text:
What explains the relative importance of physical versus mental features in human mate selection?
I assume that it is the brain that has put human beings at the top of the food chain (Biped and  opposable thumbs aside).
Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest suggest that the best specimens of a species are those that have the greatest mating privileges. I assume that well developed characteristics, required by that species to ensure survival will will be sought after, not just of one particular group, but the species as a whole. So for lions it strength will be desired, and for elephants size will matter.
For humans, it is the  brain that is our evolutionary marvel. It sets us apart from all other species.  I think human physical prowess is somewhat redundant when it comes to our survival and progress.
Many highly intelligent people are still regarded as social misfits, nerds and geeks. The high school football team and cheer leaders are still very popular.
Sports stadiums are filled and televised, and the regular chess clubs are not.
This seems a bit like a limiting mechanism, where we are not smart enough to overcome our base natures and so the truly, evolutionary, superior specimens are downgraded, whilst the redundant brawny types that appeals to the apes, are still highly sought after.

What is the relative importance of physical versus mental features in human mate selection?
Do mental features receive relative little weighting?
What is the evolutionary psychology argument for the relative importance of physical versus mental features in mate selection?

Note that natural selection is not restricted to sexual selection and those are not the only evolutionary processes.

In my experience, physical trumps all.  Even if you're blind, there is still smell.  I saw a show (The Science of Sex Appeal) which documented an experiment where a group of men wore t-shirts while getting sweaty on treadmills.  Once the garments were nice n nasty, they put them in jars and had women rate how turned on or off they were by smelling each jar.  It turned out that at least one of the women had a brother in the experiment and she rated his smell especially off-putting.  This led researchers to conclude that smell is important in avoiding inbreeding.  If someone's immune system is similar to yours, they will smell similar to you and you won't like it.  Similar immunities kill similar bacteria, resulting in similar smells.
We also look for things that indicate genetic health.  Nice teeth is probably the biggest.  Do you have nice eyes?  Without teeth and good vision, its hard to survive in the wild.  The caveat here seems to be access to healthcare.  Of course, we can fake our genetic flaws with contact lenses and dental work, but even wearing glasses (which is not an advantage) can be seen as sexy because it indicates intelligence (people with glasses probably don't play sports so they spend all their time reading/learning instead - its a stereotype that may or may not be true anymore).  But it doesn't have to be so much that you can fix your genetic flaws, as just having good healthcare available seems to be enough to choose partners with less genetic health.  Consider this:

After crunching the data—including the women's facial preferences, their country of origin and that country's national health index—the Face Lab researchers proved something remarkable. They could predict how masculine a woman likes her men based on her nation's World Health Organization statistics for mortality rates, life expectancy and the impact of communicable disease. In countries where poor health is particularly a threat to survival, women leaned toward "manlier" men. That is, they preferred their males to have shorter, broader faces and stronger eyebrows, cheekbones and jaw lines. The researchers went on to publish the study in this month's issue of the scientific journal Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences.
To a person unfamiliar with the field of evolutionary psychology, this may sound a little far-fetched. How is it even possible to link a woman's masculinity preferences to the health of her nation? The answer begins with the theory of sexual selection. It goes that women are the choosier sex because they take on most of the risk and burden of reproduction and child rearing. While a man can sleep around with 100 women in a year's time and have 100 kids, a woman who sleeps with 100 men in a year will only have one baby (barring multiples). She has more at stake in each pregnancy. Therefore, it is in her best interest to at least choose a high-quality mate. And one of the hallmarks of a quality male is good health.
But what does health have to do with masculinity? The link is testosterone, the hormone behind manly muscles, strong jaws, prominent eyebrow ridges, facial hair and deep voices. Testosterone is immunosuppressive. This means a man must be healthy and in good condition to withstand its effects on his development. Testosterone is also linked to other traits related to strength: fitness, fertility and dominance. From an evolutionary perspective, masculinity is basically man's way of advertising good genes, dominance and likelihood to father healthier kids. When disease is a real threat, as it had been—and arguably still is—heritable health is invaluable.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704100604575145810050665030.html
Intelligence, unfortunately, is not associated with health.  Much of what defines attractiveness may depend on evironment factors.  It may not always be the case that physical trumps mental if we're actually smart enough to survive no matter what the physical genetic flaw.  I wouldn't go as far as to say that we're that kind of society yet.  I continue to believe that a certain range of physical characteristics must fall in line regardless how mentally attracted one is.  If you're mentally attracted to someone and then find he is 80 years old (way past breeding age), would you still be attracted?  Evolution-wise, it wouldn't make any sense to be.  Conversely, if you met an incredible hunk of a man, but he had revolting personality and an iq near his shoe-size, he wouldn't be attractive either.  So, I couldn't say one trait has omnipotence, but I do believe the physical has an edge.
Many times we enter into relationships, not out of attraction, but because it makes sense.  The Science of Sex Appeal show also demonstrated that married women dress and dance more seductively than single women as well as having differing hormonal levels (via saliva testing).  The theory proposed to explain this is that once a woman has found a stable and sensible mate, she seeks the "bad boy" because the "bad boy" has the genetic traits for health, but the "bad boy" is a cad for a dad.  So she will get pregnant up by him and make the sensible father (whom she's not all that attracted to) raise the child.
See http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/other-shows/videos/other-shows-science-of-sex-appeal-videos.htm

Also, malnutrition and sickness in children impacts mental development, so it could be that we actually associate a healthy body with a healthy mind.

@Skippy Rep here serves no function. It's not like someone will look at my rep and think I know what I'm talking about. Rep really ain't rep. Also, the answer-accept is silly. What does the question asker know about the best answer?

This answer seems to focus solely on female attraction to males, and completely ignores the reverse.


text:
Is mutually consensual BDSM a symptom of a sick mind or an expression of freedom from social constraints?
BDSM an acronym for bondage and discipline; dominant and submissive; sado-masochism; slave and master.
Assume such a relationships or sexual practices are genuinely mutually consenting; and by consent I mean, meaning two well informed, mature, sober, drug free adults.
In such cases, are BDSM practices or relationships a symptom of a sick mind or the true freedom from social conditioning to play and experiment as desired?
When answering one must be mindful to put the moral judgment that away.
Answers based purely on opinion and without references will be down voted and flagged, as it is not a site for moral argument, but built on latest scientific research.

In this context, are you referring to "light" activities such as spanking and paddling, with mild pain, and no real chance of injury, or "heavy" activities with strong pain and a meaningful chance of injury?

@TomAu I am referring to practices or relationships, as both require discussion if one is to pull out a paddle and spank someone. There is a spectrum, yes, and I am more than happy for this to be discussed within answers :)

To the best of my knowledge, your explanation of what BDSM abbreviates is incorrect. According to e.g. SMil Norge or FetLife, or for a more authoritative source, The Palgrave Handbook of the Psychology of Sexuality and Gender, BDSM stands for Bondage and Discipline; Dominance and Submission; Sadism and Masochism. This is also represented by the BDSM triskelion’s design, on which you can read more here: https://fetjeweller.com/pages/about-the-bdsm-triskelion.

If your question is, whether practitioners of BDSM are in some way pathological, then Pamela Connolly (2006) answered it. Her abstract summarizes her research and findings nicely (emphasis added):

A demographic questionnaire and 7 psychometric tests were administered
  to 32 self-identified Bondage/Domination/SadoMasochism (BDSM)
  practitioners. Although psychoanalytic literature suggests that high
  levels of certain types of psychopathology should be prevalent among
  BDSM practitioners, this sample failed to produce widespread, high
  levels of psychopathology on psychometric measures of depression,
  anxiety, obsessive-compulsion, psychological sadism, psychological
  masochism, or PTSD. In fact, on measures of clinical psychopathology
  and severe personality pathology, this sample appeared to be
  comparable to both published test norms and to DSM-IV-TR estimates for
  the general population. There were, however, some exceptions to this
  general pattern, most notably the higher-than-average levels of
  narcissism and nonspecific dissociative symptoms found in the sample.
  This study also raises significant concern about the appropriateness
  of the diagnosis of sexual masochism and sadism in the Diagnostic and
  Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association or,
  minimally, the diagnostic criteria of these disorders.

But BDSM practitioners aren't only normal, they feel "more better", too: An Australian study (Richters, De Visser, Rissel, Grulich, & Smith, 2008) found that "men who had engaged in BDSM scored significantly lower on a scale of psychological distress than other men" (emphasis added).
This higher level of well-being may be explained by conscious and systematic "relationship management", including no-holds-barred open communication and clear agreement on mutual relationship roles, resulting in highly functional relationships, as well as a commitment to personal growth, both of which are common among BDSM couples (Cutler, 2003). Contrary to common views of BDSM, Cutler states, BDSM activities include non-sexual motivations: "hormonal studies have shown BDSM activities to be more similar to sports than sex, complete with stress relief qualities" (emphasis added).
Today, BDSM is a best-selling mainstream media phenomenon, and it has become increasingly difficult to draw a clear distinction between "deviant" and "normal" sexuality. When a little rope play is just another practice for the average couple, BDSM certainly isn't deviant any longer, and many practitioners are as "normal" as you and me. The difference in practice is, I believe, gradual: BDSM couples indulge in "normal" sex just as normal couples pay visits to the land of bondage and submission (and other kinks).

Connolly, P. H. (2006). Psychological Functioning of Bondage/Domination/Sado-Masochism (BDSM) Practitioners. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 18, 79-120. doi:10.1300/J056v18n01_05
Cutler, B. (2003). Partner Selection, Power Dynamics, and Sexual Bargaining in Self-Defined BDSM Couples (Doctoral dissertation, Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality). Retrieved from http://www.niu.edu/user/tj0bjs1/bdsm/Cutler%20(2003).pdf
Richters, J., De Visser, R. O., Rissel, C. E., Grulich, A. E., & Smith, A. M. A.
(2008). Demographic and psychosocial features of participants in bondage and discipline, "sadomasochism" or dominance and submission (BDSM): Data from a National Survey. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 5, 1660–1668. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00795.x

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it possible for non-BDSM relationships to learn anything from slave-master relationships?
I am interested in research on slave-master relationships within the BDSM spectrum.
This questions concerns people who do not just engage in BDSM recreationally, but rater  define their relationship by this type of relationship.
Master-slave relationships is one of reciprocated devotion and requires much forethought in planning activities. This includes both psychological and physical punishments,  play and games. Many people take their roles in their relationship very seriously. There are clearly defined rules and boundaries that must be respected. This is held in high regard amongst the community.
Is it possible for non-BDSM relationships to learn anything from slave-master relationships?

It is a very good point, as we grow into adulthood We are molded into a mindset that does close
off , freedom , and possibly our true nature
Learning and understanding different ways of living can open our minds and set you free BDSM has made me whole
It has taught me , life should be an experiment
Roles should be challenged
My needs as a master, are not more important
or of higher respect than the needs of my servants They are prideful , and deserve the respect
of any human being Their choices , on their
way of life are theirs !!
" be true to thyself "

I am owned and collared... I have a wonderful Master that cares and loves me . as a slave i choose to trust him in all and everything. I am not mindless and have a life out side the home. I belongs to him. I take care of Master and in return he takes care of me. Like a husband and wife should... Master has final say, but he Listens to me and wants my option. We hide nothing for each other and share are darkest thoughts and fantasies. and we have a great sex life.... im 50 and he is 55..... Its so simple....people not in the life cant understand.

BDSM relationships are generally very clear on the respective roles of the individuals. Thus, they provide a refuge from the "war of the sexes" that is being fought in most non-BDSM relationships.
In non-BDSM relationships today, men and women are usually extremely confused about their roles. Men and women both have difficulties accepting women as (co)providers; both partners are expected to partake in child-rearing and household chores, which does not relieve one partner from the tedium of the job, but double the stress by leading to conflicts and an unclear diffusion of responsibility; sex is a minefield where men are afraid to "use" their women, and women can no longer "let go"; etc.
BDSM relationships are reactionary in that they return to the clarity and emotional safety of pre-feminist relationships, only without the patriarchal roles. As both Skippy (user3267) in her question and MingYue in his answer have described, BDSM relationships are often less about specific forms of sexuality, but about a specific from of relationship: one with clearly defined roles, and both partners being able to relax and be themselves in the secure knowledge of what is expected of them, how to behave, and where the limits of their agreement lie – because every relationship is a contract, only non-BDSM relationships make the mistake of tabooing this fact and clogging the free flow of an honest exchange with a thick layer of romantic spirituality.
What non-BDSM relationships can learn from BDSM relationships is to communicate clearly, to define the roles of each partner, and to stop feeling guilty about not loving in a politically correct way. Equal rights don't apply inside the bedroom.

Since there has been some debate concerning the dangers and pathology of sadism, I would like to append a paraphrase of a section in a textbook on sexual deviance (Fiedler, 2004, p. 267f.):

Research has shown that an inclination to sexual sadism is a mostly safe and harmless preference. Practices of sexual sadism are usally performed with the utmost caution and care, so that injury or trauma is extremely rare (Scott, 1983; Weinberg & Kamel, 1983).
Studies with persons egaging in sadistic practices with their partners have repeatedly found that these persons are socially well integrated, valued by their friends and neighbors and successful (Spengler, 1977; 1979; Scott, 1983; Moser & Levitt, 1987; Baumeister & Butler, 1997). Some authors attest that the social adjustment and psychic health of individuals engaging in sadistic practices with their partners are above average.
Since an inclination towards sexual masochism is about four times as common as an inclination towards sexual sadism (Baumeister & Butler, 1992), we may conclude that some persons practicing sadism in their relationships are not sadistic at all but rather complying with the needs of their loved ones.
In sum, a majority of persons performing sadism in their relationships have no psychological disorder.

Sources:

Baumeister, R. F., & Butler, J. L. (1997). Sexual masochism: Deviance without pathology. In D. R. Laws & W. T. O'Donohue (Eds.), Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment (pp. 225-239). New York: Guilford.
Fiedler, P. (2004). Sexuelle Orientierung und sexuelle Abweichung [Sexual Orientation and Sexual Deviance]. Weinheim: Beltz.
Moser, C., & Levitt, E. E. (1987). An exploratory-descriptive study of a sadomasochistically oriented sample. Journal of Sex Research, 23, 322-337.
Scott, G. G. (1983). Erotic power: An exploraton of dominance and submission. Secausus, NJ: Citadel.
Spengler, A. (1977). Manifest sadomasochism of males: Results of an empirical study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 6, 441-456.
Spengler, A. (1979). Sadomasochisten und ihre Subkulturen. Frankfurt: Campus.
Weinberg, T. S., & Kamel, W. L. (Eds.) (1983). S and M: Studies in sadomasochism. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.

I disagree with this answer because it seems to promote paraphilia -1

@caseyr547 How so? Where in my answer do I promote getting aroused by atypical objects, situations or behaviors? I rather promote the opposite: to allow yourself to enjoy the stereotypical female and male roles (if you want to).

your third and fourth paragraph praise bdsm

No, I find advantages in clear role definitions. I say in a master/slave relationship roles are clearly defined and this helps the partners relax and enjoy their sexuality. I do not say that it must necessarily be a master/slave relationship, and especially I don't endorse any other BDSM practices like inducing pain. My whole argument is about clearly defined roles, nothing else is mentioned or recommended in my answer.

You are projecting something into my answer that is not there.

there are many other ways to get clearly defined roles besides sadistic behavior

this statement is absolutely incorrect as well " BDSM relationships are often less about specific forms of sexuality,"

this statement has a clear positive bias "clarity and emotional safety of pre-feminist relationships"

likewise this statment is also latent with tons of postive bias "an honest exchange with a thick layer of romantic spirituality"

this statement is so absolutely inconsistent with reality i don't understand the thought process which caused you to pen it "Equal rights don't apply inside the bedroom."

Are there any scientific papers that support any of those statements?

Which statements? That feminism has caused disorientation because it destroyed fixed role models? That's common knowledge. At least it is here, where it is being discussed in newspapers, talk shows and in new-feminist publications. That equal rights do not apply inside the bedroom? That is the law. As long as sex is consensual, it does not have to follow common morality. It is no crime to whip your boyfriend, if he wants it.

Any other unsupported statements?

find scientific citations that endorse the statements in their current ferociously i cite as problematic as well as the common knowledge and laws or don't make such claims

I do not think so is the short answer.  I belong to a minority of men who are submissives to a female Master.  She does not treat me as a slave and does not expect me to do anything I am uncomfortable with.  I do all the housecleaning, her laundry, cook her meals and generally serve her in whatever fashion that gives her pleasure.  I do so out of love of her.  She is mentally tougher and more like a man in business thinking and dealing but very much a woman.
It took her awhile to accept that she was the much stronger personality and that anyone could want to devote their life to her and serve her.  I consider her my Master and refer to her as Master. She considers herself Master and has a name she has given me that we use privately.  I also consider myself to be her property for her use and for her pleasure. At no time however does she treat me like a slave or administer punishment etc.  It is nothing like what I have read about Master-Slave relationships in BDSM.

This is extremely interesting. But I admit that I don't understand how your answer leads to the conclusion that non-BDSM relationships cannot learn from BDSM relationships. I think there is a lot to learn for non-BDSM relationships from your example. To me the only thing that distinguishes your relationship from a traditional relationship is that the male and female roles are reversed and that you call your partner "Master". Read my answer to see what I learn from it.

Can't say as I've learned anything from this personally, but I'd be amazed if most others wouldn't either. It is quite an interesting perspective you've shared with us. I'd +1 it if I didn't agree with @what fully, and I wonder if maybe you meant that you do think non-BDSM relationships can learn from dominance-based relationships like yours? I certainly think so, even based on your answer alone!

@what I believe MingYue intended to say that BDSM evokes images of stereotypically punitive/sadistic behaviors, which obviously don't teach anything useful per se - neither does dominance. People should have the freedom to shape their relationship however they want, consentually, through communication - which is in contrast to conforming to some predefined notion of correctness. Great answer, by the way-although I'm not so sure "clearly defined roles" are always good thing and a consequence of communication. What if couples like to switch roles once in a while, in a clearly-defined way?

@what This is the problem with new feminism - it still tells people how they should be, which is undeniably worse than letting them be however they are most comfortable. Even if the sexes are tendencially a certain way, you can't generalize across the board.

@what Whilst I maintain that you have a great answer, I'm a bit disconcerted by the fact that you seem to be advocating gender roles (specifically also in your comment). BDSM may be perfectly safe, sane, and healthy for persons and society at large but there isn't a shred of evidence that new feminism is - in fact, one could point out studies on a personal and societal level that it's generally a stupid idea.

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


text:
What is the neurological mechanism responsible for losing one's temper?
I'd imagine that losing one's temper is quite normal, I can not think of anyone who has not experienced it.  For me, it is rare, but does happen, I find that there can be 3 broad stages occur (note: this is not a self help question, but just an example), a generalized example would be:

"The calm before the storm" - I actually feel calm just after the object of frustration occurs and before the next stage - this step is usually very short.
"The storm" - it feels like the anger/rage comes from within and erupts, for me, it is in shouting, for some it is violence, for others, it is both.  The length of this stage varies.
"Sunshine again" - not all sunshine and lollipops, but calmer with rationality kicking in.

My question is what neurological triggers initiate each step?

I'm becoming somewhat irritated by the number of questions that ask for "the neurological mechanism behind" this or that behavior. You don't lose your temper in the same way that pushing a lever turns on the light. All -- I repeat: all! -- internal and external human behavior, including stuff happening in the brain, has many causes and they all operate through different pathways. You lose your temper, not only because something is making you angry, but also because the person opposite you is weaker than you are. Else you  wouldn't dare. There is judgment involved, not only affect. etc.

I have addressed your three points in three parts.

The calm before the storm.

I would dispute the calm before the storm. I would suggest this would depend on the trigger. Sometimes people can experience a feeling of shock at what they are processing, before they become angry.

The storm.

The sympathetic nervous system is the part of the autonomic nervous system that is responsible for our fight and flight response.
What causes people to get angry?

You might have many things to feel threatened about — from financial
crises and peer pressure to drug addiction and war — and some people
respond in a negative way. Still, most people don't walk around
feeling mad all the time. When someone explodes with anger, there's
usually a triggering event — such as a disagreement at work or being
stuck in traffic — that brings a mix of simmering emotions to the
boiling point.

What happens when we get angry?

When we get angry, the heart rate, arterial tension and
testosterone production increases, cortisol (the stress hormone)
decreases, and the left hemisphere of the brain becomes more
stimulated.

Increased heart rate and arterial tension primes the body for fight or flight.
Testosterone is linked with aggression.

Cortisol is released in response to stress, sparing available glucose
for the brain, generating new energy from stored reserves, and
diverting energy from low-priority activities (such as the immune
system) in order to survive immediate threats or prepare for the
exertion of rising to a new day.

The left side of the brain is responsible for;

Dopamine [II] is the neurotransmitter that is not only responsible for
modulating a lot of our physical movement, but also sex, aggression,
motivational drive, and, counter-intuitively, long-term planning and
restraint or impulse control. In nearly all right-handed and most
left-handed humans who are left-brain dominant, dopamine rules the
left side of the brain.

Calm after the storm

The parasympathetic nervous system is the part of the autonomic nervous system  responsible for the more restful activities and will restore the autonomic nervous system's  balance.

The body takes about 20 minutes to return to normal after a full
fight/flight response. ..//...
...//...  Angry people will not completely comprehend any explanations,
solutions, or problem solving options until their body returns to
normal again.  [III]

What happens when we get angry? Hormonal, cardiovascular and asymmetrical brain responses
Neus Herrero, Marien Gadea, Gabriel Rodríguez-Alarcón, Raúl Espert, Alicia Salvador.    Hormones and Behavior, 2010; 57 (3): 276 DOI: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2009.12.008
How dopamine may influence gender differences in psychiatric disorders [II]
Published on May 17, 2011 by Emily Deans, M.D. in Evolutionary Psychiatry
Controlling Angry People  [III}
What would you do if you came face-to-face with an angry person?
Published on January 5, 2011
Jack Schafer, Ph.D.
Let Their Words Do the Talking

Anger can demonstrate itself outwardly in an argument form with another person. A voice can be raised. One can yell. You can positively express anger through sport.
Firstly there's some muscle tension presumably it increases the focus on dealing with the negative subject matter at hand. The body's chemical messengers release a burst of energy. Your breathing rate increases. You can not pay attention to anything else but the negative subject matter. You have extra mental sharpness and focus. Blood moves out from the gut towards the muscles in order to prepare for exertion. The body temperature rises. The skin perspires. The stress hormone cortisol is released. Adrenaline and noradrenaline releases create the 'fight' state of arousal.
The prefrontal cortex is located just behind your forehead it's a region in the mammalian brain which deals with judgement. It receives signals from other regions in the brain it can switch off your emotions. Learning new things like new skills by understanding and piecing together information helps to improve your prefrontal cortex.
By improving your prefrontal cortex you can better regulate your emotions. The prefrontal cortex is connected to another part of the brain, the amygdala. It interacts with the prefrontal cortex.
The prefrontal cortex's connection with the amygdala is important. An expression of an intention to inflict damage to you can be identified by the amygdala. The prefrontal cortex can then decide to intervene if it wants to. The arousal's adrenaline sometimes lasts for days therefore it increases the chances of further moments of anger.
Websites used:

https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/anger-how-it-affects-people#expressing-anger-in-healthy-ways
https://www.mentalhelp.net/anger/physiology/
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/prefrontal-cortex-explained#what-are-the-parts-of-the-prefrontal-cortex
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15920-7

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


text:
How does emotional pain cause as much suffering as physical pain?
Consider someone who has a serious injury. Example examples include losing a limb, being shot or falling from a great height.
It is easy for the human mind and science to comprehend and explain why and how much pain that person would suffer.
Emotional pain originates in a relatively small part of the body, within the brain, and it isn not usually caused by physical injury.

How can emotional pain cause as much or even greater suffering than physical pain?
Why is emotional pain so difficult for many people to cope with?

hmmm as someone who has fallen a long way in both ways  (physically and emotionally) in separate incidences, I can relate to this - I'll see what papers I can dig up.

see also this Q&A http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/3239/what-are-the-effects-of-social-rejection-on-the-brain

Some research that I have dug up:
According to the article "Emotional and Physical Pain Activate Similar Brain Regions" (Fogel, 2012), the anterior insula and the anterior cingulate cortex are activated for both physical and emotional pain.  Also, physical pain can lead to emotional pain as it would in the reverse direction (emotional --> physical).
This conclusion is further discussed in the articles "Does Rejection Hurt? An fMRI
Study of Social Exclusion" (Eisenberger et al. 2007) and "Social rejection shares somatosensory representations with physical pain" (Kross et al. 2011). Even though both articles use the insidious form of bullying: social exclusion as an example, the same conclusion could be reached for proportionally greater pain of both types.
What I alluded to in my comment is true, I have fallen from a decent height, both emotionally and physically in 2 separate incidences - reflecting on what I remember of the pain I felt when I landed, it was about the same.

From which of those incidences of falling was it easier to heal the damage?  Are emotional scars or physical scars worse?  That might be a good question to ask formally.

@Randy that is a good question, scar healing was, and is quite different.

Interesting research - one could almost say pain is one's brain simply telling them to get rid of it irregardless of what type it is.


text:
What are the neurobiological triggers for sleepwalking?
This phenomena has always fascinated me, ever since my parents told me (and filmed me) doing exactly that - sleepwalking.
I have read the pamphlet "Sleepwalking" from the Sleep Health Foundation, that lists several possible causes:

For some people, sleep walking is an inherited condition.
  For children it may also be related to a stage of
  development. Not getting enough sleep, having irregular
  sleep hours, stress, drugs and some medicines increase
  the risk of sleepwalking. In addition, medical conditions
  such as sleep apnoea, seizures and fever can contribute
  to the likelihood of sleepwalking. If you are prone to
  sleepwalking, then sounds that disturb your sleep can
  also make you sleepwalk. However, not uncommonly a
  cause cannot be found.

However, my question is not about the potential causes, but what is/are the neurobiological triggers for sleepwalking?
Specifically, I am after authoritive (non-Wikipedia) explanations from refereed articles.

Are you talking about what permits the body to move during REM sleep?  If so, see the sharp answer on this bio question: http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/417/what-causes-rem-atonia-to-be-lost-in-sleepwalking

That, and what may be the trigger in the first place that initiates sleepwalking

You know where I'd start if I were you?  I'd start looking at the sleep medications that cause people to sleepwalk whom normally don't (or if they already do, it exacerbates it) - such as ambien.  What are they doing?  How do they work in the brain on a physiological level?
I'm sure there are some studies that directly study the physiology of what is happening in the brain during a sleepwalk, but when it involves a big drug with big pharma behind it - alot more research tends to go into the area.
That will help you put a sturdy frame around the potential answer, then the rest of it is just extrapolating the Y out of when scientists thought X drug caused Y physiological response, which caused Z (sleepwalking).  Then you gotta do some reverse engineering.
You'll find there to be no real true answer as the extent of human knowledge only goes so far, but this might be a credible path to start down.  Here's a good starting point:

Desensitization of GABAergic receptors as a mechanism of zolpidem-induced somnambulism.
  Juszczak GR.
  Source Department of Animal Behavior, Institute of Genetics and Animal Breeding, Jastrzebiec, Poland. gjuszczak@yahoo.com
  Med Hypotheses. 2011 Aug;77(2):230-3. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2011.04.019. Epub 2011 May 11.
  Abstract
  Sleepwalking is a frequently reported side effect of zolpidem which is a short-acting hypnotic drug potentiating activity of GABA(A) receptors. Paradoxically, the most commonly used medications for somnambulism are benzodiazepines, especially clonazepam, which also potentiate activity of GABA(A) receptors. It is proposed that zolpidem-induced sleepwalking can be explained by the desensitization of GABAergic receptors located on serotonergic neurons. According to the proposed model, the delay between desensitization of GABA receptors and a compensatory decrease in serotonin release constitutes the time window for parasomnias. The occurrence of sleepwalking depends on individual differences in receptor desensitization, autoregulation of serotonin release and drug pharmacokinetics. The proposed mechanism of interaction between GABAergic and serotonergic systems can be also relevant for zolpidem abuse and zolpidem-induced hallucinations. It is therefore suggested that special care should be taken when zolpidem is used in patients taking at the same time selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.
  Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
  PMID: 21565448 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21565448

No problem :) Ha, they hate me over at the statistics board.  It's nice to contribute rather than ask questions.


text:
Which political system stimulates individuals the most to strive for the greater good?
In September 2013 Germany will elect their new parliament, the Bundestag. On this occasion, the German Psychological Association (BDP) dedicated the current issue of their member's magazine report psychologie (7/8, 2013) to the question of political apathy. Unfortunately all articles aimed at how to motivate eligible voters to actively participate in politics.
The one question that ensues from the fact of political apathy was painfully missing:
All past and present political systems seem to suffer from avarice and power abuse on the part of the governing, and resignation and stupid egoism on the part of the governed. Greed and unselfishness are of course personality traits that a political system cannot change. But social circumstances promote or inhibit the activation of personality traits. Therefore, the most important question is:
Is there psychological research into which (aspects of a) political system would increase an active concern for the greater good?

Re: close because primarily opinion based. How is a request for psychological research opinion based?

Not a close vote from me, but I wonder what are some examples of "aspects of a political system" that you had in mind. For example, there are formal and informal aspects of the political system. And are you more concerned with the governing or the governed? Are you talking about individual level effects or society-level effects? What kind of psychological evidence did you have in mind as opposed to argument that would be more suited on say http://politics.stackexchange.com/

A possible research 'road block' for this kind of study is the bias that may creep into any academic article - it would be interesting to find any unbiased sources. Also, how could that bias be defined?
Incidently, Australia will also be going to the polls next month.

@JeromyAnglim To tell the truth, I really have no idea how to tackle this question, otherwise I would have done the research myself. But e.g.: in a village everybody is immediately affected and therefore immediately interested in many decisions. If decisions take the detour over the far capital and are made by people who don't live in the village, villagers will become frustrated and resign. So a smaller structure (villages instead of countries) would probably increase political engagement. Or control mechanisms like publishing bank account activity of politicians. etc. etc.

@Damien Yes, bias is a problem in research. That's what I meant with my question: it is generally assumed that, as Churchill said, democracy is the best of the worse systems. But maybe that is not true and only conforms to our western ideology of personal freedom and equality. But maybe we are not equally capable of making fundamental long term decisions (such as voting). I'm not, because I understand the consequences too little, and I'm certainly not the least educated person around. So I vote out of prejudice. What is the solution for that and other similar problems? Maybe not democracy.

I strongly suspect collectivism and "horizontal" (i.e., non-hierarchical) cultures promote what you're referring to, but again, IOU some research on this. It's an important question, and dear to the heart of my long-term research program. For a no-brainer of a starting point, I'm guessing democracy fosters more prosociality than totalitarianism. To add a more controversial hypothesis, I bet socialism is also more prosocializing (hoped for a second that I'd coined that, but I'm afraid others have beaten me to it) than capitalism. I.e., fiscal policy promoting equality may influence values.

What does "the greater good" mean? It sounds rather ominous and dystopian to my ears. The question seems to be at odds between asking for methods by which we may investigate how desirable the outcomes produced by any political system are (e.g., game theory), and how we may in practice optimize a particular political system's functioning as defined by such a method (e.g., policy interventions). Voted to close as too broad, but picking a direction or splitting could salvage it.

@ChristianHummeluhr My question makes it quite clear that I am concerned with how to discourage avarice and selfish greed. The "greater good", in the context of my question, means not to work into one's own pocket but to be concerned with making life better for everyone. That people might not agree on how this can be achieved is not a part ofmy question and irrelevant here.

Your comment that "I am concerned with how to discourage avarice and selfish greed" suggests to me that you may be looking for policy interventions against corruption, or for incentivizing prosocial behavior, or maybe both, but this was not clear (to me) from the question itself as it is written, or from any previous comment.

That the first thing that comes to your mind when you read "greater good" is dystopia is quite discouraging.

@what Please do not feel discouraged. I'm only one voice suggesting that "the greater good" is not sufficiently defined in the question as written to give a meaningful answer, and noting that an insufficient definition of 'the greater good' obviously leads to some predictably horrible outcomes. A humorous illustration of this problem: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2569

If I could cast a non-binding vote then I would vote that this question is too broad. The whole fields of moral and political philosophy have struggled with this question for over 2 millennia; how do you define "the greater good", how do you define "political system", are all highly non-trivial questions. However, some variant of this question would be very interesting, if you were a bit more precise on your parameters.


text:
Psychologically, how does volunteer work help the volunteer?
This question has intrigued me for a long time, ever since I experienced it first hand (and continue to do so).  Some feel a compulsion to 'step up' and lend a hand to someone in need.  An example, after spending a day cleaning up a neighbour's flood ravaged business and then some time helping at an evacuation centre, I came home sore, bruised, bleeding, battered, utterly exhausted - but, I felt great - physically, I was a mess, but psychologically, I felt incredible.
What is/are bases for the psychological benefits often felt by volunteers?

Individual Motives
In addition to purely altruistic motivs for volunteering, there is some evidence it can occur for very different, more selfish reasons. Clary et al. (1998) developed a functionalist theory of volunteering and identified six different motives:

expression of humanitarian values
gaining knowledge
personal growth
social integration
career benefits
protecting the ego from negative self evaluation and reducing guilt of being more fortunate than others

Simon et al. (2000) found additional evidence to support the role of gaining knowledge as a motive.
Social Motives
All of the above were individual motives for helping behaviour. Going back to altruism as a predictor, it might be useful to also consider a group level perspective. Helping behaviour may have to do with self-categorization as group member. A very prominent approach from social-psychology is the Empathy-Altruism-Hypothesis by Daniel Batson et al. (1991). As you might expect, it states that empathy with someone is a good predictor of helping behaviour. However, there are different reasons for experiencing empathy. Stürmer et al. (2005; see also Simon et al., 2000) found in a study with AIDS volunteers, that empathy was a stronger predictor of helping behaviour when the recipient was an in-group member. On the other hand, when the recipient was an outgroup member, personal attraction was a stronger predictor. So volunteering might also have to do with the social identity of a person.
References:

Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A., Haugen, J., & Miene, P. (1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: a functional approach. Journal of personality and social psychology, 74(6), 1516. PDF
Simon, B., Sturmer, S., & Steffens, K. (2000). Helping Individuals or Group Members? The Role of Individual and Collective Identification in AIDS Volunteerism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(4), 497–506. doi:10.1177/0146167200266008 PDF
Stürmer, S., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (2005). Prosocial Emotions and Helping: The Moderating Role of Group Membership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 532–546. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.532

@Skippy Thanks. Note, that volunteering does not have to be altruistic. I edited my post to emphasize this.

@JensKouros very nicely done, exactly what I was after and more, I appreciate both the individual and social motivations.

Some of the "pay-offs" of altruism, but within the more extreme circumstance of risking one's life to save another are address in this answer.
In my opinion, volunteer work fulfills a person's needs to be useful, it also places a person in a position of superiority, as they are bestowing their "gifts" upon a "lesser" person in need. There is evidence that charitable work releases chemicals akin to pleasure in the brain. [Dan Schulman]
I cite Ferguson, Eamonn; Farrell, Kathleen; Lawrence, Claire :

The benevolence hypothesis is supported, suggesting that blood donor
  motivation is partly selfish.

Citing  from the moral maze.

"Even in human societies we can still trace many behaviours seemingly
  carried out for the benefit of the group back to benefits for the
  individual," Stanford explains.

In the study Altruism Costs - the Cheap Signal from Amygdala, it was demonstrated that there a neurological changes within the brain when contemplating making donations.

neural processing of the cost-benefit difference. The presentation of
  a charitable donation goal evoked an insula activity that predicted
  the later decision to donate.../...   Our findings imply that the
  emotional system has an important role in real decision making as it
  signals what kind of immediate cost and reward an outcome is
  associated with.

So in summary, I believe the pay-off is a feeling of well-being, that is in accord with supporting the individual's self-esteem and some evolutionary theories of our instincts as a species.
The Biology of Benevolence
Humans may be hardwired to cooperate. The choice to cooperate stimulates pleasure centers in the brain.
By Dan Schulman,
published on November 01, 2002 - last reviewed on May 02, 2006
Blood donation is an act of benevolence rather than altruism.
Ferguson, Eamonn; Farrell, Kathleen; Lawrence, Claire
Health Psychology, Vol 27(3), May 2008, 327-336
Altruism Costs - the Cheap Signal from Amygdala.
Gospic K, Sundberg M, Maeder J, Fransson P, Petrovic P, Isacsson G, Karlström A, Ingvar M.


text:
Are life positions in transactional analysis accurate aides in diagnosing personality disorders?
Eric Berne developed the notion of transactional analysis (TA ) and author of the book  "The Games People Play".
Thomas A Harris then wrote the book "I'm OK - You're Ok" based on Berne's theory of TA.
Tony White expanded on this theory.
They produced the following concepts about people's life positions. As a basis for a person's way of relating to others and the world.:
"I'm OK, You're OK"
"I'm not OK, You're OK"
"I'm OK, You're not OK"
"I'm not OK, You're not OK"
"I'm not OK, But You're Worse"
"I'm not OK, You're Irrelevant"
"I'm a Bit More OK Than You Are"
"I'm OK, You're Irrelevant"
"I'm OK, You're OK, They're not OK"
How effective is this paradigm as an aide  to diagnosing personality disorders?

Diagnosing personality types in what sense? Each model of personality has different personality types and different numbers of types. Did you have a specific model of personality types in mind outside TA itself?

just as an aside, put those life positions into a conversation, and relace "OK" with "the king", then you have a typical conversation between 2 of my senior students.  I'll ask them if this is their motivation.

Transactional Analysis (TA) was developed by Eric Berne (1910–1970) and is not a method of diagnosis.  As @John said in his answer, diagnosis is made using the DSM (currently DSM-5), and targeted assessment tools such as the PCL-R.
TA is an integrative method of therapy combining psychodynamic and humanistic approaches.  On the difference between TA and other theories, Eric Berne said

I think most other therapies . . . talk about thinking and feeling. Our question to the patient is not what do you think or how do you feel, but what are you going to do about it? . . . There’s a story, that I think is a little unfair, but anyway it sort of illustrates what I mean, where a patient came in one day and said to the psychiatrist “by the way, I killed my wife last night and hid her body in the closet”. And some people might say “ah ha, now we’ve got something to work with, what’s your interest in closets?” Whereas we might say “why are you killing your wife?”’(Berne, E. (1966) Games People Play – The Theory Video (Available Online via YouTube). National Education Television.)

Page 343 of Short, F. & Thomas, P. (2015) Core Approaches in Counselling and Psychotherapy. Hove: Routledge., allows you to appreciate the application of transactional analysis in a therapeutic setting via a case study.

Personality disorders are diagnosed with the DSM manual save for a few which have targeted assessment tools (like the PCL-R).
TA is not considered a well supported technique research wise and lots of schools don't teach it except by way of a history lesson. I'm quite certain that both Berne and the authors of the DSM would agree that it doesn't actually map onto any specific personality disorders currently recognized. At best there would be a relationship between many of the addictions and related dependencies but they're certainly not seen the same way.

As someone who is brand new to TA and not a professional in any mental health industry I am wondering if that statement concerning TA is an opinion? Or supported with research? I want to research the validity of TA as I see practical applications of it in some areas that I have interests in. I'm not challenging the stance merely seeking as much peer-reviewed information on TA as I can get my hands on.


text:
Studies linking brain chemistry to sexual infidelity
This study Oxytocin Modulates Social Distance between Males and
Females examines the effects of Oxytocin (OXT) on men in monogamous relationships. It demonstrates that OXT assists in maintaining fidelity to that relationship. OXT levels are increased by close and sexual interactions with their partner.

The specificity of the OXT effect in influencing the social distance
  that males keep from unfamiliar females is evidenced by our finding
  that it has no significant effect on the distance kept from unfamiliar
  males. Given the absence of PS differences between single and
  pair-bonded men in the PLC group, it is clear that for these potential
  fidelity-enhancing effects of OXT to be revealed, female partners
  would need to evoke its endogenous release immediately before contexts
  in which the men might encounter other women. While, compared with
  singles, basal concentrations of OXT in blood are increased in couples
  during the early stages of romantic love and stay significantly
  elevated in couples remaining together 6 months later (Schneiderman et
  al., 2012), our results suggest that further augmentation of
  endogenous OXT release is necessary to produce fidelity-enhancing
  effects. Mechanistically, this may be related to additional OXT either
  compensating a relative deficit (optimization hypothesis) or by
  collapsing already optimal levels (decompensation hypothesis). While
  the most obvious physiological stimulus for promoting endogenous OXT
  release in men would be having sex with their mate (Kru¨ger et al.,
  2003), the simple close presence and touch of their partner at any
  given moment in time might also suffice (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2008).
  Thus, OXT effects in promoting monogamy in males may normally depend
  upon the presence of a close positive relationship in the bond with
  their female partners and close physical proximity between the couple.1

There have been studies on the factors involved in  sexual infidelity.

Virtually all American couples, married or cohabiting, expect sexual
  exclusivity of one another. This article asks why some people are
  sexually exclusive while others have sex with someone besides their
  mate. Previous research has linked personal values, sexual
  opportunities, and quality of the marital relationship to extramartial
  sex. This paper integrates these findings in a multivariate model that
  incorporates factors informing sexual decision making as well as
  demographic “risk factors.” Nationally representative survey data show
  higher likelihood of sexual infidelity among those with stronger
  sexual interests, more permissive sexual values, lower subjective
  satisfaction with their union, weaker network ties to partner, and
  greater sexual opportunities. With these factors controlled, gender
  differences are substantially reduced or eliminated, although racial
  effects persist. 2

Given that there are people who can maintain close relationships, simultaneously, with more than one partner.
Have there been studies examining the  brain biochemistry  that increases  an individual's propensity for sexual infidelity?
1 Oxytocin Modulates Social Distance between Males and Females
Dirk Scheele1, Nadine Striepens1, Onur Güntürkün, Sandra Deutschländer, Wolfgang Maier1,  Keith M. Kendrick, and René Hurlemann
The Journal of Neuroscience, 14 November 2012, 32(46): 16074-16079; doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2755-12.2012
2 Sexual Infidelity Among Married and Cohabiting Americans
Judith Treas1, Deirdre Giesen2
Article first published online: 2 MAR 2004
DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00048.

One thought: People differ in what they perceive as infidelity, so if a researcher measures all people against the same standard, many will have committed acts of infidelity that they themselves and their spouses did not perceive as infidelity (and vice versa). See the common and controversial forum discussions on whether imagining having sex is already infidelity, or statements that one night stands are not yet a breach of trust. [contd.]

[contd.] And I wouldn't simply define these away as misconceptions, because the same behavior can cause quite different reactions and emotions in different people: some people will end a relationship because their partner constantly flirts with others; while some people remain committed even after they discovered their partner had a lengthy affair. What defines infidelity? Certainly not the researcher.

No, it is not an answer, neither to this nor any other question. I just have issues with these sort of studies. The paper says OXT modulates fidelity. Now, OXT is, for example, produced through sex. But if the man and woman simply don't have sex, then it is not the absence of OXT that makes men be unfaithful, but something else that comes before the chance to release OXT. OXT is not something that makes men faithful, but something that makes them feel close to the person that they are faithful to. The faithfulness comes before the OXT.

The number one hormonal suspect in infidelity has been testosterone. Partially this has been predicted because testosterone predicts sex drive in both men and women. The problem with testing this one in actual humans though is that most of the things associated with cheating also cause increased testosterone levels (flirting, increased number of sexual partners). Therefore, there's a serious chicken and egg problem in more observational studies.
Roney, J. R., Simmons, Z. L., & Lukaszewski, A. W. (2010). Androgen receptor gene sequence and basal cortisol concentrations predict men’s hormonal responses to potential mates. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 277, 57-63.


text:
What are the neurobiological mechanisms behind clumsiness
Some people are inherently clumsy (including your's truly).  Everything from frequently stubbing their toes to, as in my case 2 days ago, falling down a single step and managing to crack a rib and strain my back when I landing over the letterbox, are quite bizarre.
The question is, what are the neurobiological mechanisms behind clumsiness?  I would imagine that it is somehow connected to coordination (of which I have almost none) and perhaps depth perception - but I would like refereed articles to clarify the reasons.

don't lose sight of the fact that your clumsiness may originate in your consciousness, and not be based in the biology.  Do search, though

@NewAlexandria Yes, I am aware of those reasons, I am after the neurobiological mechanisms in this question.


text:
What causes behavioural inhibition?
There are obvious consequences that prevent people from behaving anti-socially or criminally. However there are many behaviours that are within the bounds of social norms, yet there seems to be some "invisible" force preventing people from letting go of inhibitions and acting spontaneously.
What stops a person from doing something when they have the urge to do something spontaneous and random?
 I was in the process of answering another question when it was deleted; so decided to write my own question

The most common theory to date is that behavioural inhibition is developed from negative reinforcement.
Gray's biopsychological theory of personality

the Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS) and the Behavioural Activation
  System (BAS)  ../..  The BIS is thought to be related to sensitivity
  to punishment as well as avoidance motivation, while the BAS is
  thought to be related to sensitivity to reward as well as approach
  motivation.

There is some research that suggests that the BIS scale is better correlated with neuroticism and negative affectivity, rather than anxiety.

The BIS scale was less correlated with anxiety and depression symptoms
  than are neuroticism and negative affectivity scales, probably because
  it is designed to measure predisposition to anxiety rather than the
  experience of anxiety. BIS scores were higher in females,...1

Brain Functions: Behavioral Inhibition, Behavioral Flexibility, and Cognitive Control
Discusses how we modify our behaviour and suggests that some behaviour is inhibited in an "auto-pilot" manner by the prefrontal cortex to free up our brain for more complex thought processes.

We can inhibit our actions and behaviors while they are in progress,
  and we can also inhibit our emotions and memories. Different parts of
  the prefrontal cortex, at the very front of the brain, are used to
  interrupt these various types of behaviors or thoughts. Some theories
  even suggest that the role of the prefrontal cortex is to stop all
  ill-suited actions or thoughts, to leave room for more appropriate
  actions.

Overall, there are numerous studies showing a  link between anxiety and  experience of a fear based reward system  with behavioural inhibition.2
1 Using the BIS/BAS scales to measure behavioural inhibition and behavioural activation: Factor structure, validity and norms in a large community sample
A.F JormCorresponding author contact information, H Christensen, A.S Henderson, P.A Jacomb, A.E Korten, B Rodgers
NHMRC Psychiatric Epidemiology Research Centre, The Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00143-3
2 J Child Fam Stud. 2011 April; 20(2): 157–170.
Published online 2010 March 17. doi:  10.1007/s10826-010-9365-8
PMCID: PMC3048305
Behavioral Inhibition as a Risk Factor for the Development of Childhood Anxiety Disorders: A Longitudinal Study
Peter Muris,corresponding author1 Anna M. L. van Brakel,2 Arnoud Arntz,2 and Erik Schouten2


text:
The effects of online chat on written language skills
With the advent of texting and online social networking. There has been a dictionary of new words and acronyms, based on abbreviations. I have noticed that I will misuse there, they're and their, hear and here... and the incidence of my grammatical errors has increased with the increase in longevity of my online and text communication.
I understand this is anecdotal, but I am wondering:
Are there studies showing the effects of online social networking and texting on people's  written language skills?

Related, may be off interest http://www.siu-voss.net/Voslo__effects_of_texting_on_literacy.pdf

Another link - about the potential advantages http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num3/pdf/laizhao.pdf

The research on this topic is limited; it seems, however,  that the advent of online and mobile communication may assist in improving literacy skills of children and people learning a second language.
The use of phonetic abbreviations, assists the learner in developing the connection between verbal and written language. The use of acronyms relies on the users knowledge of how words are spelt. Which requires a presumption of literacy.

Although some studies are inconclusive, the trend shows that texting and online chat assists in child literacy. Enforced limitations on text size, and the use of a, rapidly, evolving language, promotes creativity in the use of written language.

Recognising that many, if not most, textisms are some form of phonetic
  abbreviation, Plester, Wood and Joshi (2009) argue that to produce and
  read such abbreviations requires, in the texter, a level of
  phonological awareness (and orthographic awareness). While spelled
  incorrectly in a conventional sense, many textisms are phonologically
  acceptable forms of written English. Decades of research has
  demonstrated a consistent association between different forms of
  3phonological awareness and reading attainment.  David Crystal,
  honorary professor of linguistics at the University of Wales, believes
  that sending frequent texts can actually help children to read and
  write because of the abbreviations used. “People have always used
  abbreviations ... They do not actually use that many in texts but when
  they do they are using them in new, playful and imaginative ways that
  benefit literacy” (Leake, 2008).
Crystal (2008) believes that the widespread concern about the impact
  of texting on children’s literacy is unfounded. The brevity of the
  text style, and the 160 character constraint of an SMS, requires the
  author to write economically, inventively and playfully – doing this
  is good practice when learning to read and write. Wood, Plester and
  Bowyer (2008) concur that “when texting, the children have the freedom
  to ‘play’ with the construction of language that they are learning
  about at school, and are creative in their use of it. They also have
  regular engagement with it.” Plester, Wood and Joshi (2009) believe
  that any engagement with the written word (as opposed to the spoken
  word) – including reading and writing textisms in digital form on
  mobile phones – is beneficial for children. Wood, Plester and Bowyer
  (2008) posit that “children’s use of this technology appears to have a
  positive impact on their developing literacy, as it provides children
  with an additional resource for learning about and experimenting with
  letter-sound correspondences and language, and for reading and
  ‘decoding’ text.” They conclude that “If our children are showing
  difficulties with reading and spelling attainment, it would seem that
  this is in spite of the contribution of textism use, not because of
  it.”

....

Evolution of language Language changes constantly. To illustrate this
  point, at the beginning of each school year Cindi Rigsbee, a sixth-
  and seventh-grade reading-resource teacher in the USA, shows her
  learners texts from Old English, Middle English, contemporary English
  from the time of Jane Eyre, and a MySpace page. Throughout the year,
  Rigsbee often refers back to this lesson to remind her learners of the
  different forms of writing (Bernard, 2008). Other teachers have
  contrasted IM lingo with Shakespeare to demonstrate how English has
  evolved (Lee, 2002)

(The effects of texting on literacy: Modern scourge or opportunity? - Shuttleworth Foundation)

The use of texting and online chat has also promoted Second Language Acquisition (SLA). The emphasis being on the written language, and the inability to utilize body language, and facial gestures, as a bridge to overcoming learning difficulties.

It was found that text-based online chat promotes noticing more than
  face-to-face conversations, especially in terms of learners’ noticing
  of their own linguistic mistakes.

....

Philp’s (1999) findings pushed the agenda of research on noticing away
  from general evidentiary studies on the positive effect of noticing on
  SLA  towards exploratory studies on contextual factors that affect
  noticing. Realizing the potential effect of learners’ memory capacity
  on noticing as laid out in Doughty’s (2001) cognitive comparison
  framework, Mackey, Philp, Egi, Fujii, and Tatsumi (2002) designed a
  study to explore the relationship between learners’ working memory
  (WM) capacities and their noticing of interactional feedback. They
  found that there was a positive relationship between WM capacities and
  their noticing of interactional feedback, and that learners at lower
  developmental levels exhibited more   noticing than those at higher
  levels.

(NOTICING AND TEXT-BASED CHAT, Chun Lai and Yong Zhao, Michigan State University)

It is unclear what the advent of technological communication has upon the literacy of   adult native language. Any links to current research on this would be welcome.
Note I would like to acknowledge that I have used the links provided in the comments to answer this question.
Will update answer upon acquisition of new material.

I have come across some literature in the gaming arena which I thought was relevant. Gaming is full of texting however there is also voice chat (so this might be a bit off-topic). Texting as the sole form of communication in social media has become increasingly rare.
Despite these reservations, this 2014 Swedish study (Sundqvist & Sylvén) found a significant relationship between online gaming and practising and using English especially for boys.
A 2017 Danish study found a strong relationship between gaming and English acquisition. Signe Jensen examined 107 students and found that for boys playing games with oral and written input performed better on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test.


text:
Is there a correlation between people who frequently laugh at their own jokes and narcissism?
It is not uncommon for people to  laugh at their own jokes. One comedian discusses how he uses this as a benchmark for whether or not a joke is going to be funny for the audience.
Psychology Today interviews John Hodgman

Your delivery is famously dry. Do you ever crack yourself up? I find
  it to be comedically unethical to laugh at your own jokes on stage.
  ...//...
But the reverse is true when writing. I generally only like a joke of
  my own if I make myself laugh when I write it. If my brain can fool
  myself into a surprised chuckle, even when I am the one who wrote the
  joke, my guess is that it can also fool you.

Is there a correlation between  people who frequently laugh at their own jokes and narcissistic features?

From personal experience: I really don't see myself as a narcissist, however I can be selfish (aren't we all a little bit). I laugh at my own jokes a lot, mostly because only I get the joke. I see humor in the smallest things, things that are just silly, ironic, and oh how I love puns! It feels good to laugh! My husband just stares at me and shakes his head a lot which makes me laugh harder. lol I'm laughing thinking about this.

I don't have any proof, but from my experience, I've met more than 10 people who laugh about their jokes (in a way that tries to force the other to laugh). Those people have probably a narcissism personality. Think of it: "You are trying to force people to laugh, you are trying to show off, you are not funny, but yet you want care about people thinking you are" is n't that narcissistic?

@WilliamKinaan those are narcissistic traits if that is what the person is thinking and trying to achieve.

Did u ever think we might laugh at our own jokes cos it's the first time we heard it ???? If someone keeps repeating it over and over to different people and still laughing every time then yes maybe but once definitely not...

I can't delete this, is has an answer.


text:
The psychology of disproportioned people in artwork
Hitler was an artist, unbeknownst to  some people. He painted and sketched. In his work, the people were disproportionately large within any given scene. Given his extreme personality, I have often pondered about this. Perhaps an over exaggeration of people in his artwork reflected his own grandiosity about his position in the world.
Is there some connection between the psychology of consistently mistaking the proportional  size of people in art work and mental health?

I have been drawing for more than twenty years and have observed many people learn how to draw. Getting human (or any) proportions right is the one most difficult part for most people, and that Hitler, who made a living as an artist for years and produced two to three thousand drawings, sketches, watercolors, and oil paintings (Price, 1983), maybe drew people too large in some of them does, it would seem, not reflect anything but his level of artistry – or the expressionistic and new objectivist styles popular at the time: other expressionistic and post-expressionistic artists didn't paint very realistic, either.
Deducing psychopathology from artistic output is at least difficult. "The primary assumptions of art psychopathology theories are unreliable since, as Prinzhorn shows, emotionally troubled people are capable of producing wondrous artworks which compare favorably with the creations of artists and children." (Betts, 2006) Hans Prinzhorn, a German psychiatrist and art historian, was entrusted with caring for the collection of art by mental patients begun by Emil Kraepelin in 1919 and expanded it to more than 5000 works in the following years. He published a book, Artistry of the Mentally Ill (1922), in which he analysed the paintings from his collection and found no differences to "normal" art.
Prinzhorn attempted to discern the differences between art by healthy individuals and "outsider art", as the artistic output by mentally ill people came to be called, in a more subjective manner. But first experimental results were contradictory as well. In an experiment, art teachers, mental health professionals, and laypeople, were all unable to discriminate drawings by schizophrenic or healthy children (Rubin & Schachter, 1972). The same group of researchers again found that judges discriminated at levels of chance when they were presented with art by schizophrenic and healthy mothers (Rubin, Ragins, Schachter & Wimberly, 1979). But in other experiments by another research group (Ulman & Levy, 1968, 1984; Levy & Ulman, 1974), judges were able to identify art by mentally ill adults and could even be trained to increase discriminative accuracy.
Discriminative ability seems to depend on what aspect of the artwork the judges look at. In a meta-analysis, Susanne Hacking and David Foreman (2001) identify a number of scales (thematic, quality, shape, color, reality, energy, complexity, composition etc.) and found that two of them (content and body detail, with effect sizes of 0.88 and 0.84 respetively) were able to discriminate patients and healthy controls. Using her own instrument, Hacking (1999) was able to correctly identify psychopathology from artwork with 80-90% accuracy by looking at use of color, line quality, and use of the drawing space.
Even in successful experiments, proportion does not seem to be a distinguishing characteristic of psychopathological art. And it is unlikely that other aspects of Hitler's art would show aspects of psychopathology, because, as he himself stated, as a professional artist his works were dictated by this customers: "I paint that which the people want to buy." (Price, 1983)

Sources:

Betts, D. J. (2006). Art therapy assessments and rating instruments: do they measure up? The Arts in Psychotherapy, 33, 422-434.
Hacking, S. (1999). The Psychopathology of Everyday Art: A Quantitative Study (doctoral dissertation), University of Keele. Available online at http://www.wfmt.info/Musictherapyworld/modules/archive/stuff/papers/Hacking.pdf
Hacking, S., & Foreman, D. (2001). Psychopathology in paintings: A meta‐analysis of studies using paintings by psychiatric patients. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 74, 35-45.
Levy, B. I., & Ulman, E. (1974). The effect of training on judging psychopathology from paintings. American Journal of Art Therapy, 14, 24-25.
Levy, B. I., & Ulman, E. (1984). An experimental approach to the judgment of psychopathology from paintings. American Journal of Art Therapy, 23, 47-52.
Price, B. F. (1983). Adolf Hitler als Maler und Zeichner: Ein Werkkatalog der Ölgemälde, Aquarelle, Zeichnungen und Architekturskizzen. Zug: Gallant.
Prinzhorn, H. (1922). Bildnerei der Geisteskranken: Ein Beitrag zur Psychologie und Psychopathologie der Gestaltung. Berlin: Springer.
Rubin, J. A., Ragins, N., Schachter, J., & Wimberly, F. (1979). Drawings by schizophrenic and non-schizophrenic mothers and their children. Art Psychotherapy, 6, 163–175. doi:10.1016/0090-9092(79)90040-1
Rubin, J. A., & Schachter, J. (1972). Judgments of psychopathology from art productions of children. Confinia Psychiatrica, 15(3-4), 237-250.
Ulman, E., & Levy, B. I. (1968). An experimental approach to the judgment of psychopathology from paintings. Bulletin of Art Therapy, 8, 3-12.

That's alright, Skippy. I'm a bit out of the game as I have exams in two weeks and getting a bit panicky.


text:
What is the psychology behind the need to be the centre of attention?
In conversations, there are often times when a member of the group will consistently divert the conversation back to their own topic (often to do with them).  A 'pseudo-conversation' example:

Persons 1-3 are talking about A - going back and forth as
conversations often do.
Person 4 starts talking about B - a topic about them
Persons 1-4 talk about B for a bit, and that part of the conversation
is largely concluded.
Persons 1-4 talk about A again (as it had not concluded) - picking up were they left off.
Person 4 starts talking about C - another topic about them, loosely related to topic B

(Note: for these examples, topics A, B and C are not urgent).
Many people seem to do it without realising, some habitually do it - but, it seems commonplace.
The question is, what is the psychology behind the need to be the centre of attention?

Depends on the pattern of how this occurs -- the situation, consistency, and severity.
If across situations, across different other people, and across different settings, this would indicate a personality trait. The person might be unaware of the social cues of others and draw attention to ideas that are interesting to them. Most people are interested in talking about themselves. Combine this tendency with lack of awareness, and you might see what you're describing.
If they consistently dominate the group conversation across different people and different situations, to the point where the pattern negatively affects their life or work, they might have a narcissistic trait or even NPD. In such case, the person's concept of self-worth may be abnormally modulated by the positive attention they receive from others. They might have a need to be the focus of attention, because otherwise they may feel degrees of worthlessness. This need may have developed during childhood from one or a series of traumatic events (i.e. narcissistic parent).
If this happens consistently only with one group of people, it could be that the people in the group consistently have conversations that are uninteresting to the person.
Additionally, the group of people might be meeting in a certain place or a certain time, during which the person might be more likely to want to talk about themselves. Perhaps, the group meets after the person has finished their soccer practice, or after a weekly meeting with their boss. If so, the person might be particularly excited to talk about their game events, or how pressured they feel at work.


text:
How is history of psychology taught around the world, and if it is not, why not?
When you study medicine in Germany, lectures on the history and ethics of medicine are an integral part of your curriculum. Many universities have a separate Institute for the History and Ethics of Medicine with related chairs.
When you study psychology, some introductory lectures might or might not give a short overview of the field's history (e.g. a bit about Pawlow and Thorndike in a lecture on "Learning"), but a knowledge of the history of the discipline is not emphasized in the education of young academics. There is only one Institute for the History of Psychology in my country, and it is privately financed. History of psychology appears to be mostly a hobby of some professors.
How is the status of the teaching of the history of psychology in your country, and is there a published discussion or are official reasons given (for example during the discussions that precede the creation of nationwide examination regulations), why we don't need to institutionalize it?
Please don't post your opinion on the matter, but quote published sources. They can be in any language, if you briefly summarize the content in English.

This is a nice example of what might turn out to be a good 'list' question: http://meta.cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/36/21 Perhaps we should stick to different approaches per answer, listing all countries which follow a similar approach, adding possible exceptions?

Well, I'm not simply interested in different practices, but more in the reasons for them. Why is history of a discipline thought important for students in one discipline or country, but not in another? How important is the understanding of the history of your own discipline for your practice or advancement of it? Academic self-reflection.

+1 on this question - it would be very interesting to see the results of as @what calls - an 'academic self-reflection'

May be of interest - http://tonks.disted.camosun.bc.ca/colloquia/cpa01.htm

The American Psychological Association requires graduate programs to cover a range of core competencies, including "the breadth of scientific psychology, it's history and development, it's research methods, and its applications. To achieve this end, the students shall be exposed to the current body of knowledge in at least the following areas:...history and systems of psychology..." (APA Guidelines and Principles for Accreditation of Programs in Professional Psychology, http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/about/policies/guiding-principles.pdf). This applies to all APA accredited doctoral programs in clinical, counseling, and school psychology. Many programs meet this requirement with a History and Systems course, which covers development of psychology as a field as well as different branches of psychological theory. However, some graduate programs may choose to meet the requirement by requiring students to complete an independent study on this topic.
The APA does not accredit master's or bachelor's programs, so there may be more diversity as to whether a history of psychology course is provided or required at that level. A 2010 APA Monitor article discusses this issue (Chamberlin, 2010). The reasons for teaching the history of psychology vary. At my undergraduate university a History and Systems course was a required course in your senior-year, as the program felt it not only provided a sound theoretical foundation but also served as an excellent review for the GRE Psychology subject test. A 2011 dissertation explored the content of history of psychology courses in APA accredited programs, and may provide additional information on the presence of the history of psychology in American education (Petzolt, 2011). The author noted that there are many reasons typically given for this APA requirement, including "the belief that the study of history is a way of unifying the different branches of the field, that it helps to ground current psychological research in tradition and theory, and that it establishes a framework from which all applications can be derived" (Petzolt, 2011).
Chamberlin, J. (2010). Don't know much about history. APA Monitor, 41(2), 44. http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/02/history.aspx
Petzolt, N. M. (2011). Teaching the graduate course in the history of psychology in APA accredited programs. St. John's University (New York), 53 pages. UMI Proquest Publication number: 3445776.

I don't have any references to add in an answer of my own, so I'll just append my experience in USA as a comment here. I recall hearing some talk of a possible history of psychology seminar – I think my former graduate advisor is one of those with a hobby/professional interest in the topic – but I don't think it went anywhere. I think it was less popular as an idea than others the department had in mind at the time, so there was effectively no dedicated education in the history of psychology in my graduate program (nor was there any in my undergrad program as far as I recall).

The university of Oslo teaches a rather big part of the history of psychological research. I've completed it myself, so I know for sure. Do note that the subject also involves a lot more than just history.
https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/sv/psykologi/PSYC1200/


text:
Have the core CBT "Thinking Errors" been found to NOT be effective in evidence-based clinical practice?
This is his chart of the ten "thinking errors." It's taken from The Feeling Good Handbook.

Table 3–1. Definitions of Cognitive Distortions
ALL-OR-NOTHING THINKING: You see things in black-and-white categories. If your performance falls short of perfect, you see
  yourself as a total failure.
OVERGENERALIZATION: You see a single negative event as a never-ending pattern of defeat.
MENTAL FILTER: You pick out a single negative detail and dwell on it exclusively so that your vision of all reality becomes darkened,
  like the drop of ink that colors the entire beaker of water.
DISQUALIFYING THE POSITIVE: You reject positive experiences by insisting they “don’t count” for some reason or other. In this way you
  can maintain a negative belief that is contradicted by your everyday
  experiences.
JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS: You make a negative interpretation even though there are no definite facts that convincingly support your
  conclusion.
a. Mind reading. You arbitrarily conclude that someone is
  reacting negatively to you, and you don’t bother to check this out.
b. The Fortune Teller Error. You anticipate that things will
  turn out badly, and you feel convinced that your prediction is an
  already-established fact.
MAGNIFICATION (CATASTROPHIZING) OR MINIMIZATION: You exaggerate the importance of things (such as your goof-up or someone else’s
  achievement), or you inappropriately shrink things until they appear
  tiny (your own desirable qualities or the other fellow’s
  imperfections). This is also called the “binocular trick.”
EMOTIONAL REASONING: You assume that your negative emotions necessarily reflect the way things really are: “I feel it, therefore
  it must be true.”
SHOULD STATEMENTS: You try to motivate yourself with shoulds and shouldn’ts, as if you had to be whipped and punished before you could
  be expected to do anything. “Musts” and “oughts” are also offenders.
  The emotional consequence is guilt. When you direct should statements
  toward others, you feel anger, frustration, and resentment.
LABELING AND MISLABELING: This is an extreme form of overgeneralization. Instead of describing your error, you attach a
  negative label to yourself: “I’m a loser.” When someone else’s
  behavior rubs you the wrong way, you attach a negative label to him:
  “He’s a goddam louse.” Mislabeling involves describing an event with
  language that is highly colored and emotionally loaded.
PERSONALIZATION: You see yourself as me cause of some negative external event which in fact you were not primarily responsible for.

Has using these errors as a therapeutic tool been found to be effective in clinical psychotherapy?

Related: https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/1977

I think you should change the question a little bit to "What should be done to the Thinking Errors?" or "Just identifying and evaluating Thinking Errors might not be effective?". Yes, they may not be effective. Please be careful that all mental problems need to be treated by professional therapist and a very important part of their expertise involves the diagnosis. There are many anxiety or depressive disorders that they manifest similar "Thinking Errors" kind of thinking, but they have different underlying causes and should be treated differently. It's not to say that strategies like those described in The Feeling Good Handbook don't work, rather they work when things are simple. If you feel that things are more complicated you should surely seek some professional advice.
To illustrate this point to you by an example I would like to mention Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (or OCD). In OCD, there are some problems in cognitive system that makes the person being constantly paralyzed by lots of Intrusive Thoughts. The content of these thoughts may be similar to "Thinking Errors" or could be corrected by similar strategies, but focusing on them and trying to correct them make them stronger, more sailient, and more frequent. People with this disorder then feel that they are compulsively correcting their erroneous thoughts, but it seems they can never get rid of them. For this disorder, another treatment strategy has been offered called Exposure and Response Prevention (EX/RP). In this kind of treatment people are encouraged to face their intrusive thoughts, but don't respond to them.To try to accept their presence and at the same time not to let them to make them do anything, or not do anything. There is abundant evidence that EX/RP is effective for OCD.
And there are also other disorders with their idiosyncrasy. I'm not sure what kind of problem you're describing, but if you want to use self-help method (with all it's pro and cons) you could take a look at diagnostic features of OCD.

Yes they have been found to not be effective in practice. In family therapy the ideas of emotional reasoning often give a false positives/negative. Family members tend to constantly profess their love in therapy because they realize that is the correct response but can act in an otherwise hostile manner outside therapy. The ideas of emotional reasoning as a "fault" in an individual can cause a therapist to miss signs of unhealthy or abusive relationships. Not all negative or positive feelings are irrational even if they are not expressed in a manner consistent with CBT.
I'm equally sure the other sets also give false positives/negatives and lead to improper treatments.

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


text:
Sadistic personality disorder, psychopathy and correlation with violence
Going through some article, it seems the differences between the descriptions for sadistic personality disorder and psychopathy is minimal, if at all existent.  In the first article it appears  the only difference is a propensity for physical violence. In the second article, the high correlation between psychopathy and physical violence is debunked as a myth.
Given the similarities between the two conditions;
What is the real difference between an individual with Sadistic Personality Disorder and Psychopathy?
What are the real facts correlating violence in psychopathy?
The excerpts are provided below:

The Sadistic Personality disorder is characterized by a pattern of gratuitous cruelty, aggression, and demeaning behaviors which indicate the existence of deep-seated contempt for other people and an utter lack of empathy. Some sadists are "utilitarian": they leverage their explosive violence to establish a position of unchallenged dominance within a relationship. Unlike psychopaths, they rarely use physical force in the commission of crimes. Rather, their aggressiveness is embedded in an interpersonal context and is expressed in social settings, such as the family or the workplace.
This narcissistic need for an audience manifests itself in other circumstances. Sadists strive to humiliate people in front of witnesses. This makes them feel omnipotent. Power plays are important to them and they are likely to treat people under their control or entrusted to their care harshly: a subordinate, a child, a student, a prisoner, a patient, or a spouse are all liable to suffer the consequences of the sadist's "control freakery" and exacting "disciplinary" measures.
Sadists like to inflict pain because they find suffering, both corporeal and psychological, amusing. They torture animals and people because, to them, the sights and sounds of a creature writhing in agony are hilarious and pleasurable. Sadists go to great lengths to hurt others: they lie, deceive, commit crimes, and even make personal sacrifices merely so as to enjoy the cathartic moment of witnessing someone else's misery.
Sadists are masters of abuse by proxy and ambient abuse. They terrorize and intimidate even their nearest and dearest into doing their bidding. They create an aura and atmosphere of unmitigated yet diffuse dread and consternation. This they achieve by promulgating complex "rules of the house" that restrict the autonomy of their dependants (spouses, children, employees, patients, clients, etc.). They have the final word and are the ultimate law. They must be obeyed, no matter how arbitrary and senseless are their rulings and decisions.
Most sadists are fascinated by gore and violence. They are vicarious serial killers: they channel their homicidal urges in socially acceptable ways by "studying" and admiring historical figures such as Hitler, for instance. They love guns and other weapons, are fascinated by death, torture, and martial arts in all their forms. 1

In another discussion the idea of a  psychopath being typically violent is dispelled as a myth:

All psychopaths are violent. Research by psychologists such as Randall T. Salekin, now at the University of Alabama, indicates that psychopathy is a risk factor for future physical and sexual violence. Moreover, at least some serial killers—for example, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy and Dennis Rader, the infamous “BTK” (Bind, Torture, Kill) murderer—have manifested numerous psychopathic traits, including superficial charm and a profound absence of guilt and empathy.
Nevertheless, most psychopaths are not violent, and most violent people are not psychopaths. In the days following the horrific Virginia Tech shootings of April 16, 2007, many newspaper commentators described the killer, Seung-Hui Cho, as “psychopathic.” Yet Cho exhibited few traits of psychopathy: those who knew him described him as markedly shy, withdrawn and peculiar. 2

1 Sadistic Personality Disorder "Personality Disorders Revisited" (450 pages e-book) By: Dr. Sam Vaknin
 2 What "Psychopath" Means It is not quite what you may think By Scott O. Lilienfeld and Hal Arkowitz
note: I post a run of related questions, please do not be disturbed by the content.

I have distinct recollection that the relationship between sadism and psychopathy was once to me described as all sadists are psychopaths, but not vice-versa; with sadistic trait defined loosely as 'taking pleasure in physical pain of others', and everything else just flowing from psychopathy.

First of all you must understand that "psychopathy" or "sadistic personality disorder" are names given by scholars to groups of behaviors that seem to have something in common. These categories are not god-given, but human made, and what they include or exclude changes with the progress of scientific knowledge as well as political interests.
Sadistic personality disorder was a diagnosis proposed in the appendix of the DSM-III-R, but it has not been included in the DSM-IV or DSM-5. Currently it is not a diagnosis that can be given to anyone, although it is still used by some researchers, because they find it useful for research purposes.
Psychopathy has never been a distinct diagnosis in the DSM (or ICD), but the manual stated that antisocial personality disorder includes what is referred to as psychopathy.
The difference between sadistic personality disorder, as it was defined by the DSM-III-R, and psychopathy, as it is defined by different scholars using the term as well as the DSM's antisocial personality disorder, is that a sadist is cruel and aims at physically or mentally inducing pain and suffering, while the psychopath disregards norms and the rights of others. Their behavior might outwardly look the same, and they might have the same goal of dominance, but they differ in their personalities, which are perfectly described by the everyday meaning of the words sadistic and antisocial.

still haven't found the DSM definition of sadistic and antisocial i see.

Anti social behaviour is the psychiatric standard for the disorders you discuss according to the DSM 5. Both psychopathy and sadistic personality disorder are subtypes of type of antisocial personality disorder. Both diagnosis have a negative outlook.
Assuming the psychiatrist uses Theodore Millon's or the like subtypes when psychopathy is a diagnosis.
Your assumption that all those who suffer from ASP are violent and citations as such are incorrect as things like non-violent gambling happen in ASP as well. There are books and webpages dedicated to high functioning ASP but it is not a well researched area of study. Even the term high functioning ASP is not in the literature.

In your second paragraph, the source cited is simply talking about a comorbidity of ASP with (pathological) gambling.


text:
How objective are scientific measures of paraphilia?

Paraphilia (from Greek para = beside and -philia = friendship, meaning love) describes the experience of intense sexual
  arousal to highly atypical objects, situations, or individuals.

Which practices that have been defined as paraphilia has changed over the course of time and with changes in "religious" control over modern society and so a freedom of moral conscience. A striking example being homosexuality, which was considered a mental illness. The educated and enlightened thinkers of many communities now find such an idea as abhorrent.
What is acceptable sexual practice varies across cultures. This in part is reflected by the age of consent across nationalities; which range from 12 to 21.
Striking disparages showing in the Phillipines where female to male age of consent is 12 and 18 for female to male respectively; but for any   male to male or female to female sex is 18. And in Burkina Faso  where the age for female to male sex is 13 for both sexes, but for male to male or female to female is 21 for both. Not to mention the places where homosexuality is illegal.
Given this great variation is what is legally acceptable (thereby one would conclude socially acceptable within that culture) and what one place would deem as acceptable another would deem as aberrant.
How can paraphilia be, scientifically, defined on behaviour alone?
Are there neurobiological differences between the brain of a "paraphilic" and a "normal"?
 What is the correlation between other mental illness and/or abnormal psychology and paraphilia?
note: this lends itself to what we define as illness or abnormal psychology

wiki's Psychopathology page should give you some insight into this issue.
First, you must realize that a psychological illness is generally different than a biological illness. The difficulty when dealing with most (not all) conditions included in the APA's DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders) is that there is no truly objective way of determining whether something should be considered a disorder. This is why they use the 4 D's to determine whether the thing someone is experiencing is a disorder.
It is not truly a paraphilia unless the behavior includes a combination of the following: highly statistically deviant, causes distress, causes the person to not be capable of doing things they normally would be able to, or causes danger to others.

Deviance: this term describes the idea that specific thoughts, behaviours and emotions are considered deviant when they are unacceptable or not common in society. Clinicians must, however, remember that minority groups are not always deemed deviant just because they may not have anything in common with other groups. Therefore, we define an individual's actions as deviant or abnormal when his or her behaviour is deemed unacceptable by the culture he or she belongs to.

(There are moves to start avoiding using this as a reason because of the complexity and it's apparent arbitrariness, but that's a different issue)

Distress: this term accounts for negative feelings by the individual with the disorder. He or she may feel deeply troubled and affected by their illness.
Dysfunction: this term involves maladaptive behaviour that impairs the individual's ability to perform normal daily functions, such as getting ready for work in the morning, or driving a car. Such maladaptive behaviours prevent the individual from living a normal, healthy lifestyle. However, dysfunctional behaviour is not always caused by a disorder; it may be voluntary, such as engaging in a hunger strike.
Danger: this term involves dangerous or violent behaviour directed at the individual, or others in the environment. An example of dangerous behaviour that may suggest a psychological disorder is engaging in suicidal activity.

So no, a paraphilia cannot be scientifically determined by behavior alone (just like the idea of love cannot be proven scientifically by behavior alone).
In short, paraphilia (just like most psychological illnesses) is definitely somewhat subjective. From a clinical standpoint, they're just a way of categorizing and defining disorders that people deal with, like happiness or sadness, not a scientific definition like whether or not someone has cancer.