"not an intentional suicide"
So not really a suicide at all then.

One more thing Terry,
How can you say that without psychologists there would be no mental patients? Are you implying that mental illnesses don’t exist without psychologists to diagnose it?
I know people with bipolar and schizophrenia. Without help from psychiatrists, their quality of life would be far, far less. A young man I know with schizophrenia, if he doesn’t take his medication, starts to have delusions that frighten him and make him a danger to himself. Someone in my family suffers from bipolar and when she was off her medication, as a single mother, she psychologically and physically abused her children, believing that she was under instructions from both God and the Devil.
I know people with anxiety disorders like OCD – the most debilitating of all the anxiety disorders. Without behavioural therapy and sometimes SSRIs, these peoples’ lives would be ruled by their compulsions.
I know a number of young girls who are recovering from anorexia. Did you know that anorexia has a higher mortality rate than any other psychopathology? That’s right, 20% of girls with anorexia (I say “girls” because 95% of anorexics are female) die. 10% from malnourishment, and 10% from suicide. Do you think we should just leave these girls to their own devices?
Do you know anyone with severe psychopathologies?
What do you think motivates psychologists? Do you really think it’s the money, because here in Australia, the vast majority of psychologists earn little more than teachers (and that’s with a minimum of 7 years university education).

Terry, while gender is partially a social construct, our obligatory parental investment caused by our physical differences (that is, the brief contribution of sperm for a man and the 9 months gestation and ensuing lactation for a woman) ensure that many of the gender roles we have today will persist indefinitely.
(You need to think about survival of the fittest here, and we haven’t evolved so much in the last few thousand years back when these behaviours were ingrained.) As a result, the men who are going to be most reproductively successful are the ones who are promiscuous and basically “spread the seed”. Their offspring will also be the most reproductively successful if the mother has good, healthy genes, so men tend to be attracted to youth, low hip to waist ratio, clear skin, symmetrical faces, and lustrous hair, as these are all indicators of health and fertility.
And the most reproductively successful women will need to find a man who while she is nursing and caring for the young (don’t attack me here for being sexist – due to the woman carrying and usually breast feeding the child, the vast majority of the time she will have a stronger bond than the father), has resources and status so that he can provide for her offspring.
Yes, many of our customs have changed since our Neanderthal days e.g. working mothers, child care, paternal leave from work. However we are still motivated by these deeply engrained instincts that we have evolved, and that have made us the reproductively successful species that we are today. Note that all over the world, it is far more acceptable and common for a woman to marry an older man than vice versa.
Also, the measures of beauty in women I mentioned above (low hip-waist ratio etc…) have been found to be universally appealing to men.
Capitalism is irrelevant. Resources don’t always come in the form of money, but also status, contacts, the ability to provide the basics (food, water etc…).
Normality is irrelevant too (unless you are attacking psychology in general), and besides, there are multiple definitions of when a person is “abnormal” (are they statistically different from the population? Are their behaviours not sanctioned by their culture? Are they a danger to themselves or others? Are they suffering or under distress?).
Besides, what do you have against psychology? By any chance are you a scientologist?
Also, Terry and L, exceptions to the rule are unimportant. Evolutionary psychology (what this “study” argues) is always intended to apply to the level of the species, and not the individual. I am an exception to the rule too (my partner has little resources).
And Gary K, I agree with you that this study is not going to be particularly reliable due to its non-representative sample and procedures, but we must note that a ridiculous amount of much more reliable and valid studies have been conducted with huge sample sizes (10s or thousands), and across many cultures (I read one yesterday that measured across 36 countries) on mating preferences in men and women, and they have found the same results. It is a very robust and universal finding.
Sorry for my rant. I work in the area and I could argue my point for days. I mean no disrespect to anyone.

Why do you say that Matt? I absolutely disagree. The way that psychological researchers conduct studies and experiments is generally very scientific and objective.
Sure, unless we actually read this study we can't be aware of any limitations or faults it may have, but I personally have read and researched many studies that have reported the same findings, and let me tell you, the body of evidence in the field of evolutionary psychology that suggests that in finding a mate men generally look for youth and attractiveness, and women look for status and resources is well established and very difficult to dispute.
Also, the information provided by this study is not at all new and evolutionary psychologists have been arguing this point for decades since Dr. David Buss first argued and found evidence for the above points in the 80s.
Yes, there are critics of evolutionary psychology, but the phenomenon of the gender differences mentioned in mating preferences that have been mentioned is a universal fact. Explanations as to why this occurs varies (social exchange and learning theories, as well as societal expectations of gender roles being a few other contributory explanations), however evolutionary psychology has the largest body of evidence, and is the most successful in explaining human motivation in many aspects of our lives, particularly mate preference.

The swan is probably eating the goldfish.

What's even more interesting is that scientists don't yet know why we need sleep.

Not to mention having to sit through over 3 minutes of the same recycled "footage", that ammounts to probably only 20 seconds in total.

The Americano is gross.

I hate this thing. It's the Crazy Frog remodelled. They play it on the Channel V in Australia ALL THE TIME, expecting someone to actually pay money to have it on their mobile phones.
I just don't understand people who find this funny.

Mmm, so by their prediction, I should be dead by the time I'm 74. I have a little redheadded cousin too who's 2. So that would give her a lifespan of 55?

Please don't think Australians sound like this. His VOICE is so annoying!

That is not safe.

I don't think it sounds all that bad. It's Less invasive and longer lasting than a breast lift, and could give back the confidence a woman loses after breast feeding causes sagginess in her breasts. I just hope they would attach it correctly so that it gives a natural-looking shape.

There used to be one at Taronga zoo in Sydney.

One of the prisoners in the experiment who pretended he was insane to leave early ended up becoming so interested in psychology afterwards that he began studying psychology at uni and is now a prison psychologist!