←back to thread

Schizophrenia is the price we pay for minds poised near the edge of a cliff

(www.psychiatrymargins.com)
262 points Anon84 | 3 comments | 28 Jun 25 21:22 UTC | HN request time: 0.489s | source
Show context
HarHarVeryFunny ◴[29 Jun 25 12:17 UTC] No.44412495[source]▶
Genetics is messy - as I understand it most genes don't code for a single thing, so assuming evolution is "selecting for schizophrenia" that only implies that there is an evolutionary benefit to some of the things controlled by the same gene(s) that control schizophrenia, that outweighs the disadvantage of schizophrenia.

Homosexuality is interesting from this perspective too - common enough that evolution has to be selecting for it, yet basically fatal to reproduction, so what are the benefits that evolution is selecting for? Is it advantageous to groups, or maybe the same genes confer an individual benefit to non-homosexuals?

replies(4): >>44412512 #>>44414429 #>>44415065 #>>44415308 #
1. no_wizard ◴[29 Jun 25 12:21 UTC] No.44412512[source]▶
I always wondered if it was natures check on overpopulation. I know that is controversial to say, but it seems most fitting on its face
replies(2): >>44412768 #>>44415560 #
2. HarHarVeryFunny ◴[29 Jun 25 12:58 UTC] No.44412768[source]▶
My best guess it that there is a societal/group benefit in reducing aggression (maybe not unrelated to they way our closest DNA match, Bonobos, function).

I don't think we're at the point yet, and certainly not in last few million years of evolution, where overpopulation is an issue, and since evolution is all about (collectively) creating the largest next-generation population, this isn't the way I would expect to see increased competition for resources to play out.

3. missedthecue ◴[29 Jun 25 19:18 UTC] No.44415560[source]▶
Do rural populations have lower rates of homosexuals as a % of offspring? How would nature "know" we are overpopulated and bias towards homosexuals?