/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9301346]

Smart people are more likely to have mental problems. Here's why:

Evolution favored height in male humans; height was an attractive trait. Hence, males evolved to be taller. This process continued until it hit a biological wall. You can't select for a particular trait without inducing negative biological consequences: tall people don't live as long as short people. So, an equilibrium emerges where some people are nice and tall (but too unhealthy to reproduce), some people are nice and healthy (but too short to find a mate and reproduce), and some people are the right mix: Not too short, not too unhealthy, and so, able to reproduce.

Now, in the previous paragraph, replace the word "tall" with "intelligent" and "unhealthy" with "mentally unhealthy". Hence, we'd expect smart people to have more mental health problems.

That's the argument, what are your thoughts.

[Anonymous No.9301375]

Wrong premise. Human height is controlled by sexual dimorphism, that is, due to sexes having the same DNA sexual features must be shoehorned in. Height will increase as long the selection is stronger in the male direction. Males, however, don't care for height in females. In fact, shorter females will do better since start reproducing faster. Short females lead to short sons. And so the cycle goes on.

[Anonymous No.9301384]

>>9301375
>due to sexes having the same DNA sexual features must be shoehorned in.

What? Who told you this what does this even mean? Sexual dimorphism is just selection of different traits between the sexes, but it's not something that ((must)) happen.

[Anonymous No.9301407]

>>9301375
I'm comparing the male homosapien height growth phenomenon with the general human cranium size growth phenomenon. Sexual dimorphism has nothing to with the original argument. You are confused.

[Anonymous No.9301474]

>>9301346
You're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.9301546]

>>9301346
Op again

Can anyone say what's wrong with my idea? The reason I posted this here is because I made the same argument to some friends, and none could come up with any interesting counter-arguments.

Obviously /sci/ is capable of this.

[Anonymous No.9301554]

I'm not sure if i'm retarded or you are.
You're saying that smart people have more mental health problems. Literally nothing else you said even attempts to explain why, you just talk about the effects of it.

[Anonymous No.9301559]

Perhaps, but when it comes to reproduction, 'smart' people, from what I've seen, choose not to, especially at an early age. It would most certainly be a hassle for them, especislpy if the OP hyppthesis about mental health is correct.

There can be evidence gathered about scientists and famous people who were 'smart' and how they were related to some of these mental issues, but that would take a bit as I'm quite sure no one has gathered the data in such a pile so that you see at a glance who had what disease.

However, when it comes to spatial reasoning, thinking and visualization, I think there is at least some mild connection with schizophrenia and people who posses incredible abilities to visualize many and numerous concepts, ideas, and such in their head when it comes to natural sciences and thinking overall.

Thinking of it, bipolar comes to mind and how come it could be slightly related to historical characters who were polymaths. Behavior, mood and personality change would probably imply a change in one's interests, but then again, it could also mean people with such defects might not be viable for long term projects and research as the mood and personality change will strike again at some point.

But then again, you'd have to back this up with research, or at least indirect data which proves it, but that would take a bit to gather, like I said.

Much speculation can be done, and a lot of it can seem very reasonable and logical, but with such questions, you really need data to back it up 100%.

[Anonymous No.9301560]

>>9301346
However, yes, logic wpuld most certainly imply that if one were to posses remarkable human intellect, or better phrased, higher intelligence, there would need to be some state of equilibrium and that would be achieved by neglecting something else, whether that would be a physical defect, a mental one, death at young age, etc.

[Anonymous No.9301587]

>>9301346
Abductive logic: Keeping her locked up until she falls in love.

[Anonymous No.9301601]

Oh you manlets and your mental gymnastics

[Anonymous No.9301604]

>>9301346
1) Height =/= Intelligence
2) Physically healthy =/= mentally healthy
3) We didn't hit a biological wall.

I think you might be retarded OP.

[Anonymous No.9302180]

Has anyone here read a single book about evolutionary biology?

[Anonymous No.9302245]

>>9301346
Where's the argument?

[Anonymous No.9302252]

>>9302180
There's only 1 book you ever need

[Anonymous No.9302292]

>>9301346

Smart people can sometimes be mentally unhealthy because 1) men and women who can't compete sexually tend to flock to academia to find another purpose 2) thinking is a stressful activity, and stress causes inflammation, which causes depression 3) having an active mind allows you to obsess over things to an unhealthy degree

Actually there is a trade-off between attractiveness and IQ. High IQ = large forehead, which makes a man's jaw look smaller. Estrogen makes you more emotional, i.e. less analytical, and hence smart women tend to have low estrogen i.e. look more masculine. Cortisol and histamine both increase your alertness and cognitive performance, but cause your face to look puffy and bags under your eyes. Cortisol also decreases testosterone, thus making your face less masculine over time. Testosterone weakens the frontal cortex in favour of the amygdala and striatum, thus making you more impulsive and hedonistic. Hence high testosterone men (considered more attractive) are less analytically inclined. Neoteny is associated with intelligence (probably due to slower development = higher IQ, and childlike brain = more cognitive flexibility), and neoteny is not attractive in men. I've also noticed that smart men tend to have projecting faces, especially the nose. When this is pronounced it can look quite unattractive.

[Anonymous No.9302296]

>>9301604
>1) Height =/= Intelligence
sure, but they are correlated - tall people have higher IQs on average
>2) Physically healthy =/= mentally healthy
sure but they are correlated, someone who is physically healthy is less likely to be mentally unhealthy
>3) We didn't hit a biological wall.
maybe, maybe not, but the height increase in humans is mostly due to lifestyle changes, medicine and food abundance

[Anonymous No.9302301]

>>9302292
>High IQ = large forehead
almost fell for it

[Anonymous No.9302319]

>>9302301

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4927579/

" The most prominent neurological change along the human lineage is, of course, the tripling of brain size and associated changes in brain organization and functions, and our concomitant tremendous increase in intelligence compared to other great apes (Roth and Dicke, 2005). A notable set of “brain size genes” has been demonstrated to have been subject to natural selection in humans and other mammals (Montgomery and Mundy, 2014)"

"Within humans (e.g., Ivanovic et al., 2004; Witelson et al., 2006; Menary et al., 2013), and among non-human primates (Deaner et al., 2007) species, brain size (and cortical thickness, for humans) are also positively correlated with measures of intelligence, an effect that appears to be mediated predominantly by numbers of neurons (Roth and Dicke, 2005; Dicke and Roth, 2016)."

[Anonymous No.9302328]

>>9301346
>You can't select for a particular trait without inducing negative biological consequences
For your argument to work you have to provide evidence that being past a certain level of intelligence leads to mental health problems. You are arguing backwards, drawing a parallel between height and intelligence for which there is no proof whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.9302342]

>>9302296
>but they are correlated - tall people have higher IQs on average
Completely wrong and you're getting a wrong assumption. Females have higher IQ on average but does that matter in reality, they are just average and most female are not intelligent at all and we know very well that it is laughable to even compare the achievements and the potential. The same is with tall people, they may have averagely "better" IQ but that's what they are at the end of the day, average.

>>9302319
Pretty much all ufc fighters have enormous skulls and foreheads and they can barely sustain their existence and no it is not because of the punches even from younger age they were the same retards. Another example albanians and somalians have big bulb like heads with HUGE foreheads and they are complete animals.

[Anonymous No.9302354]

>>9302342

You can have the appearance of a large forehead due to shaving your head, a receding hairline from steroids, a weak jaw, etc. Also you can have a large brain and not be very academically inclined due to hormonal or other factors. Also steroids and HGH thicken your skull, which can give the illusion that your cranium is larger than what it is.

[Anonymous No.9302428]

>>9302342
Please link me to the verified data comprising skull measurements and anatomy of every ufc fighter. Oh it doesnt exist? I guess you are just a retard then.

[Anonymous No.9302436]

>>9301346
No the more complicated the design of a device, the higher the chance of it fucking it its that simple, its why dumbasses like blacks rarely have any mental illnesses due to how simple their brain structure is compared to us.

[Anonymous No.9302445]

>>9301346
Maybe the world is just a terrible place and the more you understand it, the worse it seems.

[Anonymous No.9302479]

>>9302436
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/36/4/751/665657
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1199525/
Oops. Better start working on a new explanation to fit your narrative :^)

[Anonymous No.9302521]

>>9301546
The main problem with your idea; I say the main, because your argument is not very good; is that you'd have to show that intelligence is a compromise, which isn't clear and arguably not the case within homo sapiens or any species for that matter. Species compromise on intelligence. Individuals just turn out better or worse. There is generally a negative correlation between mental health problems and intelligence.

[Anonymous No.9302538]

>>9302342
You just need the P H E N O T Y P E.

[Anonymous No.9302544]

>>9302252
/thread

[Anonymous No.9302564]

>>9302319
holy shit you're actually retarded
so where does it say large forehead correlates with high IQ in humans? the word 'forehead' isn't even used once in this study
kys you retard
>>9302342
>Females have higher IQ on average
xD

[Anonymous No.9302577]

>>9301346
if smart people are so smart, why are they wasting their time fighting their own brain? doesn‘t seem very smart to me

[Anonymous No.9302660]

>>9302521

>you'd have to show that intelligence is a compromise

To repeat myself: you cannot select intensely for a single trait indefinitely without eventually running into negative consequences. Look at chihuahuas, bulldogs or wiener dogs. They were all selectively bred for an intense, extreme trait, and they all have related health problems.

As someone mentioned earlier in this thread:

"The most prominent neurological change along the human lineage is, of course, the tripling of brain size and associated changes in brain organization and functions, and our concomitant tremendous increase in intelligence compared to other great apes (Roth and Dicke, 2005)."

I'm going to add that it's also the most prominent change, period. The result of a runaway competitive process, similar to the peacock's tail, or any of the birds of paradise.

I shouldn't have to post an example, but I'll will:

[Anonymous No.9302663]

>>9302660
The example:

"Doctors have long noted that Ashkenazi Jews are uniquely susceptible to various genetic diseases. For example, they’re about a hundred times more likely to have Gaucher’s Disease, a hundred times more likely to get Tay-Sachs Disease, ten times more likely to have torsion dystonia, et cetera. Genetic diseases are so common in this population that the are official recommendation is that all Ashkenazi Jewish couples get screened for genetic disease before marriage. I’m Ashkenazi Jewish, I got screened, and I turn out to be a carrier for Riley-Day syndrome – three hundred times as common in Ashkenazi Jews as in anyone else.

Evolution usually gets rid of genetic diseases pretty quickly. If they stick around, it’s because they’re doing something to earn their keep. One common pattern is “heterozygote advantage” – two copies of the gene cause a disease, but one copy does something good. For example, people with two copies of the sickle cell gene get sickle cell anaemia, but people with one copy get some protection against malaria. In Africa, where malaria is relatively common, the tradeoff is worth it – so people of African descent have high rates of the sickle cell gene and correspondingly high rates of sickle cell anaemia. In other places, where malaria is relatively uncommon, the tradeoff isn’t worth it and evolution eliminates the sickle cell gene. That’s why sickle cell is about a hundred times more common in US blacks than US whites.

The moral of the story is: populations can have genetic diseases if they also provide a useful advantage to carriers. And if those genetic diseases are limited to a single group, we expect them to provide a useful advantage for that group, but not others. Might the Jewish genetic diseases provide some advantage? And why would that advantage be limited to Jews?"

This, but applied to all of humanity.

[Anonymous No.9302717]

>>9301346
>You can't select for a particular trait without inducing negative biological consequences:
I call bullshit?

[Anonymous No.9302826]

>>9301546
I'm not a biologist, but I can see two flaws in your reasoning.

a) you assume that higher intelligence is an evolutionary advantage. This would have to be proven, and given as most species are not sentient it does not actually seem to be that much of an advantage. How much intelligence would have been required thousands of years ago in order to survive? Probably not that much

b) you assume that a factor like height is just limited by biological factors concerning health, or at least that this is always a factor. However there are also other things which can play into this, like the ability of a human to move quickly, the amount of food needed to survive, the ratio of volume and surface and it's link to average temperatures in different areas etc. As for intelligence there are similar limitations like limits on maximum cranial size to allow for birth through the female pelvis, which cannot evolve to be much wider without stopping females from being able to run or even walk quickly, limits due to the brain using lots of nutrients etc.

[Anonymous No.9302851]

>>9302826
Isnt your last statement in 1) also an assumption. Thats all ill say. I think yoy cant say blanketly whether intelligence is an advantage or not blankly. It depends on the individual niche of an animal and their own morphology. "Intelligence" wont be more advantageous in a clam without changing the clams morphology. Also cost is a factor. Even if intelligence is advantageous, if its costly to develop it may only develop rarely and if the animal can survive 'good enough' then it may never have the need to develop it. I guess that is intelligence not being advamtageous though.

[Anonymous No.9302873]

>>9302851
Yeah ofc it's also linked to other factors as well, like having fingers, especially or opposable thumbs, or the ability to produce sounds via which animals might communicate that makes intelligence useful in the first place. Even that is an assumption though.

Anyways, my point was just that OP had overly simplified the argument to the point where he was clearly not taking into account factors which in reality probably do matter

[Anonymous No.9302884]

>>9302663
>two copies of the gene cause a disease, but one copy does something good. For example, people with two copies of the sickle cell gene get sickle cell anaemia, but people with one copy get some protection against malaria. In Africa, where malaria is relatively common, the tradeoff is worth it

You'd be left with a population consisting mainly of people with one copy of the sickle cell gene, meaning all of their offspring will die of sickle cell anaemia. Evolution is great.

[Anonymous No.9302892]

>>9302577
I ask myself this every day.

[Anonymous No.9303039]

>>9301546
You are supposedly answering the question: Why are smart people more likely to have mental problems?
However, try to re-read your post and realize that your answer is literally "because they do". Your theory about height and evolution is probably correct, even though it lacks a lot of factors as others have mentioned, but it has nothing to do with the original question. Applying your word swaps, you are basically answering the question: "Why aren't there super smart people around more often that manage to drastically improve humanity's scientific knowledge?". Theoretizing about this is great and all, and you're probably correct, but it means that you're already under the assumption that the smarter you are the higher chance for mental problems, so you're not really arguing with anything.

[Anonymous No.9303118]

>>9302660
You have not made the case that this tradeoff happens on the level of the individual.

I see why you choose ashkenazis as an examplem but that's not even clear evidence on a population basis because there's no obvious association between the higher intelligence and inherited problems. At best you could claim it's like breeding for one characteristic like we do for many domestic animals with associated defects, which is plausible. But again, only on a population basis.

That sort of optimization isn't accessible on the individual level who receives a random mix of genes, and while intelligence is heritable, it is not very plausible (no mechanism) or at all evident that smarter individuals get otherwise shortchanged. It is a popular myth though.