an interesting study, but look at the interpretation of the results: which outcomes support the theoretical hypotheses? it seems that “merely” helping those with very severe depression is a minor finding! this is a good example of too much reliance on statistical significance and not enough on deciding before the study which outcomes will support the hypotheses.
this Scientific American subscription teaser includes a statement that makes me wonder if it was written by the advertising staff and not an evolutionary scientist : “The evolution of hairlessness helped to set the stage for the emergence of large brains and symbolic thought.” i eagerly await the longer article (perhaps books?) that provide the logic behind this. we need to take care when making blatantly causal statements, even when couched as “setting the stage for.”