Recent comments in /f/askscience

SapientRaccoon t1_j9bx0uh wrote

Yes, behavioral as well as physical differences are grist for the selective mill. I think socio-sexual selection has been seriously downplayed and overlooked. If someone is acting weird, you might not want to breed with them. If the behaviou4 set cones with physiochemical cues, it makes avoidance that much easier.

If the minority nevertheless manages to thrive and populate just enough to prefer hanging and mating with each other, and stop mixing with the parent group, then you have a new race, which might become a new species one day if the two groups drift genetically far enough away from one another to have sterile babies.

9

VT_Squire t1_j9bv0u5 wrote

Yep.

Dog breeds, for example are often the product of intentional selection for behavioral qualities. Some breeds are typically more territorial, more gentle, more "independent minded," and so forth. Right along with that, some dogs have very little in the way of "speaking dog" to other dogs. No interest in sniffing butts, playing or seeing who lays down in a vulnerable position so others can check them out. In the great debate of nature vs nurture, there are many examples of dogs not being socialized with other dogs very well, so they end up with distinctly higher error rate when interpreting another dog's nip or bark or standoffish posture. They might take that as an attempt to initiate play when no such thing was meant. Likewise, their own communication through behavior and body language is often enough met with confusion by other dogs. And of course, sometimes they appear to be just plain born that way.

8

Illustrious-Scar-526 t1_j9btbi4 wrote

It might just be because that's where that company decided to set up shop. Maybe taxes/operating costs are cheaper there, maybe the founder/CEO lives close by, maybe they just liked the building, or maybe they know people there are willing to do a lot more for money compared to other places.

Also if there's a school nearby, it could be that. When I lived near a university known for nursing and psychology, there were lots of studies I saw advertised.

2

Nellie_88 t1_j9bq2v7 wrote

Those other illnesses have a range of effects for people too. The flu kills tons of people every year. Strep throat does not effect everyone the same. I got strep throat 2 years ago (34 y.o healthy) and got rheumatic fever and had heart damage and was hospitalized. Just because it’s not publicized doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

62

Space_faces t1_j9bpgmi wrote

There was a great episode of radiolab about rabies on which they referenced a study where rabies antibodies were found in folks in South America who were not dead or sick. Obviously antibodies aren't a guarantee of immunity, but like, how did they get them without a vaccine? Super interesting

37

askscience-ModTeam t1_j9bonc5 wrote

Thank you for your submission! Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

1

YesWeHaveNoTomatoes t1_j9bmfer wrote

It depends on the location of the research institution and the communities they’ve trying to recruit from. For example, when I worked in research, we were based at a VA hospital near but not in a large city. We didn't go into the city to recruit study participants because we were too far away for people to be willing to come. We recruited young people from the local community college, and senior citizens from the places you'd expect to find older folks: the senior center, churches, restaurants that had 4pm dinner specials, etc.

2