text:
How to predict romantic attraction
Dating websites and psychological researchers attempt to find those factors that predict the fit between potential romantic partners. Examples for factors taken into consideration are the "big five" dimensions of personality, attractiveness, or hobbies. These factors are found by looking at people in successful versus failed relationships.
When I get to know someone over a long period of time, these factors might be what makes me want to enter a relationship with them, and in fact they might predict how successful a relationship to that person will be. But when I meet a stranger what I find is that none of these factors predict if that spark of attraction will fly. Often, the girls that make me go all slack-jawed and drooling with romantic tunnel vision have little in common with the profile I would create for my ideal partner, while an attractive girl that fulfills all criteria for a successful relationship with me will leave me completely cold.
Is there research into how to predict if one person will spark the romantic interest of another?

I accept opinion, if it is based on careful reflection and does not just contain banalities.

You are quite astute to have noticed the difference between your stated preferences and actual preferences - most people don't.  Yes, there has been a fair bit of research on prediction techniques and their effectiveness.
In 2008, in a study by Paul Eastwick and Eli Finkel, participants were asked to predict their romantic preferences - what they found attractive in potential mates.  The subjects were then followed up on speed dating and other dating behaviour over the following month to see how their actual choices compared with their predictions.  The results showed that both men and women have no useful insight into their own romantic preferences that could be used to predict their actual dating choices.
A number of other studies examining a variety of methods for matching dating partners using questionnaires, physical traits, personality characteristics, dating techniques, and other theories of compatibility all failed to find a correlation between people's expressed preferences and actual dating behaviour.  Many online dating sites promote their compatibility calculation tools that are based on self-reported preferences, but research so far suggests that none of them do much better than random.

That's very interesting, thank you, Arnon. But it seems that one non-self-report measure, that is: facial similarity, did in fact predict mutual attraction.

Yes, specifically facial dis-similarity was slightly predictive.  I also seem to recall a mild correlation suggesting that men like women who are nice to them, and women like tall men.  But nothing really significant.

An interesting update: https://www.wired.com/story/data-marriage-behavior-love-psychology-romance/


text:
What are some psychologically normal reasons for a parent to reject their child?
In family psychology are there any normal (not abnormal) reasons to give up and cut off communication with your child (adult or otherwise)? I would think it would be rational to have a closed adoption of a baby and communication might need to stop if the child presents a constant danger.

A cuckolded father would be likely to reject a child who is discovered to not be his own. From evolutionary perspective, men who get cuckolded and take care of a genetically-distant man's child would fail to reproduce their own genes and increase the chance of survival of the genes of the other man who did the cuckolding. Thus rejecting such a child would be an evolutionary adaptation to the problem of paternity uncertainty.
Another reason could be that the mother misjudged the commitment of the father, and mated before such bond was established. This could be in combination with a father who's mating strategy favors fertilizing high quantity of women over investing in few offspring with one woman.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
What is the neurological basis of maintaining self discipline?
Self Discipline, as defined in this meagre Wikipedia article as being

as the ability to motivate oneself in spite of a negative emotion

This is partly distinct from self control and willpower which from Wikipedia, is defined as

the ability to control one's emotions, behavior, and desires in order to obtain some reward, or avoid some punishment.

I am referring to the former, where there may not necessarily be a reward or punishment involved.  I am interested in the neurological basis of self discipline, specifically, are there more primitive areas of the brain at play in trying to defeat our self-discipline that are in turn, inhibited by the frontal cortex or other parts of the brain?

Studies have shown that some people can mentally isolate stressors so that they do not affect performance in other areas. This is sometimes referred to as isolating or repressing the memory of the stressor so that it does not influence secondary reactions. The recollection of the memory is just as painful as it would be for anyone else, but the memory itself remains isolated, and thus there is no opportunity for the memory to form associative links with other memories, where it could thereby affect self-esteem, sense of achievement, or productivity. [1][2]
There have been numerous studies that support this idea of isolation. First is the notion that this effect is not observed in those who demonstrate high neuroticism, or difficulty controlling affective discipline. Studies have shown that people suffering from depression will respond to damaging thoughts by thinking about other negative thoughts, thus reinforcing the depression. [3] In contrast, those who demonstrate low neuroticism and high defensiveness were more likely to process negative feedback in a minimal fashion [4], thus "isolating" the negative feedback from the self. In addition, they were more likely to minimize relative impact by spontaneously generating positive thoughts afterwards.
This is an important notion, as the role of emotional regulation and achievement is readily apparent. Studies have shown that emotional regulation in school children can predict teacher-student relationships, academic achievement, and productivity [5]. Furthermore, positive emotions, moreso than negative emotions, appear to be associated with heightened attention and thought-action repertoires. [6]
Thus, it may be the case that with increased self-discipline comes an increased ability to inhibit (or 'isolate') negative emotions and stressors. This can be mediated by executive functioning tactics such as inhibition, or by shifting cognitive focus (particularly onto the task at hand). [7] Executive functioning abilities are largely mediated by the frontal lobes and by the prefrontal cortex. However, the ability to 'isolate' stressors in order to maximize productivity and motivation may be more closely related to neuroticism, which is in turn related to reduced connectivity between the left amygdala and anterior cingulate cortex, as well as reduced cardiovascular activity. [8]

Sources used:
[1] Hansen, R. D.; Hansen, C. H. (1988). "Repression of emotionally tagged memories: The architecture of less complex emotions.". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55: 811–818.
[2] Schul, Y; Schiff, M. (1995). "On the costs and benefits of ignorance: How performance satisfaction is affected by knowing the standard prior to performance". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21: 491–501.
[3] Edwards, J. A.; Weary, G. (1993). "Depression and the impression-forming continuum: Piecemeal processing despite the availability of category information.". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64: 636–645.
[4] Bonanno, G. A.; Davis, P. J.; Singer, J. L.; Schwartz, G. E. (1991). "The repressor personality and avoidant information processing: A dichotic listening study.". Journal of Research in Personality 62: 386–401.
[5] Graziano, P. A., Reavis, R. D., Keane, S. P., & Calkins, S. D. (2007). The role of emotion regulation in children's early academic success. Journal of school psychology, 45(1), 3-19.
[6] Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought‐action repertoires. Cognition & emotion, 19(3), 313-332.
[7] Wegner, Daniel M.; Schneider, David J.; Carter, Samuel R. & White, Teri L. (1987). "Paradoxical effects of thought suppression". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53 (1): 5–13.
[8] J. Ormel, A. Bastiaansen, H. Riese, E.H. Bos, M. Servaas, M. Ellenbogen, J.G. Rosmalen, A. Aleman. (2013) The biological and psychological basis of neuroticism: Current status and future directions. Neurosci. Biobehav. pp. 59–72

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Frequency in Human sexuality bisexual polyandry and polygamy and others?
I've been studying human sexuality and I have a question which I do not know the answer nor do I exactly know how to research. In the psychology of human sexuality specifically bisexuals what percentage are completely monogamous, polyandry, polygamy or (I don't know the word for having multiple partners of either sexes). Like mutual participation relationships like multiple bisexuals, combinations of bisexuals, heterosexuals and homosexuals. Generally and then specifically in the USA are these relationships typically stable and do they last lifetimes?

So to paraphrase, are you asking: To what extent are bisexuals in monogamous long term relationships? And to what extent do bisexuals engage in longer term relationships with more than one partner or either sex?

@JeromyAnglim yes and how is it normally distributed like mmw wwm wwmm ect


text:
Which personality traits cause "non-cruelty"?
Human behavior towards other living beings can be classified into three categories:

altruistic: actively caring for the well-being of others
cruel: deliberately inflicting pain and suffering
neutral: not affecting the life and well-being of others

You cannot always care for the well-being of everyone around you. Therefore active altruism cannot be a general guiding principle of behavior. But you can always chose not to be actively cruel. Lacking a better name, I will call this type of behavior, which includes both altruistic and neutral behavor, "non-cruel", as suggested by Nick Stauner.
What I would like to know is if there are predictors that differentiate between habitually cruel persons and those that are usually either actively altruistic or at least show a passive lack of deliberate cruelty and knowing acquiescence of suffering?
Which personality traits are responsible for habitually non-cruel behavior?

Notes:
I am interested in traits in the traditional sense (patterns of behavior, thought, and emotion) as well as neural correlates of non-cruelty.

In light of your comment on caseyr547's answer, you might want to replace "altruism" with "non-cruelty" (nothing wrong with that term IMHO!), "cruelty avoidance", or "harmlessness" if any of these terms would fit your intended meaning better. I'd say "active altruistic behavior" differs from these substantially, but I wouldn't blame you if you want to ask about both! One such difference is the involvement of implicit vs. explicit motivation or "needs" vs. "values."

Choosing not to do something might describe tendencies in responses to specific situations, not to the general situation of being free to do whatever one wants with one's time. A free choice to do something in such a circumstance may reflect one's implicit motives or "needs" more than one's values, which are sometimes understood on more of a conscious level.

I've been commenting a lot and not answering for quite some time now! My hesitation was largely due to the terms "unfailingly", the mixture of "altruism" and "non-cruelty", and having forgotten my intention to answer. My answer certainly won't be foolproof (haven't yet heard of a trait model that is), and I may not cover both altruism and non-cruelty, but here are some pointers anyway...
To start this answer off "Big", I'll begin with agreeableness (and its Wikipedia page, which has a lot to offer on the topic), one of the Big Five personality traits [emphasis added throughout]:

Agreeableness is a personality trait manifesting itself in individual behavioral characteristics that are perceived as kind, sympathetic, cooperative, warm and considerate [(Thompson, 2008)].

All of these aspects (traits unto themselves, really) will relate somewhat to non-cruelty or altruism; even cooperation entails not harming one's teammates and sometimes putting them first.

People scoring low on agreeableness are generally less concerned with others' well-being and report having less empathy. Therefore, these individuals are less likely to go out of their way to help others. Low agreeableness is often characterized by skepticism about other people's motives, resulting in suspicion and unfriendliness. People very low on agreeableness have a tendency to be manipulative in their social relationships. They are also more likely to compete than to cooperate.

Less concern for others' well-being and emotions in general means greater freedom to disregard or willfully harm them, as are often useful to do for personal gain via manipulation or competition. Here we also have a direct connection to altruism, and a few indirect connections, including disinterest and mistrust of others' concerns. Yet the most direct connection to altruism appears in the facets of agreeableness (lower-order factors in a second-order model of agreeableness as a multidimensional construct; see Figure 1 for a similar model):

Agreeableness is considered to be a superordinate trait, meaning that it is a grouping of personality sub-traits that cluster together statistically. The lower-level traits, or facets, grouped under agreeableness are: trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, and tender-mindedness [(Matsumoto & Juang, 2012)].

I've emphasized trust and straightforwardness above because the Big Five model of personality isn't the only one that relates trust to altruism—see also:
Figure 1. Second-order model of trust linking altruism to honesty (Perepelkin & Di Zhang, 2011).

Again, logically, a lack of trust would likely reduce motivation to help others altruistically. As for straightforwardness, Wikipedia notes, "Low scorers...are generally deceitful or manipulative." Again, these behaviors are likely to relate to some form of cruelty more often than not (i.e., "white lies" are the exception, I assume).
Also, from the same section, "Straightforwardness is similar to the honesty aspect of honesty-humility in the HEXACO model" (Ashton & Lee, 2005). So, speaking of HEXACO...

The factors of Agreeableness, Honesty-Humility and Emotionality are distinctly different from their counterparts on the Five Factor Model (FFM). Honesty-Humility, Emotionality and Agreeableness are proposed to be measures of Altruistic versus Antagonistic behaviour. Honesty-Humility and Agreeableness both measure two different aspects of Reciprocal altruism, high levels of which indicate a propensity for helping behaviour and cooperation as opposed to the exploitation of others. The Honesty-Humility factor represents a person's tendency for pro-social altruistic behaviours [(Thalmayer, Saucier, & Eigenhuis, 2011)], while Agreeableness indicates an individual's tendency to forgive and to show tolerance. Emotionality is a measure of kin altruism, that is, the tendency to show empathy and attachment to one’s kin.

This implies a little complexity in altruism itself, but brings agreeableness, honesty-humility, and emotionality directly into the equation within the HEXACO model. It may also claim that emotionality is "distinctly different" from neuroticism, but I'm not sure I'd go so far. Consider that neuroticism relates negatively to happiness in the context of the Wikipedia page on altruism itself:

While research supports the idea that altruistic acts bring about happiness, it has also been found to work in the opposite direction—that happier people are also kinder. The relationship between altruistic behavior and happiness is bidirectional. Studies have found that generosity increases linearly from sad to happy affective states [(Underwood, Froming, & Moore, 1977)]...While generous acts make people feel good about themselves, it is also important for people to appreciate the kindness they receive from others. Studies suggest that gratitude goes hand-in-hand with kindness and is also very important for our well-being. A study on the relationship happiness to various character strengths showed that "a conscious focus on gratitude led to reductions in negative affect and increases in optimistic appraisals, positive affect, offering emotional support, sleep quality, and well-being" [(Shimai, Otake, Park, Peterson, & Seligman, 2006).]

This adds happiness and gratitude to the equation as well, which can be measured at the trait level.
BTW, since empathy has come up a fair amount, you may be interested in the "empathy-altruism hypothesis". This also implicates empathy as a trait of sorts that relates to altruism, but I'm not sure this adds anything to what I've said above. Also, while I'm disclaiming, I may not have addressed cruelty sufficiently yet, much less neural correlates. Both are likely to make the necessary answer much bigger, so I'm at least going to take a break on this one for now. I'd encourage someone else to step up and cover those bases in the meantime.
References
- Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2005). Honesty-Humility, the Big Five, and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality, 73(5), 1321–1354.
- Matsumoto, D., & Juang, L. (2012). Culture and psychology (5th ed.), pp. 271. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth-Cengage Learning.
- Perepelkin, J., & Di Zhang, D. (2011). Brand personality and customer trust in community pharmacies. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, 5(3), 175–193.
-Post, S. G. (2005). Altruism, happiness, and health: It's good to be good. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 12(2), 66–77.
-Schwartz, C., Meisenhelder, J., Ma, Y., & Reed, G. (2003). Altruistic social interest behaviors are associated with better mental health. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65(5), 778–785.
-Shimai, S., Otake, K., Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. P. (2006). Convergence of character strengths in American and Japanese young adults. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7(3), 311–322.
-Thalmayer, A. G., Saucier, G., & Eigenhuis, A. (2011). Comparative validity of brief to medium-length Big Five and Big Six Personality Questionnaires. Psychological Assessment, 23(4), 995–1009. Retrieved from http://pages.uoregon.edu/gsaucier/comp_val.pdf.
-Thompson, E. R. (2008). Development and validation of an international English big-five mini-markers. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(6), 542–548.
-Underwood, B., Froming, W. J., & Moore, B. S. (1977). Mood, attention, and altruism: A search for mediating variables. Developmental Psychology, 13(5), 541–542.

I interpret your question as a search for all kinds of characteristics for habitually non-aggressive people.
Logically you could also put your question this way: What is characteristic only for people who are generally aggressive? How do you tell the difference between someone generally aggressive and someone not?
Here are some things that recognize above average habitual aggression:

Biochemicals

Zinc deficiency can lead to symptoms that include aggression and violence.

Low serotonin leads to increased aggression.

High testosterone (males are more prone!)

Abnormal glucose metabolism

Brain functions

Temporal lobe issues, including temporal lobe epilepsy: http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/123/2/234

Amygdala properties: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22256828

Emotions

Anger, frustration, jealousy and fear can all lead to aggression. We all know that many criminals have had bad childhoods, were bullyed at school, grew up without their parents or other sad things.

Investigators from the Université de Montréal in Canada found that negative behavior at age 6, such as fighting, disobedience, and a lack of empathy, predicted criminal convictions by age 24.
  http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/781279

Depression is sometimes linked to aggression: http://apt.rcpsych.org/content/15/4/271.full

Bipolar Disorder:

The study concluded: "BP, particularly during acute episodes, is associated with increased self-reported verbal and physical aggression, anger, and hostility. - See more at: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/bipolar-disorder/risk-aggressive-behavior-bipolar-disorder#sthash.N8E37ibO.dpuf
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/bipolar-disorder/risk-aggressive-behavior-bipolar-disorder

Kids who constantly expect rejection are more aggressive and get into trouble more with teachers than do their classmates.

Competitive cultures, the realistic conflict theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory

Genes: Some say that 50% of aggressivenes is caused by genes.

Low Agreeableness: As mentioned in the post by Nick Stauner

High Neuroticism: Facet N2, Angry Hostility makes a person annoyed, angry, frustrated, bitter, intolerant, and have a bad temper, short fuse.

Learned aggression

Studies have shown that children imitate the behavior of grownups and cartoons (see Bobo doll experiment). They imitate both physical behavior and aggressive attitudes. This is especially the case when they observe someone behave aggression without being punished for it.

The bobo doll experiment indicates that children with aggressive parents are likely to imitate their parents' behavior - which is also supported by studies:

Dick's research found that three factors can predict violence in men with 88 percent accuracy: Men who have witnessed their fathers abuse their mothers, men who are victims of a father's abuse themselves and men who have low self-esteem are the most likely to be violent themselves.
  http://www.uc.edu/info-services/batter.htm

Desensitizing is when an individual is exposed to a stimuli often enough to become less sensitive to it. This may happen in several ways, like TV-shows\movies, military training, bad childhoods or sub cultural norms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desensitization_%28psychology%29

Parenting mistakes like giving up and giving a child what it wants because it won't stop crying - it will teach the child that the behavior leads to something it wants (reinforcement, think Pavlovs dogs). It may be hard to ignore a child that beats other children, but some children will do such things exactly because they know it gives them the attention they want.

Social norms
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-84653-3_9
Stress

See Friedman and Rosenman's Type A personality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_A_and_Type_B_personality_theory

All the mentioned causes are long-lasting or even permanent.
So there isn't any short or easy answer as to what makes a person aggressive.
All I can say is that people who are habitually aggressive have some kind of...issue... and they can't really help it, because most of these causes have no simple treatment.

Empathy is a concept of Psychology. Human individuals can attempt to understand the emotional state of another being and act in a way which that being would like to be treated. Altruism is a different concept. Where individuals are compelled to act in a way which they view is the best for the welfare of the individual. Someone with extreme empathy might assist someone in committing suicide because they are able to feel the emotional or physical pain of the person contemplating death. Likewise a person with extreme altruism would go to great links to continue the life of someone on the brink of death. Like carrying a mother out of burning building as she screams and resists because she wants to search for her child.
It is the contention of some psychologist that empathy can be taught especially to children and prisoners. Likewise also some research has been done into teaching altruism.
Lessening egocentric behavior seems to be the theme of both programs to teach empathy and altruism.
In non-scientific theological circles repeated exposure to principles of compassion (by lessening self-centeredness) have been known to induce altruism in certain individuals. Yet this same teaching of compassion has also been shown to induce sociopathic behaviour as well. Having the opposite effect of that which was intended.

Empathy is the ability to recognize another person's emotions. Altruism is a behavior of causing the welfare of others. Altruism might be caused by empathy. Simon Baron-Cohen, in Zero Degrees of Empathy, argues that the absence of empathy is the cause of cruelty (the opposite of altruism). Empathy, in short, is the cognitive ability that is a prerequisite for altruisitic behavior, just like intelligence is the prerequisite for solving mathematical equations. They are not one concept and another, but concepts on completely different levels of conceptualisation and intimately related.

@what no empathy is not a prerequisite for altruistic behavior. Those with reduced or no empathy due to a mental illness are still able to act altruistically. Just because you're autistic or even a sociopath does not mean you're a monster.

You are right. That sentence should have read: "Empathy is the cognitive ability that prevents cruel behavior."

@what: Altruism should also be defined by the absence or negligibility of direct, personal benefit (unless you're willing to depart from the normative understanding deliberately, in which case this should be specified explicitly in the OP).


text:
What personality traits does sexy and revealing clothing correlate with?
Is there some unifying characteristic that distinguishes women who wear form-fitting, lowcut, see-through and other kinds of revealing outfits?
Are they more extroverted, do they rate higher in (sexual) sensation seeking, do they have high or low confidence etc.?
Is there any research on this?

lol, did you downvote for purported sexism, or because of some valid reason?

I for one would find it more interesting if it weren't a sex-specific question, but I haven't voted either way (yet).

This question is primarily about Feminine psychology. Men identify less with their clothing than women and are stereotyped as promoting self-objectification many times.
In American society clothing norms are for women are very complex and are difficult to navigate. Because sexuality is indeed related to which parts of your body you do or do not reveal there is direct clinical quality relationships between certain clothes and states of mind. However generalizations made about a persons state of mind based on their clothing can often be faulty. People experience stimuli in their lives which prompt individual responses that do not match their overall personality.
Active research along these lines has been published. In Enclothed cognition it is reported that a lab coat is able to change the perception and increase attention when associated with a doctor. Likewise in More Than a Body: Mind Perception and the Nature of Objectification studies were done comparing the agency viewed by people on clothed, naked and sexualized pictures. In conclusion they said:

Whatever the positive or negative effects of focusing on someone’s body, its effect on mind perception seems clear. Those perceived in terms of their physical characteristics are not completely stripped of mind but are, instead, seen to possess a different kind of mind, one lacking in self-control and moral responsibility but relatively more capable of pain, pleasure, and emotion.

In "You Are What You Wear: What Your Clothes Reveal About You" shopping for clothes is treated as a therapy to correct negative schemas. Though its validity has not been proven it seems rational.
To directly answer your questions about "Are they more extroverted, do they rate higher in (sexual) sensation seeking, do they have high or low confidence etc.?" according to You Are What You Wear it largely depends on age and the norms for that age. A college age girl in a revealing dress would have a different state of mind than an older woman in a similarly revealing dress.

What do you mean by a "direct clinical quality relationship" between certain clothes and states of mind?  That seems like a doubtful assertion, particularly without citing evidence.

The last link doesn't work


text:
At what age are women perceived to be most attractive?
Someone once quoted a research at me:
Men were shown photographs of female body parts and asked to judge the attractiveness. The result was that men (of all ages) found 14 year old females the most (sexually) attractive.
I have tried to locate this or similar research, but to no avail.
Do you know of experiments researching at what age (men or) women are perceived to be most attractive (by male or female judges)?
Are there any moderators of this judgement (like age or gender of judge)?

For those using the fertility hypothesis to justify men’s higher sexual attraction to younger women one thing does not check out. The fact that men as well decrease in fertility after the age of 20. It takes a 40 year old man two years to achieve a pregnancy with a woman at peak fertility. https://theoutline.com/post/6061/older-men-younger-women-evolution-or-bullshit

OkCupid, a free online dating website (through which I've met two girlfriends myself, incidentally), does some pretty interesting research on the profiles and activity of its users. This particular research blog post presents some fairly on-topic results in "Exhibit C: Looks":

@ArtemKaznatcheev rightly pointed out some range restriction here, so this can't address the validity of an age estimate below 18 years directly, but two things are worth noting:

The overall slope resembles a simple linear trend that might continue upward past 18 years young.
The absolute maximum here appears to be around 19, not 18. I doubt the difference is "significant".

It's not clear to me whose ratings these are or how exactly they were collected (as a user of the site, I remember a 1-5 rating index, and chose to rate women only), so it's hard to trust these results, especially in terms of their representativeness of a general population. Artem also pointed out that a better method for controlling social desirability in these ratings would hide direct information on age from respondents; OkCupid's research differs from the kind you're asking about in that regard too. Nonetheless, it's an empirical hint at the more explicit answer to the related, subjective question where respondents do have this info. Social desirability and age info are present in many normal social interactions after all, so removing age info deliberately might reduce naturalistic applicability of results anyway.
This blog post presents many more graphs on related topics that might interest you (e.g., as alternative operationalizations of attractiveness, or as behavioral correlates), but only one seems to address a moderator directly. That moderator is attractiveness itself! A quote follows this graph:

If you separate out the absolute best-looking women, almost all of whom are very young, and also remove the people you won't realistically want to date (the worst-looking women), you find that everyone else's attractiveness doesn't change much with age.
In other words, given that nobody is drop-dead gorgeous or drop-dead hideous, your average 25 year-old is roughly as good-looking as your average 35 year-old. Yes, throwing out the prettiest of the pretty young things is a clumsy handicap to put on an age-by-age comparison. But at the same time, for the vast majority of men, the best-looking women are simply out of reach, so it's actually accurate to exclude them as possibilities. In fact, unrealistic male expectations inspired this article, so we want to do everything we can to correct for them.
Many of you are probably scoffing at the idea that many 35 year-olds are as attractive as many 25 year-olds, but there are social factors at work that you might not consider as you go through life making judgments. Most importantly: nationwide, thirtysomethings are much more likely to be married and therefore much more likely to have stopped optimizing their attractiveness. So the typical 35 year-old woman you see out in the world isn't representative of the single 35 year-olds who are still dating and looking good.

I'm particularly doubtful of this second graph though, because it doesn't seem clear that the top and bottom deciles were identified and excluded separately within each year of age. "If you separate out the absolute best-looking women, almost all of whom are very young" actually sounds more like excluding the top decile while ignoring age, which might invalidate this graph. Removing the most extreme deciles of the sample while ignoring age would necessarily flatten the "everybody else" line somewhat, given any asymmetry in relationships between age and membership in these deciles of attractiveness across all ages.

Edit by what. Delete or edit as you see fit.
Nick, I too see a problem with how the most and least attractive women were deleted from the sample. I add this as an edit, as it does not warrant its own answer, but is too long for a comment.
If attractiveness declines with age, we must assume that it declines equally for all women, until this is disproven. So we must assume that a woman who is among the most beautiful at age 21, while still among the most beautiful at age 35, will have lost in overall attractiveness. The same goes for the average and the unattractive woman. We must assume (because we don't have the data) that over all women of all ages and all levels of attractiveness, we have a parallel decline in attractiveness with age, as shown in the graph below:

Now, if you delete the most and least attractive women from your sample, across all ages, you will, as the graph shows, create a sub-sample with no decline in attractiveness. This is an artifact of you tampering with the data and has no explanatory power whatsoever.
If on the other hand you delete the most and least attractive women for each age group, the general "slant" of the graph and the decrease in attractiveness that it represents does not change at all.
What I believe is that okcupid.com do not want to anger their older female customers, so they pimped or sugarcoated their data in a way that flatters the vanity of those women and allays their fears of being unattractive. In short: this section of their blog is advertising, not research.

Nick, +1 and +edit :-)

Interesting review of that second graph! I was thinking the same thing. I phrased it somewhat more generally/vaguely because the same thing would happen if attractiveness increased with age, or if likelihood of being in both deciles changed asymmetrically with age in any other way (e.g., a curvilinear relationship with age making 29-year-olds most attractive, and 18- and 40-year-olds least attractive). Only if variability around a stable mean changed with age symmetrically would this change not affect the "everybody else" line; all other changes with age I can think of would affect it.

+1 awesome idea

No. Female beauty is believed to be related to the physical traits of their fertility which is maximized in the 20s. Men prefer partners around the age of 20 for one night stands  (this is true for their sexual fantasies as well) and for long term partners sometimes older than 20s but generally younger than themselves. Women prefer sexual partners of their own age.

The present study examined desired minimum and maximum ages for mates across five different levels of relationship involvement (marriage, serious relationship, falling in love, casual sex, and sexual fantasies) comparing individuals of 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 years old. Consistent with previous findings, women preferred partners of their own age, regardless of their own age and regardless of the level of relationship involvement. Men, on the other hand, regardless of their own age, desired mates for short-term mating and for sexual fantasies who were in their reproductive years. However, with regard to long-term mates, men preferred mates who, although younger than them, were sometimes above the age of maximum fertility. Explanations for these findings are discussed.

-Age preferences for mates as related to gender, own age, and involvement level

In the absence of contraception, female fertility reaches its maximum in the mid-twenties (which is the estimated age of evolved attractive composites), declines by about 20% in the mid-thirties, and then falls precipitously by a further 60% during the forties

-Mate choice decisions: the role of facial beauty

female beauty can best be explained by a sexual selection viewpoint, whereby selection favors cues that are reliable indicators of fertility.

-Female facial beauty: The fertility hypothesis

Thank you. The question is not about age preference in partners, but about attractiveness. Partner fit has more factors than mere attractiveness.

@what well in the 20s is when the attractive features are fully present. see the second paper i cite

There's data in this reddit post that points to about 14 being the age girls are at their most attractive to men (exactly as biology predicts): Science AMA Series: We are Alan Sanders, Michael Bailey, and Gary Beecham, co-authors of a recently published study on the genetics of male sexual orientation, Ask Us Anything!.

Although not a terrible link, if you could offer analysis on the data that you link to here, this would be a much better answer.

Waist to hip ratio seems to be a strong indicator of mate choice, even more than facial beauty (which was alluded to above). Google scholar will point you to hundreds of articles concerning the subject.  Hence the age group with the 'optimum' waist to hip ratio (~0.7) will tend to be favored by men.

My biggest Problems with studies like the Okcupid...they only allow for members 18+. So you end up with data skewed a bit higher than would probably be norm. Also with the social stigma of finding someone attractive underage, if the person is aware they would say NO. Also men in their 20's tend to want a girl they can take drinking so that it is somewhere they are familiar/comfortable with and of course, drunk girls are easier (not condoning in any way just saying it happens)
I have heard of these studies too. And they get buried from search engines with these new "studies"
On I heard came up with 15 and one was 16.
The 16 one I know a place you can find it: The documentary are all men Pedophiles
http://watchdocumentaries.com/are-all-men-pedophiles/
At 5:28 he quotes a guy, who did the pathological studies. And the whole thing is full of the kind of general info you might be looking for.
I would just give you the guy's name but it's foreign, being spoken by someone with a mild accent. I just have no idea.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Does data support Domhoff's neurocognitive theory of dreams?
A friend described consistent feelings and themes during a dream. It is my understanding that the contents of our dreams are our subconscious/unconscious/preconscious processing stimuli from the day or our general state of mind. Most of which research I've found relates back to Freud and his off incorrect psychoanalysis.
I can more easily relate to Domhoff's research into dreams as a reflection of schemas. It seems scientifically valid.
What is the overall view of the reliability of dream interpretation as described by Domhoff?
References

Domhoff, G. W. (2001). A new neurocognitive theory of dreams. Dreaming, 11, 13-33
See also this question

The question body emphasizes the question whether Domhoff's neurocognitive theory of dreams is reliable.
Reliability is  the "consistency" or repeatability of research measures. So, a theory cannot be reliable.
I think OP (since offsite) meant to ask for the theory's validity, being the extent to which a concept, conclusion or measurement is well-founded and corresponds accurately to the real world. This interpretation also matches the question title better.
Domhoff (2001) bases his theory on findings in patients with brain injuries, showing that lesions in different areas have differential effects on dreaming. In addition, only 20–30% of REM period awakenings in children aged up to 9 years lead to dream reports and dreams of children under age 5 yrs are bland and static in content. Thirdly, Domhoff showed that dream content is repetitive and continuous with waking conceptions and emotional preoccupations. Based on these findings, Domhoff says that dreaming is best understood as a developmental cognitive achievement that depends upon the maturation and maintenance of a specific network of forebrain structures.
Domhoff's theory opposed the activation-synthesis theory theory, which was coined by Hobson & McCarley. They showed that the brain stem was activated during REM sleep. Their theory suggests that during REM sleep, random brain activation produces dreams. The theory has since been developed, as more and more is understood about REM sleep. Hobson has explicitly argued against Domhoff's theory, stating that Domhoff bases his theory on a 'misreading of the neurobiological literature and an individualistic view of dream psychology' (Hobson, 2005).
In the end, theories try to explain observations, and at this point, as far as I can see, both theories may have value. Personally, the activation-synthesis theory seems more plausible and less complicated, and hence the most parsimonious of the two. But admittedly, I'm not a dream expert.

Fig. 1. Activation-synthesis theory of dreaming. source: MacAlister College
References
- Domhoff. Dreaming (2001); 11(1), 13-33
- Hobson, Dreaming (2005); 15(1), 21-29


text:
Do any supplements or psychoactive drugs for improving memory have solid long term research?
The non effects of vitamins has been in the new frequently recently. Do any supplements or psychoactive drugs for improving memory have solid long term research?


text:
What is the maximum amount of synapses? What processes (if any) increase synapse amount?
How plastic is the brain? What is the maximum amount of synapses? What processes (if any) increase synapse amount? What are some of the advantages of having more or less synapses?

Age is a big factor of course. AFAIK, plasticity declines monotonically (i.e., maybe not steadily, but it never increases) from birth to death. This has a lot to do with sensitive periods in development (e.g., the best time to learn a second language is ASAP, especially if you're not an adult yet) and cognitive decline (e.g., why old dogs don't learn new tricks), and may even have something to do with the relationships between age and conservatism and traditionalism. Much of the developmental process is one of pruning connections and reinforcing those most used, which leads to rigidity/habits.

You might be interested in the various segments of Scientific American Frontiers' Changing Your Mind. Quite a wide variety of topics in plasticity covered there.


text:
What is the current state of SAD treatment according to research?
Seasonal Affective disorder SAD affects many people moods during seasons when the sun is less prevalent, myself no included. What is the current state of SAD treatment options according to published research?

Coming from the North, I'm most familiar with light treatments, where patients get on a regular schedule exposing themselves to a bright light every day.  Folklore in the North is that it needs to have high reds and blues like the spectrum of the sun;  I haven't read the papers in detail, so I don't know if that's true, but light therapy has been effective in small trials:
Preliminary studies in 11 patients suggest that extending the photoperiod with bright artificial light has an antidepressant effect.
Both morning and evening light therapy improved depressive symptoms in patients (of 30) with SAD independent of their circadian phase or sleep timing.
Several patients (of 13) were able to maintain the antidepressant response throughout the winter months by continuing daily light treatments.


text:
Is paraphilia a disorder?
There has been some confusion in recent questions about the term paraphilia. In most questions and answers, including my own, paraphilias have been seen as disorders that might require treatment.
But are paraphilias disorders?

The DSM-5 does not list all paraphilia as a disorder! According to the DSM-5,

The term paraphilia denotes any intense and persistent sexual interest other than sexual interest in genital stimulationor preparatory fondling with phenotypically normal, physically mature, consenting human partners.

What the DSM-5 does list are paraphilic disorders:

A paraphilic disorder is a paraphilia that is currently causing distress or impairment to the individual or a paraphilia whose satisfaction has entailed personal harm, or risk of harm, to others. A paraphilia is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for having a paraphilic disorder, and a paraphilia b itself does not necessarily justify or require clinical intervention.
In the diagnostic criteria set for each of the listed paraphilic disorders, Criterion A specifies the qualitative nature of the paraphilia (e.g., an erotic focus on children or on exposing the genitals to strangers), and Criterion B specifies the negative consequences of the paraphilia (e.g. distress, impairment, or harm to others). In keeping with the distinction between paraphilias and paraphilic disorders, the term diagnosis should be reserved for individuals who meet both Criteria A and B.

Thanks, this is a useful reference. I hope you  are linking to it from the relevant question.


text:
How to ethically research the effect of expert lies on lay people
I'm conducting a study about the effects of a verbally administered placebo.
The actual setting and intervention are different from the example I give here, but similar enough that the example may serve as a basis for discussion.
In the study, a team of psychologists running a local practice offers a new experimental service. The psychologists have developed a diagnostic tool that allows them to predict with surprising accuracy if a single person will fall in love within the upcoming four weeks. To further test and refine this diagnostic tool they now offer a public service after having tested it on a small sample of students. So they invite local residents to their practice to be tested through an advertisement and offer them a free diagnosis, whether or not they will fall in love within the next two weeks. The participants are told that the diagnostic tool for this prognosis is being evaluated in its predictive power and that they should report back after four weeks and tell the researchers if they had fallen in love or not.
Of course there is no diagnostic tool. The psychologists believe that they are being perceived as experts by the laypeople, and that if they make such a prediction after some impressive psychological examination, this prediction will cause people to fall in love, if without this intervention they would not have, or remain "out of love", if they had fallen in love.
Obviously, the researchers do not want to give negative (not fall in love) prognoses, because they do not want anyone to refuse and miss out on an "offer" they would have been happy about. (They do not believe that they will cause people to fall in love with unsuitable suitors and cause grief, only that participants with a will-fall-in-love prognosis will react more benevolently and accepting to offers they receive.) And, in the absence of negative prognoses, the researchers will need a control group that receives no prediction, but still reports back after two weeks.
The psychologists do not know how to set up this experiment so that they can give positive (fall in love) diagnoses or no diagnosis to random participants, without raising suspicion. Some of the patients will obviously know each other and talk about this experimental "service", and they will notice that they know no one with a negative diagnosis. That would seem odd to them. Also the reason to not give a diagnosis to many participants must be valid without raising doubt regarding the validity of the prognoses that were given.
What would you tell your participants to allay their doubts over the absence of negative prognoses? And how would you explain that often you do not give a prognosis, without invalidating the prognoses you give?

Note
Since the ethic concerns are being pushed to the forefront of the discussion, I have edited my question to include an example that more closely resembles the real research. Yet, I want to repeat that this is an example only, so please don't get hung up on the specifics of falling in love. The real study includes psychologists and a behavior prediction, but not about falling in love. Similar research has been done in a laboratory setting, the difference is I want to do it out "in the field".
If you are worried about psychologists lying to their participants, you need to understand that cover stories are a common method in psychological research. They are in fact so very common, that it is easier to list instances where cover stories are not used: only if the knowledge of the purpose of the study cannot falsify the results are participants told in advance what is being studied and how. In all other cases the researchers lie to the participants and debrief them after the experient.
Of course, if there is any danger that this lie would have lasting or strong negative effects, such research will not be conducted.
You can safely assume that

participants will be informed that they are taking part in an experiment and asked to give their consent (this is easily part of the cover story, as it allows to not give a prognosis to some of the participants)
participants will be debriefed by a trained psychologist
participants will be given contact information and told to contact a team member when they observe any kind of effect at all, positive or negative (since we want to measure these effects, this is easily part of the cover story)
an ethics commitee of our university will evaluate the study design

Since similar "lies" have been told to participants of other experiments before, I am quite confident that this study will be approved by our ethics committee also. Here is an example of a study where the researchers lied to the participants about their sleep quality: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24417326
There are also many examples of research, where researchers actually induce negative (i.e. unwanted by the participants) effects in their participants. A recent example is experimentally lowering self-esteem: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165178113007774.

Scientific perspective
From a design perspective, it would not be difficult to set out a design where participants did not know each other or did not know each other well enough to deduce that the information was false. You could also include a manipulation check that probed participants at the conclusion of the study about the degree to which they believed the diagnosis provided, and filter out participants who doubted the validity of the diagnosis.
Ethical perspective
The more fundamental question is whether the study is ethical to run. It violates several basic ethical principles:

There is no informed consent at least at time of initial participation.
It may cause harm to people who rely on the information about their health
It may also bring the medical profession or medical research into disrepute

Of course, in some cases you can justify lack of consent. In particular, you need to look at the risks and potential harm and weigh that against the potential social benefits.
On the face of it, I doubt the study as described would meet requirements for ethics approval.

I have edited my question and given an example with psychologists instead of physicians. I'd be glad if you would review it.


text:
Is being naked good for you?
What are the psychological effects and correlates of social nudism?
No opinions, only research, please.

I feel like this question, as it stands, lacks any theoretic motivation. There are an infinite number of questions we could ask about the human mind, but only a small finite amount of resources. If you could broaden the context of why you are interested in this question, then perhaps some relevant research literature could be found to answer it, even if they only use related constructs (e.g. work on activism or modesty or fashion depending on your motivation for asking).

This, like everything else, depends solely upon the good derived from it as an individual. Oh, and "yes."

it's pretty easy to answer, no research paper needed, if you're shy, it makes you feel weak and more shy, if you're not shy, it feels like challenging the world "I'm free i do what I want" that's all

This question is about a non norm social behaviour and does not reflect sufficient amount of research to warrant an answer.

@StevenJeuris: I don't see why this was closed. Initial research is not required, though it bears on voting. I upvoted anyway because I find the question interesting and potentially useful – I could edit in motivating arguments as per zergylord's suggestion myself if it were my question (of course, I could regardless, if you like). Unusual social behavior is directly on-topic...and frankly, I suspect caseyr547's flag was vindictive (cf. e.g.).


text:
Is there a scientific term for when you fall asleep because you can't handle something?
I'm wondering if there is a scientific term that describes when you fall asleep or pass out after some traumatic event?
This effect happens when people witness something gruesome (a friend being killed, for instance), have some major upheaval in their life, or experience some other trauma (eg. a bad breakup, losing a job, etc.). When the mind can't cope it simply shuts off and they fall asleep or pass out. A decent example I just though of can be seen in the first Matrix movie (not the first place I would have thought of to look for an example) when Neo finds out about the matrix and promptly vomits and passes out for a few hours.
The closest term I'm aware of is a dissociative fugue or fugue state, though I'm unsure if that's related (possibly it's simply a more extreme version of the effect I tried to describe above).

Have you considered narcolepsy? It is sometimes stress-induced, but not always. It's also an abnormal condition, rather than a general principle that might explain fainting in normal, non-narcoleptics. I assume the latter is what you're looking for, but just in case that's not so, there's one idea for you. Otherwise, stress-induced shock might apply.

Stress induced shock sounds more like what I was thinking of. I'll look that up.

I noticed this was tagged under abnormal-psychology; I was under the impression this was something most everyone did and not a disorder, but I could be wrong.

Yo @ArtemKaznatcheev! I think the OP is calling you out on the tag edit! Maybe you were focusing on the mention of fugue? Could be helpful to keep the tag if someone were to distinguish the description from dissociative disorders I suppose. Here's my 2¢: AFAIK, fugue generally doesn't entail sleep-like unconsciousness or nausea; mostly just memory loss. FWIW, I think Monacraft nailed it with "syncope".

Yah, I'm starting to think syncope is probably the closest we'll get; hard to search for this sort of thing, but I haven't been able to find anything specific. It might just be caused by a lot of things and not have a specific cause at all. Thanks all for your help.

@NickStauner I guess I use abnormal-psychology more widely than most, I would consider it for things like psychological responses to extreme conditions not typically experiences by people. An (potentially incorrect) example I would give is: many people who experience trench warfare come-back with shell-shock, so that could be seen as a normal response, however studying shell-shock would still be under abnormal-psych. Of course, I am by no means an authority on this, and if you guys think my edit is wrong you can reverse it or add some other tags.

@ArtemKaznatcheev I'm definitely no expert, but I think the condition described is much more common than shell shock. I have no idea if it belongs under abnormal-psych or not, but my gut reaction is no. Someone with more experience than me (read, "any experience at all") might want to chime in though.

I am not 100% sure how what you describe is different from a combination of fainting on one hand (if it is an instantaneous encounter) and a common side-effect of depression (to "avoid facing the day") on the other hand (if it is one of break-up, lose job, etc cases). Both are looked at by abnormal-psych. (Edit: After typing this comment, I see that @Monacraft's answer describes exactly this)

@ArtemKaznatcheev Okay, probably just a misunderstanding of what falls under abnormal-psych on my part then. It is definitely a common side-effect of depression; I might be describing two different things without realizing it though. The common side effect of depression is more what I'm after if there's a word for it.

@SamWhited you should consider taking a look at this article and the answers on this question and then use them to frame a new more specific question about the relationship between sleep and depression. I think that would be interesting.

let us continue this discussion in chat

The specific event you mention (my paraphrasing: loss of consciousness and motor control leading to a sleep/coma-like state due to acute circumstantial stress) might best be classified according to @Monacraft's excellent answer. To build on that somewhat, we've discussed in chat that there might be important distinctions among various levels of consciousness, such that, per your example, "sleep" might be usefully different from "passed out." I've noted my own vague familiarity with theories of consciousness that model it in terms of discrete levels of awareness. My off-the-cuff proposal for such a model was as follows:
$$\text{fully alert > calm}\ge\text{trance}\ge\text{drowsy} \\ \text{> REM sleep > deep sleep > "KO'd" unconscious}\\\text{> deep coma}\ge\text{Near-death experience}\ge\text{vegetative > kaput}$$
I see that Wikipedia has its own page about levels of consciousness as well, which lists the following levels as a summary (using GRE-level vocab), for which it cites Porth (2007):
$$\text{conscious > confused > delirious > somnolent > obtunded > stuporous > comatose}$$
The above Wikipedia page even mentions and links to a separate page about the Glasgow Coma Scale (cf. Gill, Reiley, & Green, 2004), which is one of apparently many scales in medical use for measuring differences among unconscious states, so it seems one could take an even finer-grained or fully continuous approach to modeling individual differences in degree of conscious awareness. A Google image search for "levels of consciousness" also leads to a lot of rather suspicious-looking diagrams of levels of consciousness above sleep, so a continuous dimensional model would probably help reduce a lot of this theoretical mess if theorists could somehow be made to agree with it unanimously. Then again, one strong counterargument would be the often sudden loss of muscle tension that can occur in rapid transitions from awake to unconscious. That might better support a model with at least one such discrete state change.
Anyway, this reminds me of general adaptation syndrome (GAS), which describes normative stress response in terms of a curvilinear model of resistance as a continuous dependent variable changing over time:

Thus another conceivable, more general answer might simply be "exhaustion", as above. One source on GAS that I was able to find online just now mentions "passing out" explicitly in association with the exhaustion stage, so this at least tentatively supports the interpretation of exhaustion as potentially leading to unconscious, sleep-like levels of consciousness, though maybe more authoritative references than this could be found to provide such support (please comment or edit if you find any). Another parallel worth drawing here is between "resistance to stress" and emotional arousal, the vertical axis on the circumplex model of emotion I mentioned in another answer here. Given a stressful circumstance, we'd of course be looking at the left side of that diagram, and reinterpreting the rise and fall of resistance as the transition from neutral, to nervous, to gloomy, and finally sluggish or tired. This might help explain why depression is a related issue. Long-term depression (such as in people suffering a major depressive episode) naturally leaves a person exhausted, and maybe more likely to just pass out when overwhelmed by stress, because such a person is probably closer to "overwhelmed" from the outset.
In our chat, we've discussed some other complexities on the diathesis side of the stress response model; I think some of that is worth re-posting here. First, a handy (if simplistic) diagram from Wikipedia on the diathesis-stress model:

To apply this here, let's define the negative outcome as that described in the OP; the positive outcome as simply retaining consciousness, self-control, and effective coping capability; the negative environment/experience as the class of traumatic events described in the OP; the positive environment/experience as ordinary experience; the resilient individual as the subpopulation of people who would score at least one standard deviation (SD) above average on measures of protective characteristics and one SD below average on diathesis-exacerbating characteristics; the vulnerable individual as the opposite subpopulation; and both lines as oversimplified predictions of average tendencies subject to probabilistic error. This allows us to accommodate a potentially endless list of individual differences that could moderate the normative tendency to change one's level of conscious awareness in response to extremely shocking, traumatic stress. For now, I'll limit myself to mentioning only two, particularly relevant differences:

Hardiness is the prototypical stress-resistance trait; you'd expect a resilient individual to have lots.
Neuroticism, the opposite of emotional stability, characterizes individuals with tendencies toward negative emotionality and stronger stress response. This would make an individual more reactive, likely to experience depression, and thus more likely to suffer chronic exhaustion and be vulnerable.

It relates to psychiatric illness in general, which relates to syncope (Oh & Kapoor, 1997).
It's negatively related to hardiness, but partially distinct (Sinclair & Tetrick, 2000), so a neurotic person who also lacks hardiness would be especially vulnerable, and vice versa.

References
Gill, M. R., Reiley, D. G., & Green, S. M. (2004). Interrater reliability of Glasgow Coma Scale scores in the emergency department. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 43(2), 215–223.
Oh, J. H., & Kapoor, W. N. (1997). Psychiatric illness and syncope. Cardiology Clinics, 15(2), 269–275.
Porth, C. (2007). Essentials of pathophysiology: Concepts of altered health states, pp. 835. Hagerstown, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 0-7817-7087-4. Retrieved July 3, 2008.
Sinclair, R. R., & Tetrick, L. E. (2000). Implications of item wording for hardiness structure, relation with neuroticism, and stress buffering. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(1), 1–25.

Never really did get an answer, so I presume there isn't really a scientific term for the phenomenon I was attempting to describe. Thanks for all the useful information though; this answer was definitely helpful and the closest, so I've marked it as correct.

Glad to have helped! I'm curious what the difference is between what you had in mind and syncope or exhaustion. Did you want something more specifically related to psychological trauma?

I'm not completely sure, but you may be referring to Syncope, a medical term which describes events such as fainting or passing out which occurs upon low blood flow to the brain. As a result it can occur when under shock or trauma or a post-effect of stress.
Obviously, one would expect the opposite to happen in half the events, such as after vomiting, however when you said

have some major upheaval in their life, or experience some other trauma (e.g., a bad breakup, losing a job, etc.). When the mind can't cope it simply shuts off and they fall asleep or pass out.

I realised you may be relating to someone feeling a depressed, in which case lowering of blood pressure is possible and thus he or she could suffer from syncope.
In all honesty it is simply a technical term for fainting, and is more commonly used for people who suffer a disorder which will cause them to faint often.

Thanks, that very well might be it.  Hadn't considered that it might be a physical effect. Maybe there's no specific term and it's just brought on by several conditions like syncope.


text:
When was it recognized that thinking occurs in the brain and not in the heart?
Historically speaking, this misconception used to exist, right? Somewhat like Copernican heliocentrism, no? When (and, if you wish, how) did this folk concept regarding the biological basis of cognition come to be revised?
When was it recognized that thinking occurs in the brain and not in the heart?

Yes, the misconception existed.  Egyptians demonstrate ignorance of the brain.  It was one of the organs they didn't preserve; they didn't think it would be useful in the afterlife.  The reason the heart got so much attention (and blood) is that you can see veins going through the whole body with your eyes and you can see they all connect to the heart.  You can't see nerves going through the whole body so easily.

Alcmaeon of Croton, who lived in the late 6th and early 5th century B.C., is said to have been the first to discover the optical and other sensory nerves. He believed that the nerves were hollow and conducted the sensation to the brain. Alcmaion saw the brain as the organ of perception, memory, thought and the control of action.
The Wikipedia article on the History of Neuroscience gives some more information on the later developments of this view.

Source:

Lloyd, G. (1975). Alcmeon and the early history of dissection. Sudhoffs Archiv, 59, 113–47.

Earlier than I would've guessed! Nice work.

Well, obviously Alcmaeon's ideas did not penetrate to all corners of the world immediately, but I found the tale of how some of us have come to believe in it (while even today there are those who still believe other parts of the body to be the centers of cognition or, a thought popular among scientists, at least contribute to it, e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18779997) too long and convoluted to tell here. So while this answer may be correct, it isn't nearly complete enough.

I think this is historic cherry-picking; if you dig enough among the Greeks you will find almost any belief (most prominent example  of this is saying that the Greeks predicted atomic theory because of Democritus). The question becomes (as you point out in the comments), did any large body subscribe to this belief beyond a few disciples? I would argue that they didn't, because in the 3rd century BC, Aristotle was still promoting the brain as refrigerator and had much more historic significance than Alcmaeon.

From Wikipedia: "Hippocrates, believed the brain to be the seat of intelligence (based, among others before him, on Alcmaeon's work)." There was a phase where several authorities, among them Hippocrates, subscribed to the same belief. Of course these were only beliefs, and others believed other parts of the human body to be the center of cognition, but scientific insight is not a momentary revolution, as it is usually painted in popular media, but a slow process that happens over centuries. So likely Democritus did lay the foundation for later researchers to start looking in the right place.

You are right, of course, Artem, but if you keep your sceptic distance, today we still don't know if cognition happens in the brain. It might well happen in the incorporeal soul, with the brain being the receiver for these thoughts. Well, I don't actually believe that, but there is no proof to contradict this. All we know is that somehow the brain has to do with cognition, but not really much more.

authors: семен антонов


text:
Are there recent theories on physiognomy?
What are recent theories on the relation between personality and facial or body shape, and are there studies to support them?
See Wikipedia on physiognomy and somatotypes & constitutional psychology for background.
I would be most happy if you could go beyond the well-known facts about intelligence and beauty.

Related: Is there a correlation between facial features and personality?

Facial shape

Aggression relates to facial width-to-height ratio (Carré, McCormick, & Mondloch, 2009; Carré & McCormick, 2008). The width-to-height ratio is the distance between the left and right zygion (the outside of the cheek bone) divided by the distance between the top of the upper lip and the mid-brow. Here's a useful image displaying the meaning of this ratio from the 2009 article:

Carré et al. found that the lower the width-to-height ratio, i.e. the shorter the distance between lip and brow in relation to the distance from cheekbone to cheekbone, the more aggressive the person is (as measured through a well-validated laboratory task) and is perceived by strangers.
Also, the Big Five differ in observability (Penton-Voak, Pound, Little, & Perrett, 2006). Participants were asked to rate the Big 5 aspects of the personality of strangers. There was a strong agreement between these ratings and the results of a personality test the depicted persons had filled in (reliability calculated as Cronbach's $\alpha=.70\text{–}.89$ for all dimensions, only male conscientiousness was $.63)$. Similar results were found with composite images.
Here are some composite facial images from that article:

Differences are subtle, but perceptible! BTW, I think I came across this from The Personality Puzzle (Funder, 1997) originally, but I'm not 100% certain.
Some of these facial differences may relate to testosterone. Dominance and masculinity relate to perceptible differences in male facial shape due to the prenatal influence of testosterone, but fortunately for the scope of this answer, these differences do not affect attractiveness to females (Neave, Laing, Fink, & Manning, 2003; Swaddle & Reierson, 2002).

Body shape

Body mass index
There is some evidence that body mass index (BMI) relates to higher extraversion and psychoticism and lower neuroticism in middle-aged Japanese people (Kakizaki et al., 2008), impulsivity (Murphy, Stojek, & MacKillop, 2014; first citation of the new year!), hypomania (Valenti, Omizo, & Mehl-Madrona, 2011), and worse cognitive executive functioning (Gunstad et al., 2007). However, one study did not find a relationship between BMI and personality psychopathology (Picot & Lilenfeld, 2003). Another study found a positive relationship between neuroticism and BMI in middle-aged American women only (the opposite of the relationship in the Japanese population according to Kakizaki et al., who did not mention prominent sex differences) and extraversion among men only (same direction as in Kakizaki et al., but again, more sex differences), as well as negative relationships with openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Brummett et al., 2006). Low conscientiousness related more strongly to BMI in women, and predicted BMI increases over time.
Testosterone
Another set of correlations between personality and body shape are mediated by testosterone, which affects several, readily observable, physical characteristics, including muscle mass, bone length, vocal pitch and tone, hair growth patterns, body odor, dermal oil secretion and acne, subcutaneous facial fat and facial bone contours, and prominence of the Adam's apple. Testosterone relates to many behavioral patterns in romantic relations, the general trend being toward more competitive promiscuity and less long-term fidelity with increasing testosterone (e.g., Burnham et al., 2003). Testosterone increases in men anticipating competition, but may decrease in women (Mazur, Susman, & Edelbrock, 1997). This effect may be moderated by implicit power motivation (Schultheiss, Campbell, & McClelland, 1999); if so, it's conceivable that personality could affect appearance over time by altering testosterone levels. Power motivation interacts in complex ways with sex and the outcome of social contexts in affecting testosterone (Schultheiss et al., 2005; Schultheiss, Wirth, & Stanton, 2004).
One of the underlying personality differences associated with testosterone appears to be in sexual motivation, which manifests in non-human animals as well. Testosterone also relates to sensation-seeking (Roberti, 2004; Gerra et al., 1999; Daitzman & Zuckerman, 1980; Zuckerman, Buchsbaum, & Murphy, 1980) and risk tolerance (Sapienza, Zingales, & Maestripieri, 2009; Stanton et al., 2011; Stanton, Liening, & Schultheiss, 2011), though the relationship exhibits some complexities across domains of risk (Stenstrom, Saad, Nepomuceno, & Mendenhall, 2011). The relationship between testosterone and risk aversion may be mediated by abstract reasoning ability (Brañas-Garza & Rustichini, 2011).
Testosterone also relates to dominance (Mazur & Booth, 1998), aggression (Archer, 2006; Birger et al., 2003; Ehrenkranz, Bliss, & Sheard, 1974; Archer, Birring, & Wu, 1998), and lack of empathy, the last of which appears to be an empirically established effect of testosterone (Chapman et al., 2006; Knickmeyer, Baron-Cohen, Raggatt, Taylor, & Hackett, 2006; van Honk et al., 2011; Ronay & Carney, 2013; see also Auyeung & Baron-Cohen, 2013). Testosterone may even explain deficits in social development (Knickmeyer & Baron-Cohen, 2006) and autistic traits in general (Auyeung et al., 2009; Ingudomnukul, Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, & Knickmeyer, 2007), according to a theory that conceptualizes autism as extreme cognitive maleness (Baron-Cohen, 2002; Baron-Cohen, Knickmeyer, & Belmonte, 2005; Chakrabarti et al., 2009).
Testosterone relates positively to emotional arousal and anger, but also relates positively to attentiveness to angry facial expressions in others (van Honk et al., 1999). This latter result demonstrates that testosterone doesn't unilaterally decrease awareness of others' emotional states, especially to whatever extent they pose immediate threat. The relationship between testosterone and antisocial behavior is also moderated by socioeconomic status (Dabbs & Morris, 1990). These complexities may limit the otherwise impressive relationships between personality and testosterone.
In women, estradiol may instead play a similar role to testosterone in men, modifying dominance motivation (Stanton & Schultheiss, 2009). Wikipedia lists some observable physiological effects of estradiol, but these claims currently lack supporting citations.

References (there's a ton; I recommend zooming in with Ctrl++ or copy-pasting into a word processor)

· Archer, J. (2006). Testosterone and human aggression: An evaluation of the challenge hypothesis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 30(3), 319–345. Retrieved from http://aggroreview.googlecode.com/svn-history/r31/sources/downloaded/testosterone/Archer_2004.pdf.
· Archer, J., Birring, S. S., & Wu, F. C. (1998). The association between testosterone and aggression among young men: Empirical findings and a meta‐analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 24(6), 411–420.
· Auyeung, B., Baron‐Cohen, S., Ashwin, E., Knickmeyer, R., Taylor, K., & Hackett, G. (2009). Fetal testosterone and autistic traits. British Journal of Psychology, 100(1), 1–22. Retrieved from http://www.personal.rdg.ac.uk/~sxs02dtf/auyeung2009.pdf.
· Auyeung, B., & Baron‐Cohen, S. (2013). Prenatal and postnatal testosterone effects on human social and emotional behavior. In S. Baron-Cohen, M. Lombardo, H. Tager-Flusberg, & D. Cohen (Eds.), Understanding Other Minds: Perspectives from developmental social neuroscience. Oxford University Press.
· Baron-Cohen, S. (2002). The extreme male brain theory of autism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(6), 248–254. Retrieved from http://cogsci.bme.hu/~ivady/bscs/read/bc.pdf.
· Baron-Cohen, S., Knickmeyer, R. C., & Belmonte, M. K. (2005). Sex differences in the brain: implications for explaining autism. Science, 310(5749), 819–823. Retrieved from http://docentes.cs.urjc.es/~odeluis/Docencia/ABP/Articulos/baroncohen.pdf.
· Birger, M., Swartz, M., Cohen, D., Alesh, Y. A., Grishpan, C., & Kotelr, M. (2003). Aggression: The testosterone-serotonin link. IMAJ-RAMAT GAN-, 5(9), 653–658. Retrieved from http://www.ima.org.il/FilesUpload/IMAJ/0/54/27288.pdf.
· Brañas-Garza, P., & Rustichini, A. (2011). Organizing effects of testosterone and economic behavior: Not just risk taking. PLoS ONE, 6(12), e29842. Retrieved from http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0029842#pone-0029842-g001.
· Brummett, B. H., Babyak, M. A., Williams, R. B., Barefoot, J. C., Costa, P. T., & Siegler, I. C. (2006). NEO personality domains and gender predict levels and trends in body mass index over 14 years during midlife. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(3), 222–236. Retrieved from ResearchGate.
· Burnham, T. C., Chapman, J. F., Gray, P. B., McIntyre, M. H., Lipson, S. F., & Ellison, P. T. (2003). Men in committed, romantic relationships have lower testosterone. Hormones and Behavior, 44(2), 119–122. Retrieved from http://www.bec.ucla.edu/papers/Gray_10-20-03.pdf.
· Carré, J. M., & McCormick, C. M. (2008). In your face: Facial metrics predict aggressive behaviour in the laboratory and in varsity and professional hockey players. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275(1651), 2651–2656. Retrieved from http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1651/2651.full.pdf%20html.
· Carré, J. M., McCormick, C. M., & Mondloch, C. J. (2009). Facial structure is a reliable cue of aggressive behavior. Psychological Science, 20(10), 1194–1198. Retrieved from http://carrelab.com/Carre_et_al_2009_Psyc_Sci.pdf.
· Chakrabarti, B., Dudbridge, F., Kent, L., Wheelwright, S., Hill‐Cawthorne, G., Allison, C., ... & Baron‐Cohen, S. (2009). Genes related to sex steroids, neural growth, and social–emotional behavior are associated with autistic traits, empathy, and Asperger syndrome. Autism Research, 2(3), 157–177. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aur.80/full.
· Chapman, E., Baron-Cohen, S., Auyeung, B., Knickmeyer, R., Taylor, K., & Hackett, G. (2006). Fetal testosterone and empathy: Evidence from the empathy quotient (EQ) and the “reading the mind in the eyes” test. Social Neuroscience, 1(2), 135–148. Retrieved from http://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/papers/2006_Chapman_etal.pdf.
· Daitzman, R. J., & Zuckerman, M. (1980). Disinhibitory sensation seeking and gonadal hormones. Personality and Individual Differences, 1, 103–110.
· Dabbs, J. M., & Morris, R. (1990). Testosterone, social class, and antisocial behavior in a sample of 4,462 men. Psychological Science, 1(3), 209–211. Retrieved from http://connect.issaquah.wednet.edu/cfs-file.ashx/__key/telligent-evolution-components-attachments/13-8431-00-00-00-04-77-28/Testosterone-and-Antisocial-behavior.pdf
· Ehrenkranz, J., Bliss, E., & Sheard, M. H. (1974). Plasma testosterone: Correlation with aggressive behavior and social dominance in man. Psychosomatic Medicine, 36(6), 469–475.
· Funder, D. C. (1997). The personality puzzle. W. W. Norton & Co.
· Gerra, G., Avanzini, P., Zaimovic, A., Sartori, R., Bocchi, C., Timpano, M., Zambelli, U., Delsignore, R., Gardini, F., Talarico, E., & Brambilla, F. (1999). Neurotransmitters, neuroendocrine correlates of sensation-seeking temperament in normal humans. Neuropsychobiology, 39, 207–213.
· Gunstad, J., Paul, R. H., Cohen, R. A., Tate, D. F., Spitznagel, M. B., & Gordon, E. (2007). Elevated body mass index is associated with executive dysfunction in otherwise healthy adults. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 48(1), 57–61. Retrieved from http://postcog.ucd.ie/files/Gunsted.pdf.
· Ingudomnukul, E., Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., & Knickmeyer, R. (2007). Elevated rates of testosterone-related disorders in women with autism spectrum conditions. Hormones and Behavior, 51(5), 597–604. Retrieved from http://beyond-belief.org.uk/sites/beyond-belief.org.uk/files/Baron-Cohen%20hormonesandbehavior.pdf.
· Kakizaki, M., Kuriyama, S., Sato, Y., Shimazu, T., Matsuda-Ohmori, K., Nakaya, N., ... & Tsuji, I. (2008). Personality and body mass index: A cross-sectional analysis from the Miyagi Cohort Study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 64(1), 71–80.
· Knickmeyer, R. C., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2006). Fetal testosterone and sex differences. Early Human Development, 82(12), 755–760.
· Knickmeyer, R., Baron-Cohen, S., Raggatt, P., Taylor, K., & Hackett, G. (2006). Fetal testosterone and empathy. Hormones and Behavior, 49(3), 282–292. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/7540638_Fetal_testosterone_and_empathy/file/50463515da285cea18.pdf.
· Mazur, A., & Booth, A. (1998). Testosterone and dominance in men. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21(3), 353–363. Retrieved from http://cogprints.org/663/1/bbs_mazur.html.
· Mazur, A., Susman, E. J., & Edelbrock, S. (1997). Sex difference in testosterone response to a video game contest. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18(5), 317–326. Retrieved from http://cogprints.org/630/1/Pong.html.
· Murphy, C. M., Stojek, M. K., & MacKillop, J. (2014). Interrelationships among impulsive personality traits, food addiction, and Body Mass Index. Appetite, 73, 45–50.
· Neave, N., Laing, S., Fink, B., & Manning, J. T. (2003). Second to fourth digit ratio, testosterone and perceived male dominance. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 270(1529), 2167–2172. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691489/pdf/14561281.pdf.
· Penton-Voak, I. S., Pound, N., Little, A. C., & Perrett, D. I. (2006). Personality judgments from natural and composite facial images: More evidence for a “kernel of truth” in social perception. Social Cognition, 24(5), 607–640. Retrieved from http://www.alittlelab.stir.ac.uk/pubs/Penton-Voak_06_kernaloftruth_SocCog.pdf.
· Picot, A. K., & Lilenfeld, L. R. (2003). The relationship among binge severity, personality psychopathology, and body mass index. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 34(1), 98–107.
· Roberti, J. W. (2004). A review of behavioral and biological correlates of sensation seeking. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(3), 256–279. Retrieved from ftp://psyftp.psychology.mcmaster.ca/dalywilson/Papers/DawnPatrol/Roberti2004.pdf.
· Ronay, R., & Carney, D. R. (2013). Testosterone’s negative relationship with empathic accuracy and perceived leadership ability. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(1), 92–99. Retrieved from http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/dana_carney/published.Ronay%26Carney.2012.SPPS.pdf.
· Sapienza, P., Zingales, L., & Maestripieri, D. (2009). Gender differences in financial risk aversion and career choices are affected by testosterone. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(36), 15268–15273. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2741240/.
· Schultheiss, O. C., Campbell, K. L., & McClelland, D. C. (1999). Implicit power motivation moderates men's testosterone responses to imagined and real dominance success. Hormones and Behavior, 36(3), 234–241. Retrieved from http://www.psych2.phil.fau.de/~oschult/humanlab/publications/scm1999.pdf.
· Schultheiss, O. C., Wirth, M. M., & Stanton, S. J. (2004). Effects of affiliation and power motivation arousal on salivary progesterone and testosterone. Hormones and Behavior, 46(5), 592–599. Retrieved from http://www.psych2.phil.uni-erlangen.de/~oschult/humanlab/publications/sws2004hb.pdf.
· Schultheiss, O. C., Wirth, M. M., Torges, C. M., Pang, J. S., Villacorta, M. A., & Welsh, K. M. (2005). Effects of implicit power motivation on men's and women's implicit learning and testosterone changes after social victory or defeat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(1), 174–188. Retrieved from http://www.psych2.phil.uni-erlangen.de/~oschult/humanlab/publications/s2005jpsp.pdf.
· Stanton, S. J., Liening, S. H., & Schultheiss, O. C. (2011). Testosterone is positively associated with risk taking in the Iowa Gambling Task. Hormones and Behavior, 59(2), 252–256. Retrieved from http://www.scottliening.com/research/publications/StantonLieningSchultheiss_HB.pdf.
· Stanton, S. J., O’Dhaniel, A., McLaurin, R. E., Kuhn, C. M., LaBar, K. S., Platt, M. L., & Huettel, S. A. (2011). Low-and high-testosterone individuals exhibit decreased aversion to economic risk. Psychological Science, 22(4), 447–453. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653580/.
· Stanton, S. J., & Schultheiss, O. C. (2009). The hormonal correlates of implicit power motivation. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(5), 942–949. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2818294/.
· Stenstrom, E., Saad, G., Nepomuceno, M. V., & Mendenhall, Z. (2011). Testosterone and domain-specific risk: Digit ratios (2D: 4D and rel2) as predictors of recreational, financial, and social risk-taking behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(4), 412–416.
· Swaddle, J. P., & Reierson, G. W. (2002). Testosterone increases perceived dominance but not attractiveness in human males. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 269(1507), 2285–2289. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691166/pdf/12495494.pdf.
· Valenti, M. P., Omizo, M. M., & Mehl-Madrona, L. (2011). Personality and obese Body Mass Index. The New School Psychology Bulletin, 9(1), 34–38. Retrieved from http://www.nspb.net/index.php/nspb/article/viewFile/204/294.
· van Honk, J., Schutter, D. J., Bos, P. A., Kruijt, A. W., Lentjes, E. G., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2011). Testosterone administration impairs cognitive empathy in women depending on second-to-fourth digit ratio. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(8), 3448–3452. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/49817064_Testosterone_administration_impairs_cognitive_empathy_in_women_depending_on_second-to-fourth_digit_ratio/file/d912f50b5d773ca9e0.pdf.
· van Honk, J., Tuiten, A., Verbaten, R., van den Hout, M., Koppeschaar, H., Thijssen, J., & de Haan, E. (1999). Correlations among salivary testosterone, mood, and selective attention to threat in humans. Hormones and Behavior, 36(1), 17–24.
· Zuckerman, M., Buchsbaum, M. S., & Murphy, D. L. (1980). Sensation seeking and its biological correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 88(1), 187–214.

Wow, I can even see the differences in the depicted faces! It's kind of frightening that some of our prejudices might actually be truthful perceptions. I'm not sure I want to look in the mirror tonight ... || +1, @Nick. Now I wait to see if someone comes up with something about body shape.

Hm, in the link you provide for lower empathy, it is equated with emotion and thought recognition (based on facial expressions). On the other hand this contradicts "This latter result demonstrates that testosterone doesn't unilaterally decrease awareness of others' emotional states".


text:
Does everyone have some degree of Aspergers?
I have taken some tests for Asperger's which gives a rating point, and the higher you score its more likely that you have asperger. I was just wondering if this means that there are degrees of asperger, that everyone is asperger to some degree, or is this rating just a property of the test, and people either have asperger syndrome or not?

You might want to do a search for "taxometrics and asperger". Taxometrics is a discipline that examines the question of whether something is categorical or continuous. It has been particularly applied to psychology.

Can you link the tests for us?

@Revious I just googled asperger test and tried a couple, http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aqtest.html

Whatever test you took, it does not test Asperger. It tests for symptoms that are typical in someone with Asperger.
For example one Asperger test asks you to rate the following statement (translated from German) on a skale from 1 = "totally disagree" to 4 = totally agree":

I prefer to spend my leisure time with other people rather than alone.

Now of course people with Asperger often tend to stay by themselves and undertake things alone rather than with friends, but many non-Asperger people might feel that they sometimes enjoy time alone also, for example if they are naturally shy and find being with others enjoyable but exhausting, or if they have a job dealing with people and they like to have some free time by themselves to relax from the constant interaction.
Just this weekend I read an interview with one of the most influential German movie directors, Doris Dörrie, who said how she likes to go on holidays by herself, especially to foreign countries where she cannot interact with anyone because she does not speak the language, and she goes on to tell how she went to Japan and enjoyed her aloneness tremendously and spent whole days basking in being outside society and looking on. Totally Asperger, if you think about it. But her job is to intensely interact with people, and she simply needs time off from that.
It's totally unremarkable that many people show some of the behaviors or emotions that people with Asperger (or other psychological disorders) show. It does not mean that they have Asperger to some degree. Rather, if someone rates very high in that test, that is merely an indication that they very likely have Asperger. No psychological diagnosis relies purely on a single self-report measure, but on a complex series of observation, interviews, and a battery of tests.

Also see the answer by Eoin for a different perspective on the question.

Two additional points to the previous answer from what.

With the release of the 5th edition of the  Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), Asperger's is no longer classified as a condition in its own right, but as Autism coupled with high intelligence and intact language skills.
Almost all accounts of Autism hold that it exists as a spectrum, or a continuum: some people are very typical of the condition, some people are very strongly the opposite, and most people are somewhere in between.

Autism (and Asperger's) is characterized by a 'triad of impairments' to social interaction,communication (less so for Asperger's), and flexible imaginative functions (i.e. repeated/stereotyped behaviours and interests).  Obviously, these are traits that vary across the general population as well (I, like many scientists, can be very focused and one-track in my interests).
I recently also came across a paper by Happé and Ronald (2008) (link) arguing that, genetically speaking, these traits vary independently of each other in the general population.  It's only when someone has high levels of all three that they are diagnosed as having Autism.
Finally, for an even more broad theory of Autistic traits in the general population, take a look at Simon Baron-Cohen's extreme male brain theory of autism, which states that people differ in the fundamental trait of being either 'empathizing' or 'systematizing', with men tending to be more 'systematizing'.  Autism, then, is just a case of being more like a male brain then usual, or super-systematizing.
I hope this is some help!

there are disputes around "extreme male brain theory". Some autistics also dislikes that theory.

No. Everyone is not a little bit autistic. Everyone may not be "typically developing" in some or some aspect; but autism is not universal.
Apparently Same symptoms or same behaviour may have complete different reasons.
Aspergers is predominately a communication problem and problem with social guesswork. Usually a vast number of other complaints co-occur which are invisible from outside. It not necessarily includes introversion, rather the introversion is sometimes a byproduct of failed communication with peer group.
Some typically developing people may be shy or introverted. Who do not like to make friends. But they have good social skills.
Some people may develop narcissistic personality disorder. Which is a problem about ego. They may have manipulative nature. They tend to have good understanding of social cues.
In some cases these condition may be co-occuring. However everyone is not autistic, and there isn't a thing like being a "little bit" autistic. Being in even very mild end of ASD spectrum is usually a very stressful condition, however the invisibility of the disability often blends it so much indistinguishably with typically developing population.
Another situation of similar superficial appearance, Also Say for a restless uncontrollable behaviour may look common with ADHD and some ASD as well as typically developing. But the inherent reason may be very different. Such as for ADHD it may be a shifting attention and energetic impulse, whereas in ASD it may be the anxiety developed from lack of predictability of a real life process going on. A typically developing person can do the same due to joy or anger or boredom but they have better response inhibition. Even bipolar patients may have indistinguishable symptom, but that is due to an unusual state of mood and feeling, even without triggered by another reason.
Psychology is very tricky. Not only behaviours but the reasons behind behaviour to be considered.