Claiborne is a gourmet. He makes it a point never to visit a restaurant a second time unless he has been served a superb meal on his first visit. He is puzzled at how seldom the quality of his second meal is as high as the first. The fact that Claiborne's second meal at a restaurant is rarely as good as his first is best explained by:.

A "superb" meal at any restaurant is likely to be an

unusually good one compared to the meals usually

served there. On his next visit, Claiborne is likely to

encounter a "normal" meal. This is the regression to the mean

effect.

Explanation:

Claiborne is a gourmet. He makes it a point never to visit a restaurant a second time unless he has been served a superb meal on his first visit. He is puzzled at how seldom the quality of his second meal is as high as the first. The fact that Claiborne's second meal at a restaurant is rarely as good as his first is best explained by the regression to the mean effect that is, A "superb" meal at any restaurant is likely to be an

unusually good one compared to the meals usually

served there. On his next visit, Claiborne is likely to

encounter a "normal" meal.

A "superb" meal at any restaurant is likely to be an unusually good one compared to the meals usually served there. On his next visit, Claiborne is likely to encounter a "normal" meal. This is the regression to the mean effect.

Explanation:

A "superb" meal at any restaurant is likely to be an unusually good one compared to the meals usually served there. On his next visit, Claiborne is likely to encounter a "normal" meal this is because superb meals are meals which are often perpare in a special way compare to the ones they do prepare on a daily basis or the ones they serve to their customers, so if Claiborne ate superb meal on his first visit their is likelihood of him to eat normal meal on his second visit to the restaurant.

as university of miami psychologists debra lieberman and adam smith pointed out in a recent article in the journal current directions in psychological science, humans have social and psychological mechanisms to deter incest. with very few exceptions, marriages between brothers and sisters and between parents and their children are verboten in every human culture. the primary psychological anti-incest mechanism is the yuck response. even the idea of sex with their mom or dad, bro or sis is upsetting to most people. the psychologist jonathan haidt has found that nearly everyone is repelled by the prospect of brother-sister sex, even in hypothetical situations in which there is no chance of pregnancy).

the biological cost of incest

this raises an interesting question: just what’s so bad about incest? sure, having sex with your dad or your sister seems gross — but why? some anthropologists have argued that incest taboos are learned social conventions. this explanation, however, doesn’t make sense to me as it does not explain the widespread existence of anti-incest mechanisms in creatures ranging from cockroaches to chimpanzees. second, the incest taboo is about as close to a universal law as human moral rules get.

why should mechanisms to avoid incest be so widespread both in nature and across human societies? the answer is simple. the problem with having sex close with relatives is that there is an astonishingly high chance that your offspring will be born with a serious birth defect.

answer; the above statement is (false);