the '5' and the '2' to get 7, being that they were readily available in my field of vision.