Keller EvolutionaryPersistenceGenes 2008
www.scribd.com
The article discusses the evolutionary persistence of genetic variants that increase the risk of severe mental disorders, despite natural selection typically removing such deleterious alleles. It highlights the paradox of high heritability and prevalence of these disorders, which do not fit traditional adaptive frameworks, and explores potential explanations including mutation-selection balance and evolutionary time lags. The author suggests that understanding these mechanisms can guide future research in behavioral and psychiatric genetics.

As the title states, evolutionary psychiatry seems to be the most logical, likely explanation for mental disorders and their prevalence in the world today. The article explains the underlying theories and supporting evidence.

Of course trauma and experiences can also end up shaping you in a way that is harmful for success in life, but the resulting trauma responses and adaptations likely used to be beneficial for survival instead of harmful, in the environment they were adapted to. This environment/way of life, is hunter-gatherer living, which is where we spent most of our evolutionary history.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    31·
    23 days ago

    Why use a locked document hosted on scribd?

    But yeah, obviously evolution is involved. Variation is the driver of evolution, some of it is maladaptive and how we get mental illnesses. If those increase the odds of reproduction (many do) then the trait becoming more prevelant is evolution, regardless of if we see it as a positive or negative.

    And that’s not even getting into a little variation one way can help, but too much manifests as mental illnesss.

    This is all well established…

    • NedStray@feddit.orgOPEnglish
      21·
      23 days ago

      Many other sites had it locked behind a pay-wall. This link was the first I found where I could read the article.

      Yeah. Also, evolutionary-mismatch (evolutionary time lags), mutation-selection and as you said, balancing selection.

      Your comment leaves out those two others.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        23 days ago

        It leaves out a hell of a lot more than two things…

        If I included everything I’d never hit submit on a single comment

        • NedStray@feddit.orgOPEnglish
          2·
          23 days ago

          Of course.

          Even if it’s impossible to take into account everything, doesn’t mean one shouldn’t discuss or study the matter in a simplified way/ model, or discuss a specific part of the matter.

          One can’t understand or have a common starting-point to discuss these topics before having thought of them/ stumbled upon someone else that has thought of them.

          And it’s interesting to think about and discuss anyway, even if just for the theoretical understanding.