I really love this explanation for some of the symptoms such as neologism.
We propose that schizophrenia is the unattractive extreme of a mental and behavioral ability that evolved as a fitness indicator (or set of indicators) through mutual mate choice in humans. If so, then the processes of neural development that go awry in schizophrenia should show high sensitivity to fitness and condition. In an individual with high genetic fitness (e.g., a low deleterious mutation load) and a favorable prenatal and postnatal environment, these neurodevelopmental processes should result in an adult brain capable of attractive courtship behavior. However, at the opposite extreme, given poor fitness and condition, neurodevelopment should result in an aberrant brain prone to unsuccessful courtship behav-ior that repels potential mates. It is this unattractive extreme which we recognize as schizophrenia (Fig. 1). Schizophrenia itself is not adaptive. Rather, it is the unattractive and dysfunctional (Wakefield, 1999) ex-treme of a highly variable trait that evolved for courtship.
What is the courtship trait? The question is difficult to answer. Biologists usually analyze fitness indicators starting from the attractive extreme, observing that individuals with the highest-quality indicators (e.g. the brightest plumage or loudest call) attract the most mates. In contrast, our theorizing began at the other extreme, with the observation that schizophrenia reduces marriage rates and reproductive output (Nanko and Moridaira, 1993). We speculate that behaviors symptomatic of schizophrenia (such as delusions, disorganized speech, reduced emotional expressiveness, social awkwardness, and poor sense of humor) reduce reproductive success largely through impairing courtship ability. If so, then what is the normal mental adaptation that goes wrong in schizophrenia?
One possibility is that the behavioral symptoms of schizophrenia are maladaptive versions of uniquely human verbal courtship behaviors (e.g., attracting mates by telling funny stories with creativity, social sensitivity, and emotional expressiveness). By āāver-bal courtshipāā we mean more than successful pick-up lines by males to attract females. Instead, we imagine a complex verbal āādanceāā of mutual mate choice and display, a process in which each potential mate attempts to model the otherās mind and use theevolving model to determine the otherās desirability and to improve conversational gambits.
The requisite brain systems are likely exceedingly complex and their development may therefore be vulnerable to mutations at many loci and to a wide range of environmental hazards. For example, sup-pose that successful verbal courtship requires an unconscious capacity to generate many possible con-versational gambits, and then to internally critique, practice, and improve the gambits to produce inter-esting utterances and enjoyable conversation. Disrup-ted development of the required brain systems might produce an abnormally conscious awareness of the internal critique, experienced as the derogatory audi-tory hallucinations typical of schizophrenia. Disrupted development might also impair the effectiveness and accuracy of the internal critique resulting in socially inappropriate utterances that include disorganized speech and delusionsāalso typical of schizophrenia.
Further support for this speculation is that language abnormalities are common in schizophrenia (DeLisi, 2001) and that people with schizophrenia appear to have deficits in verbal humor and the ability to represent the beliefs, thoughts and intentions of other people (Corcoran et al., 1995; Frith, 1996, 1992). To illustrate our hypothesis, we have focused on mate choice as the mechanism of sexual selection that drove the evolution of human language as a fitness indicator. However, some sexually selected fitness indicators may have evolved both as weap-ons, used in contests over mates, and as ornaments, used to attract (or manipulate) the opposite sex (Berglund et al., 1996). For example, among deer, males use antlers in contests over mates and those with the largest antlers have an advantage. In addi-tion, females prefer males with larger antlers (Fiske et al., 1998). Similarly, human language may have evolved for both contests and courtship. Those who could model the minds of sexual rivals and produce more intimidating verbal gambits could have used the same brain systems to model the minds of potential mates and produce more attractive (i.e. either more pleasing or more manipulative) verbal gambits (Miller, 2000b). Disrupted development of brain systems evolved for contests with sexual rivals might lead to inaccurate detection of rivalsā expressed as persecutory delusions and derogatory hallucinationsāand poor attempts at intimidationā expressed as grandiose delusions
Yeah I agree itās dysfunctional to the extreme but that adaptive mating thing is something I donāt think matters. Plenty of sz people find a mate. Itās a problem for most but itās not an indicator of the disorder itself.
As to the rest of it it only addressā males courtship behavior which is rubbish. Females get sz too so if your loading this up then itās total bunk. Yes. Itās hard for males to find mates but itās not just sz itās societal norms for the west. You donāt just have to have a mental illness to have problems finding a mate.
I think there are two aspects to it. Maybe Iām projecting. But I think sz and other mental illnesses often have to do with extreme sensitivity to the environment. In several ways, e.g. sensory, physical, emotional, spiritual, creativity. I think this has two evolutionary benefits.
One: on a societal and family level. My theory: I always tell people Iām the canary in the coalmine. If there was carbon monoxide or another toxic gasā¦the canary was more sensitive to it than the menā¦so the canary would drop dead, before the miners did. Which gave them an opportunity to get out. And save themselves. I think sz may have this function. Our food being unhealthy and a chemical mess? Others may slowly and invisible develop more and more issuesā¦Iām fcked. I respond with very obvious and visible reactions. My family being emotionally unhealthy? Or societies emotional well-being too? Others silently suffer a bit, more and more each generation. Iām fcked. Iām running around crazy through the streets. Hormonal medicines disturbing things in our bodies? Others gently notice. Iām visibly f*ucked. Right away. Ideally, this gives a family and society the chance to change. It is a feedback loop.
Our society is so unhealthy, that we pretend sz is a random genetic brain disease. That doesnāt have to do with the familial and societal environment. So we killed the feedback loop. Which is bad for our whole society.
And a bit sad for us. Not sure if Iām correct. But this is how it feels.
The other part is individual. I think you are right about that. But I have to go out now.
Having a significant other puts you at lower risk of developing scz. It is a known risk factor.
What about the part where female preferences antlers. Antlers and peacock tails wouldnāt exist.
āThe incidence of schizophrenia is higher among men than women, with a ratio of nearly 1.4:1ā Indicating that males are more susceptible and they also have worse prognosis. It is possible females are selecting males with schizotipy, fast life strategy traits. The dynamics of online dating mean that men not at the top percentage of perceived attractiveness lose out. This is relationship is an extreme example of what would already happen otherwise. Men with mental health issues are the least desirable of all. Since women preference higher quality mates because of the length of the gestational period they have a slower mating strategy then men. As men can more easily pass on their genetics they have a faster mating strategy and therefore are less preferential in their mate selection. Resultant being that women with scz would be preferenced strongly of over men with scz in like for like number of sexual encounters.
Admittedly all these theories have flaws and itās also a natural reaction to have a moral objection to this kind of analysis. The issues raised by evolutionary theory are uncomfortable without proper navigation of the conversation with tact.
A lot of these ideas and evidence are used as weaponry by the manosphere internet community which is unfortunate because they are still of value. Obviously the whole thing being male centric it is easier to connect with ideas that serve you a purpose and discard those that do not. That does not make them more or less true. Scientific research and institutionalisation is mainly male dominated and so these kind of theories might be skew male-centric in the literature and then development of the thought space. With more women coming through university education the men, you will likely see a change in the evidence space. It will move away from stuff like trails based upon an all white male research population. You will see more female contribution and hence more fleshing out and understanding of these ideals under that context.
Dispite the raction of objection raised by positional beliefs of this paper and above statements undoubtedly not unique to yourself. It is right to believe we are all still a kind of animal, to think otherwise is to ignore the truth. Women policing women has an evolutionary basis. Evolutionary game theory and hedgehogās dilemma exists definitively exists between the sexes. Not everything has to be politically correct nor should it have to be defended.
ā
@anon21280033
Accordingly it would seem that what in a disadvantageous environment that what is otherwise adaptive can become maladaptive. This is a susceptibility to the environment not necessarily a sensitivity. When you pushing a particular evolutionary vector at the expense of others then the system has weaknesses which is another evolutionary theory of scz. These traits might have been rapidly selected for confering susceptibility to malfunction. I think youāre right though anexity seems like a sensitivity to fight, flight, freeze response. Depression a sensitivity to social environment and support. Schizophrenia a sensitivity to internal information processing or something of the sort.
You should look up the power threat meaning framework. I really like that interpretation of social causitive factors.
Why would it be mates specifically and not socializing in general? There are more things than not finding a mate that are maladaptive evolutionarily. All that has to happen is stuff kills you before you reproduce as much as everyone else. Boiling down to that one trait seems very reductive and also they are making a lot of assumptions about how courtship has worked for all of human history in all cultures.
I am not sure why it has to be focused on as maladaptive either as this would imply it gets mostly weeded out and will continue to be, which it clearly isnāt.
A lot of humam behaviors considered normal are also fairly psychotic when you think about them, such as many religous and artistic ones. Whether it is considered an illness seems to depend on context. What sz effects seems to run deeper than sociality as well into bare pattern recognition, though you could say our thinking became more complicated and symbolic in order to accomodate living in complex groups. I am thinking it has got to be way more complicated and way more culturally and contextually generated than this though. Just because we are animals does not mean we must relegate all explanations to genetics, especially since the vast majority of our behaviors and thinking are enculturated.
You may already know about this but one thing you may find interesting is that in other more collectivist cultureās psychologies there are models of explaining mental illness that do not talk about it as an isolated brain disease and genetics but center the discussion in sociality between people and structures in society. There is a paper I read about this with sz in particular.
This is not to say they ignore genetics just that the way they theorize about our minds is more contextual and relationship oriented.
It sounds like this study is basically saying that all schizophrenics are unfuuckable.
Maladaptive trait or not, I also believe there are societal pressures placed upon people that in turn affect the outcome of a person with schizophrenia landing a mate.
In this case, should we blame thousands of years of human trajectory or a component of modern-day society that has been created to further along the transmission of āvaluableā genetic traits?
Personally, it seems like society today is doing most of the āweeding out,ā and not so much humanityās need to reproduce and produce viable offspring.
Will respond later. Busy day. Not native speaker, but susceptibility may be what I meant to say.
I read that healthy children of sz mumās, often turn out scoring better in some ways than average children. Smarter, physically healthier, more creative, more socially sensitive. I see this in my family. And exās familiy. There is talent coupled with vulnerabiity.
Ex was mathematically brilliant (literally). Peacock feathers. Made him attractive to me as a mate. Also. He was delusional and impossible to live with. Made him less attractive as a mate.
Thereās the simple dandelion children (robust) versus orchid children (flourish in good environment, utterly destroyed in bad) theory.
I think these are two evolutionary strategies with benefits and disadvantages. You have four children, all of whom are average. You have four children, two are very talented and have very talented mates. Two are ill, because they couldnt cope. The orchid families often match up. Which may lead to the susceptibility getting so highā¦that it no longer is functional.
I think there is individual evolutionary benefit to being an orchid. If you are in a good environment, that is. I think there is also the societal benefitā¦if the orchids start to collapseā¦thereās often a milder problem to the dandelions too.
Maybe Iām talking nonsense. Will read the articles too. And read your texts better. Now need to go out again.
If something is culturally or social disadvantagous but still has a mating selection advantage then it will continue to be passed on even if there is social maladaption. I.e. in Evolutionary theory something like an antisocial fast life history mating strategy might be a viable way for passing down genes even if it is frowned upon by society it can still be a viable strategy in Evolutionary game theory as long as the genes continue to get passed down. Evolutionary theory focuses specifically on mating since that is how the gentics get passes down to the next generation and thus persist.
More generally though in the real world anything which confers a social advantage is like also going to confer a mating advantage also.
This is explained by inclusive fitness and kin selection, you can read about it on Wikipedia and many other sources.
From what I read Iām not sure the authors argue against this case just that they are just using language changes and linguistics as the mode of selection. What the theory entails more broadly is creativity which is not exclusively linguistic.
The point isnāt to take this as the all defining theory of the evolutionary persistent for schizophrenia.
Creativity is linked with flexibility in linguistic ability and that flexibility in linguistic ability is prone to malfunctioning in schizophrenia. The creativity seen in schizophrenia is then a way also linked to the malfunctioning language, the take away isnāt more complicated or higher order then that. You don need evolutionary theory to prove that even though that is the mechanism of this paper and I personally think it is a neat if not convenient explantion.
@Schztuna
Everyone takes away something different but I think the marage statistics and the reproduction rate are diminished it is probably fair to use those as proxies for actual sex. If anything it also says that those with sub-threshold diagnosis symptoms are highly ā ā ā ā ā ā ā ā and that probably includes everyones siblings who didnāt develop mental health issues.
@anon21280033
Orchid vs dandelion is a good reflexive example.
Itās a bit chicken or the egg. Honestly sz gives you so many hurdles to finding a partner rather than the other way around. Itās the internet and a lot of those sites arenāt necessarily peer reviewed or they are just theories and not part of the meta. To me it sounds like matching the criteria to fit a theory of someone who really has issues.
I think you misunderstand only in the case of inclusive fitness it can potentially confer a advantage to kin or otherwise those who donāt actually develop the disorder.
If you look at the journal ranking by impact factor, the journal itās published in schizophrenia research this is the main journal specific to our disorder. Obviously the publishers thought it was interesting.
Further just because something isnāt part of the meta doesnāt mean that it isnāt scientific mainly just that it has limited practical application.
Itās really basing it upon marriage and reproduction statics.
There are flaw to evolutionary arguments they are just models for understanding. The dopamine hypothesis might have a slew of evidence but it also just a theory. The idea is a novel one and if you get into the semantics of this or that they I think you fail to see the broader picture in how creative could also link to language deficits