In honor of Darwin's 2003rd birthday, from mcmanweb ...
Here's an interesting fact: Peacock tails drove Darwin crazy. The sight of one "makes me sick," he wrote. These feathered accessories played havoc with his work-in-progress theory of natural selection. Surely, any bird stupid enough to flaunt their colors in the wild wouldn't live long enough to mate.
Darwin's solution seems obvious enough today, but back in the nineteenth century it was a scientific breakthrough, a work of genius. The showy tails, he figured out, were chick magnets. The flashier, the better. The well-endowed cock, so to speak, won the right to make a deposit. The bird's genes would live on, even if its owners' days were numbered.
Evolutionary biologists refer to this as a trade-off. A high fever, for instance, may aid in the destruction of deadly pathogens, and without the inconvenience of coughing we would all likely die from pneumonia. Take away our ability to experience pain and we would never know our appendix has burst. The sickle cell gene, in turn, is protection against malaria.
A Darwinian Explanation for Mental Illness
Fine. But how does Darwin apply to mental illness? According to evolutionary biologist Randolph Nesse MD of the University of Michigan:
Psychiatrists still act as if all anxiety, sadness, and jealousy is abnormal and they don't yet look for the selective advantages of genes that predispose to schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
I heard Dr Nesse at the 2005 American Psychiatric Association annual meeting talk about the selective advantage in anxiety. Obviously, sufficiently anxious cave men and women were able to steer clear of saber toothed tigers long enough to find an opportunity to pass on their genes to the next generation.
Dr Nesse asks us to imagine a distant ancestor of ours at an ancient watering hole. The poor guy hears a sound behind him. A lion? A monkey? Even if it’s just a mouse, panicking first and thinking later is not such a half-bad idea.
Anxiety traits are no mere artifacts of an earlier age. Anxiety is crucial to marshaling our wits. We could never survive one day in traffic without it, let alone the full range of personal interactions.
Dr Nesse compared the brain's limbic system to a smoke detector that is programmed to deliver 1000 false alarms for every genuine alert. The false alarms are the price of survival. Better to be too anxious.
Now imagine modern man in the supermarket having a panic attack while reaching for a bottle of water. The seriously anxious, it turns out, have hyper-sensitive smoke detectors. The false alarms and the hyper-sensitive in our midst tend to blind us to the fact that a certain degree of anxiety is good, that we would fail to exist as a species without it.
An application of evolutionary biology is Darwinian medicine. For instance, a medical doctor might want to think twice before prescribing something to lower a patient’s temperature. In patients with panic attacks, Dr Nesse has had success once he helps them realize that their response is not necessarily abnormal. Once that happens, often the power of the panic attack dissipates.
The Darwinian Bipolar Advantage
Our behaviors and emotions, according to evolutionary psychiatry, are adaptations the mind has made to recurring situations. In making a Darwinian case for bipolar, it’s easy to imagine highly energetic and productive and creative types having a selective advantage over their more mundane kinfolk. Think of mania lite. Passing on the risk of more serious manifestations was an acceptable trade-off.
I like to contend that it took a crazy person to run into a burning forest and enthusiastically bring a flaming souvenir back to the cave, raving on about the glories of barbeque. I’m sure this individual's reward was summary eviction by an enraged spouse. Ah, the price we have to pay. It’s never been easy being bipolar.
In my version of the story, the two made up and lived long enough to pass on their traits to the next generation, but only after one of them arrived at the concept of putting the meat on a spit rather than holding it bare-handed over the open flame.
Or bipolar could be a lot more elemental. The illness could be an adaptation to changes in the seasons. Think seasonal affective disorder. Think of a very long cycle. (Goodwin and Jamison refer to this in the second edition to “Manic-Depressive Illness.”)
The Darwinian Depression Advantage
But what about depression? Surely, there can be no selective advantage here. Think again. For one, depression may amount to a failure of denial. Depression is when the rose-colored glasses come off, when reality sets in. It opens the way to acceptance, to setting new goals and moving on with our lives.
Also, sometimes it’s helpful to be too depressed to press our luck. If mania is all about daring, depression is about caution. The daring have an advantage in life's ultimate prize, the opportunity to mate. So do the cautious.
Depression also provides an opportunity for regrouping and recouping, not to mention a time of introspection and reflection. Think of depression as an enforced time-out. In its own perverse way, depression may set the stage for needed psychic healing.
As with anxiety and mania, we are talking more benign manifestations. The more virulent versions of depression, it seems, are part of the price we have to pay.
Schizophrenia?
Schizophrenia is far too horrific an illness to see any obvious selective advantage. Yet, the culprit genes have been transmitted from generation to generation, even in Einstein's family. What gives?
First, it is not helpful to look upon schizophrenia as a simple disease. About a hundred suspect genes have been fingered. One of these genes - COMT - has a variation that enhances thought processing in one context but disrupts it in another. Another gene - DISC 1 - helps integrate neurons into the mature brain.
In this context, schizophrenia can be seen as the breakdown in the processes responsible for building and maintaining a complex brain.
Schizophrenia may also be seen as part of a spectrum. At the schizophrenia extreme, the brain is far too active for its own good, characterized by runway thoughts such as psychotic delusions. A lighter version may well be schizotypal personality disorder, characterized by various oddball behaviors and "magical thinking." Tone this down a bit more and we may be talking about eccentrics who think outside the box.
Nancy Andreasen MD, PhD of the University of Iowa describes Einstein as having having schizotypal traits, as well as a son with schizophrenia. Her original enquiry into creativity involved looking for a schizophrenia connection (also citing Newton and James Watson) but very quickly changed to bipolar.
There may be another aspect to "schizophrenia lite." The book, "A Beautiful Mind," chronicles the life of Nobel Laureate John Nash. His breakthrough accomplishments occurred as a young adult, before his outbreak of schizophrenia. But as the book makes clear, there is no way we can describe an apparently healthy John Nash as "normal." Even in a profession notorious for its eccentrics, Nash was very much an outsider.
We tend to think of mental illness as a complete break with reality or rationality, but these breaks don't just happen overnight. Subtle symptoms may manifest many years earlier, what the experts describe as "prodromal" states. Could Nash's "beautiful mind" be attributed to such a state? Who knows?
Working With What We're Stuck With
"Human biology," says Dr Nesse, "is designed for stone age conditions." Or, as Leda Cosmides and John Tooby of the University of California at Santa Barbara put it, "our modern skulls house a stone age mind."
In other words, we are the beneficiaries of a group of genes that did not anticipate the demands of modern living. Were we mere machines with replaceable parts, we could simply send our brains back to the manufacturer for a retooling. Instead, we are forced to work with what we're stuck with.
Dr Nesse cites the example of the eye. Those who champion intelligent design point to the wonders of the eye in support of their theory that creation is way too complicated to be left for chance.
But look closely at the eye, Dr Nesse advises. We have wires running between the lens and where the image is processed. No camera manufacturer would be dumb enough to do that. Plus the eye has a blind spot where the retina meets the optic nerve.
The eye of the octopus, Dr Nesse points out, has a far better "design." Through pure chance, he says, we and practically all the rest of the animal kingdom got stuck with the inferior version.
Scientists are in virtual unanimous agreement on evolution's main points, but evolutionary psychiatry is a speculative enterprise, not capable of definitive proofs. Indeed, a legitimate argument can be made that we are retrofitting psychiatry to conform to evolutionary precepts.
Then again, a much stronger case can be made that our behavior makes no sense without taking evolution into account. Instead of viewing all mental illness as solely destructive, we are forced to consider its advantages. And in looking at the advantages, we find potential in our own worth.
Call it the twenty-first century Darwinian challenge. Our ability to feel on levels deeper and higher than the rest of the population, crippling as it may be, has also given wings to our thoughts, ones that motivated our distant ancestors to climb out of their cozy rock condos in the first place and now seem destined to have us reach for the stars.
Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Rerun: My Visit to the Local Creationist Museum (Seriously, I'm Not Making This Up)
In honor of Charles Darwin's birthday tomorrow, this piece from Dec 2010 ...
Believe it or not, this museum is only 10 or 12 miles from my home, outside San Diego.
This journey through time will be a very short one, as the entire universe, earth included, according to creationist belief, is only 6,000 years old.
This works way better than carbon-14 dating.
I missed whether it was a standard day or a metric day.
In support of a worldwide catastrophe, creationism cites the same geological evidence as science, though with some rather significant differences in interpretation.
Noah's sons went their separate ways, assisted by land bridges spanning the oceans, thanks to a Flood-induced ice age. The animals from the Ark dispersed along these same land bridges, perhaps not whales and other sea creatures.
And I thought Neanderthals survived in the form of Tea Party followers.
I wish I had our high school class valedictorian, Karl Van Bibber, to explain this to me.
If I can follow the logic, mutations (which are all bad) get filtered out of the gene pool, keeping creation constant. There is, however, the mother-in-law exception.
That's right, evolution is just a religion, which makes creationism the true science. Why aren't our kids being taught this in school?
The "bad fruits" of evolution. No good can come from allowing people to think for themselves. That's why we need knowledgeable people in authority to do our thinking for us.
Evolution apparently played a part in the Final Solution. Actually, murderous bigots were killing Jews en masse long before Darwin. The Catholic Church even made saints out of some of these medieval pre-Hitlers. (Sorry, I was trying really hard to keep this objective.)
A browse through the museum's book store. No, I didn't Photoshop the book title.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Rerun: A Darwin Appreciation
In light of last week's photo essay on my surreal visit to the Creation Museum just outside San Diego and my follow-up post, I thought it was appropriate to rerun another photo essay from last year, also based on museum visits. Sanity rules ...
On two recent separate visits, I stopped in at two museums in San Diego's magnificent museum-botanical complex at Balboa Park. The permanent displays in both the Museum of Man and the Natural History Museum attest to the genius of Darwin and his theory of evolution, which is the only credible explanation to connect all the apparently random cool stuff in both buildings - from dinosaur skeletons to mysterious fossils to evidence of lost civilizations.
In celebration of the bicentenary of his birth (the same day as Lincoln) and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his seminal "On the Origin of the Species," the Natural History Museum is featuring a special Darwin exhibit.
This photo essay - taken on my iPhone - is drawn from my museum trips.
These guys ruled. You are looking at the fossils of ammonites, which superficially resembled the nautilus but were closer in relation to the octopus and squid. They survived two major earth-shaking catastrophes eons apart only to succumb to apparently the same disaster that did in the dinosaurs.
Speaking of dinosaurs, smile for the camera, and thanks for the memories.
For many thousands of years, mastodons thrived in Southern CA. Then global warming happened. Sayonara, big fellow.
Speaking of disappearances, these reproductions of stellae stand as silent testimony to the lost civilization of the Maya. Their descendants live on, but their society went the way of the mastodon, perhaps for similar climactic reasons, such as drought.
Do you perceive a certain common theme, such as adaptive failure? Sometimes, the slightest genetic tweak can spell the difference between life and death, species-wise.
This is me on a bad hair day. Unfortunately this prototype of modern man failed to make the final cut.
Here's a reproduction of a fossil skull, zinjanthropus, dating back 1.75 million years, found in Tanzania's Olduvai gorge by Mary Leakey. Sadly, when it came to natural selection, the little guy lacked the right stuff.
Out of Africa. Zinjanthropus was not our distant ancestor, but this unmistakable DNA trail shows that everyone of us on the planet is linked to a common male and female ancestor from 60,000 years ago.
Get over it. We're all related.
The letter that started it all: An invitation from JS Henslow to Charles Darwin to serve as naturalist on the HMS Beagle.
Further reading from Knowledge is Necessity: Darwin and the Psychiatric Advantage
Labels:
darwin,
evolution,
John McManamy,
natural selection
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Creationism vs Evolution: The War Against Reason and Why It's Ruining My Life
A little background to my photo-essay from yesterday: What prompted Tuesday’s visit to the Creation and Earth History Museum just down the road from where I live in San Diego’s East County was Robert Whitaker’s 2002 “Mad in America,” which I have inexcusably only just gotten around to reading. Part Two, “The Darkest Era,” includes a chapter, “Unfit to Breed.” Many others have related this shameful and outrageous story, but Whitaker pulls it together with the eloquence and authority of a Biblical prophet.
The early part of the nineteenth century ushered in the asylum movement, based on enlightened principles of “moral treatment,” namely if you regard those with mental illness as fellow human beings they tend to respond in kind. It’s amazing the outcomes you can produce when you don’t chain them to walls in freezing dungeons on starvation diets.
Fiscal constraints and other pressures squelched that one brief shining moment. The circulation of Darwin’s theory on evolution in the late nineteenth century only made matters worse. A whole new generation of “social Darwinists” came on the scene, eager to latch onto any excuse to justify their positions of power and privilege. Instead of “all men are created equal,” we were now hearing that “some men are created more equal than others.”
This gave rise to all manner of abuses across all of society. One outcome was the rise of the quack science of eugenics that encouraged weeding out from the gene pool those of degenerate stock. You guessed it, those with mental illness were at the top of the list. In the US, in the first decades of the twentieth century, some 30,000 individuals with mental illness were sterilized.
Hitler took eugenics to its tragically unforeseen but totally logical conclusion. The mentally ill were sterilized, then became the first population singled out for the gas chambers. We know the rest of the story all too well. In the aftermath, eugenics disappeared as a science, but Darwin was tainted forever. Those espousing creationism shamefully link Darwin to the Holocaust. I witnessed it yesterday in my museum visit.
Karen Armstrong in “The Case for God” notes that initially Darwin did not meet much resistance from organized religion. Yes, Darwin challenged Genesis, but hardly anyone at the time interpreted Genesis literally. Christianity, which grew up without printed Bibles in circulation, was constantly - excuse the term - evolving its teachings. Religion, she says, has never been about pat answers.
Throughout the ages, science and religion were more or less in accord. The Galileo controversy, Armstrong points out, is overstated and Galileo himself was largely to blame. Newton’s theories were seen as validating a creator God (without having to get into ridiculous arguments about whether it took God six days or six billion years to fashion the universe).
Literal interpretation of the Bible is a fairly new phenomenon, beginning with the Millennialist movement in the middle of the nineteenth century. This movement may have remained on the fringe had not other Christian groups felt threatened by the scientific revolution around them. This gave rise to fundamentalism, until recently on the outside of the mainstream.
Karen Armstrong makes the very strong point that what we think of Christianity today is not the Christianity our Founding Fathers practiced. Theirs was an Enlightenment-based belief, which (naively) assumed that the mysteries of God would be solved by rigorously applied science and reason. Thus my surprise when on my museum visit I came upon an exhibit asserting that not only the Founding Fathers, but the scientists and philosophers of the Renaissance and Enlightenment, all had creationist beliefs.
No, they didn’t. They simply had no reason to quibble with the Genesis story, that’s all. Jefferson rather than accepting the Bible word-for-word, actually decided to improve upon it (see image above).
Armstrong notes that social change triggers extreme reactions. She got that part right. In her book, she is equally critical of atheists (including proponents of evolution such as Richard Dawkins) as she is of religious fundamentalists. In Armstrong’s view, atheists are as stupid to God as fundamentalists are to science. Both sides are shouting way too loud, leaving no room for reasoned discourse.
And now we are suffering through another extreme reaction in the form of a certain movement with a beverage in the title, again co-opting our Founding Fathers (who have every reason to be spinning in their graves). According to a 2005 Pew Research Center Poll cited in Scientific American, 60 percent of Republicans are creationists and only 11 percent accept evolution. (Forty percent of Democrats accept evolution, which is not good either.)
Obviously, the creationists and their fellow travelers are very successful in getting their word out. Scary, isn’t it?
The early part of the nineteenth century ushered in the asylum movement, based on enlightened principles of “moral treatment,” namely if you regard those with mental illness as fellow human beings they tend to respond in kind. It’s amazing the outcomes you can produce when you don’t chain them to walls in freezing dungeons on starvation diets.
Fiscal constraints and other pressures squelched that one brief shining moment. The circulation of Darwin’s theory on evolution in the late nineteenth century only made matters worse. A whole new generation of “social Darwinists” came on the scene, eager to latch onto any excuse to justify their positions of power and privilege. Instead of “all men are created equal,” we were now hearing that “some men are created more equal than others.”
This gave rise to all manner of abuses across all of society. One outcome was the rise of the quack science of eugenics that encouraged weeding out from the gene pool those of degenerate stock. You guessed it, those with mental illness were at the top of the list. In the US, in the first decades of the twentieth century, some 30,000 individuals with mental illness were sterilized.
Hitler took eugenics to its tragically unforeseen but totally logical conclusion. The mentally ill were sterilized, then became the first population singled out for the gas chambers. We know the rest of the story all too well. In the aftermath, eugenics disappeared as a science, but Darwin was tainted forever. Those espousing creationism shamefully link Darwin to the Holocaust. I witnessed it yesterday in my museum visit.
Karen Armstrong in “The Case for God” notes that initially Darwin did not meet much resistance from organized religion. Yes, Darwin challenged Genesis, but hardly anyone at the time interpreted Genesis literally. Christianity, which grew up without printed Bibles in circulation, was constantly - excuse the term - evolving its teachings. Religion, she says, has never been about pat answers.
Throughout the ages, science and religion were more or less in accord. The Galileo controversy, Armstrong points out, is overstated and Galileo himself was largely to blame. Newton’s theories were seen as validating a creator God (without having to get into ridiculous arguments about whether it took God six days or six billion years to fashion the universe).
Literal interpretation of the Bible is a fairly new phenomenon, beginning with the Millennialist movement in the middle of the nineteenth century. This movement may have remained on the fringe had not other Christian groups felt threatened by the scientific revolution around them. This gave rise to fundamentalism, until recently on the outside of the mainstream.
Karen Armstrong makes the very strong point that what we think of Christianity today is not the Christianity our Founding Fathers practiced. Theirs was an Enlightenment-based belief, which (naively) assumed that the mysteries of God would be solved by rigorously applied science and reason. Thus my surprise when on my museum visit I came upon an exhibit asserting that not only the Founding Fathers, but the scientists and philosophers of the Renaissance and Enlightenment, all had creationist beliefs.
No, they didn’t. They simply had no reason to quibble with the Genesis story, that’s all. Jefferson rather than accepting the Bible word-for-word, actually decided to improve upon it (see image above).
Armstrong notes that social change triggers extreme reactions. She got that part right. In her book, she is equally critical of atheists (including proponents of evolution such as Richard Dawkins) as she is of religious fundamentalists. In Armstrong’s view, atheists are as stupid to God as fundamentalists are to science. Both sides are shouting way too loud, leaving no room for reasoned discourse.
And now we are suffering through another extreme reaction in the form of a certain movement with a beverage in the title, again co-opting our Founding Fathers (who have every reason to be spinning in their graves). According to a 2005 Pew Research Center Poll cited in Scientific American, 60 percent of Republicans are creationists and only 11 percent accept evolution. (Forty percent of Democrats accept evolution, which is not good either.)
Obviously, the creationists and their fellow travelers are very successful in getting their word out. Scary, isn’t it?
My Visit to the Local Creationist Museum (Seriously, I'm Not Making This Up)
Believe it or not, this museum is only 10 or 12 miles from my home, outside San Diego.
This journey through time will be a very short one, as the entire universe, earth included, according to creationist belief, is only 6,000 years old.
This works way better than carbon-14 dating.
I missed whether it was a standard day or a metric day.
In support of a worldwide catastrophe, creationism cites the same geological evidence as science, though with some rather significant differences in interpretation.
Noah's sons went their separate ways, assisted by land bridges spanning the oceans, thanks to a Flood-induced ice age. The animals from the Ark dispersed along these same land bridges, perhaps not whales and other sea creatures.
And I thought Neanderthals survived in the form of Tea Party followers.
I wish I had our high school class valedictorian, Karl Van Bibber, to explain this to me.
If I can follow the logic, mutations (which are all bad) get filtered out of the gene pool, keeping creation constant. There is, however, the mother-in-law exception.
That's right, evolution is just a religion, which makes creationism the true science. Why aren't our kids being taught this in school?
The "bad fruits" of evolution. No good can come from allowing people to think for themselves. That's why we need knowledgeable people in authority to do our thinking for us.
Evolution apparently played a part in the Final Solution. Actually, murderous bigots were killing Jews en masse long before Darwin. The Catholic Church even made saints out of some of these medieval pre-Hitlers. (Sorry, I was trying really hard to keep this objective.)
A browse through the museum's book store. No, I didn't Photoshop the book title.
This journey through time will be a very short one, as the entire universe, earth included, according to creationist belief, is only 6,000 years old.
This works way better than carbon-14 dating.
I missed whether it was a standard day or a metric day.
In support of a worldwide catastrophe, creationism cites the same geological evidence as science, though with some rather significant differences in interpretation.
Noah's sons went their separate ways, assisted by land bridges spanning the oceans, thanks to a Flood-induced ice age. The animals from the Ark dispersed along these same land bridges, perhaps not whales and other sea creatures.
And I thought Neanderthals survived in the form of Tea Party followers.
I wish I had our high school class valedictorian, Karl Van Bibber, to explain this to me.
If I can follow the logic, mutations (which are all bad) get filtered out of the gene pool, keeping creation constant. There is, however, the mother-in-law exception.
That's right, evolution is just a religion, which makes creationism the true science. Why aren't our kids being taught this in school?
The "bad fruits" of evolution. No good can come from allowing people to think for themselves. That's why we need knowledgeable people in authority to do our thinking for us.
Evolution apparently played a part in the Final Solution. Actually, murderous bigots were killing Jews en masse long before Darwin. The Catholic Church even made saints out of some of these medieval pre-Hitlers. (Sorry, I was trying really hard to keep this objective.)
A browse through the museum's book store. No, I didn't Photoshop the book title.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Rerun - Darwin and the Psychiatric Advantage

My most recent blog post, Ruminating Depressions, queried whether there is a purpose to our suffering. The reason we are able to ask questions like this in the first place is due to Charles Darwin. Following is a piece I published last February in honor of the 200th birthday of the man who changed the way we think. Enjoy ...
Happy birthday, Charles! You're looking great at 200.
Also happy anniversary of "On the Origin of the Species," which was published 150 years ago today.
Here's an interesting fact: Peacock tails drove Darwin crazy. The sight of one "makes me sick," he wrote. These feathered accessories played havoc with his work-in-progress theory of natural selection. Surely, any bird stupid enough to flaunt their colors in the wild wouldn't live long enough to mate.
Darwin's solution seems obvious enough today, but back in the nineteenth century it was a scientific breakthrough, a work of genius. The showy tails, he figured out, were chick magnets. The flashier, the better. The well-endowed cock, so to speak, won the right to make a deposit. The bird's genes would live on, even if its owners' days were numbered.
Evolutionary biologists refer to this as a trade-off. The sickle cell gene, for instance, helps confer immunity against malaria.
Fine. But how does Darwin apply to mental illness? According to evolutionary biologist Randolph Nesse MD of the University of Michigan: "Psychiatrists still act as if all anxiety, sadness, and jealousy is abnormal and they don't yet look for the selective advantages of genes that predispose to schizophrenia and bipolar disorder."
I heard Dr Nesse at the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting a few years back talk about the selective advantage in anxiety. Obviously, sufficiently anxious cave men were able to steer clear of saber toothed tigers long enough to find an opportunity to pass on their genes to the next generation.
Anxiety traits are no mere artifacts of an earlier age. It is crucial to marshaling our wits. We could never survive one day in traffic without it, let alone the full range of personal interactions.
Dr Nesse compared the brain's limbic system to a smoke detector that is programmed to deliver 100 false alarms for every genuine alert. The false alarms are the price of survival. Better to be too anxious. The seriously anxious, it turns out, have hyper-sensitive smoke detectors. The false alarms and the hyper-sensitive in our midst tend to blind us to the fact that a certain degree of anxiety is good, that we would fail to exist as a species without it.
Similarly, you can make a Darwinian case for bipolar. Highly energetic and productive and creative types certainly had a selective advantage over their more mundane kinfolk. Think of mania lite. Passing on the risk of more serious manifestations was an acceptable trade-off.
But what is the advantage to depression? For one, depression is when the rose-colored glasses come off, when reality sets in. If mania is all about daring, depression is about caution. The daring have an advantage in life's ultimate prize, the opportunity to mate. So do the cautious.
Depression also provides an opportunity for regrouping and recouping, not to mention a time of introspection and reflection. Think of depression as an enforced time-out. In its own perverse way, depression may set the stage for needed psychic healing.
As with anxiety and mania, we are talking more benign manifestations. The more virulent versions of depression, it seems, are part of the price we have to pay.
For the longest time, I could see no selective advantage to schizophrenia. There are those who claim that those with schizophrenia would have made perfect shamans and seers back in the old days - a romantic notion of serious mental illness totally without merit, as I see it.
Then I picked up "A Beautiful Mind" by Silvia Nasar. The book chronicles the life of John Nash, the Nobel Laureate who lost some 25 years of his life to schizophrenia. As the book makes clear, John Nash was a social and intellectual oddball well before his schizophrenia erupted. We tend to think of mental illness as a complete break with reality or rationality, but these breaks don't just happen overnight. Subtle symptoms may manifest many years earlier, what the experts describe as "prodromal" states.
And there may be certain advantages. Nancy Andreasen MD, PhD of the University of Iowa mentions that Newton, Einstein, and Watson all had schizotypal tendencies or schizophrenia running in the family. Newton, in fact, had a full-blown psychotic episode later in life.
John Nash confided to a friend that he took his psychotic delusions seriously because they came to him the same way his mathematical ideas did. As the title says, "A Beautiful Mind."
Darwin made no attempt to reconcile his discoveries with religion, but that doesn't mean the two are mutually exclusive. Nevertheless, because one cannot witness evolution in action the way one can observe gravity or thermodynamics in action, Darwin is still a hard sell for most of the population. For many of us, evolution is an act of faith, even though science is virtually unanimous on its general points.
Evolutionary psychiatry, though, is still a speculative endeavor. A legitimate argument can be made that we are retrofitting psychiatry to conform to evolutionary precepts. Then again, a very strong case can be made that our behavior makes no sense without taking evolution into account. Instead of viewing all mental illness as solely destructive, we are forced to consider its advantages. And in looking at the advantages, we find potential in our own worth.
Happy birthday, Darwin, from a big fan of yours.
Labels:
Charles Darwin,
evolution,
evolutionary psychiatry
Thursday, November 12, 2009
A Darwin Appreciation
On two recent separate visits, I stopped in at two museums in San Diego's magnificent museum-botanical complex at Balboa Park. The permanent displays in both the Museum of Man and the Natural History Museum attest to the genius of Darwin and his theory of evolution, which is the only credible explanation to connect all the apparently random cool stuff in both buildings - from dinosaur skeletons to mysterious fossils to evidence of lost civilizations.
In celebration of the bicentenary of his birth (the same day as Lincoln) and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his seminal "On the Origin of the Species," the Natural History Museum is featuring a special Darwin exhibit.
This photo essay - taken on my iPhone - is drawn from my museum trips.
These guys ruled. You are looking at the fossils of ammonites, which superficially resembled the nautilus but were closer in relation to the octopus and squid. They survived two major earth-shaking catastrophes eons apart only to succumb to apparently the same disaster that did in the dinosaurs.
Speaking of dinosaurs, smile for the camera, and thanks for the memories.
For many thousands of years, mastodons thrived in Southern CA. Then global warming happened. Sayonara, big fellow.
Speaking of disappearances, these reproductions of stellae stand as silent testimony to the lost civilization of the Maya. Their descendants live on, but their society went the way of the mastodon, perhaps for similar climactic reasons, such as drought.
Do you perceive a certain common theme, such as adaptive failure? Sometimes, the slightest genetic tweak can spell the difference between life and death, species-wise.
This is me on a bad hair day. Unfortunately this prototype of modern man failed to make the final cut.
Here's a reproduction of a fossil skull, zinjanthropus, dating back 1.75 million years, found in Tanzania's Olduvai gorge by Mary Leakey. Sadly, when it came to natural selection, the little guy lacked the right stuff.
Out of Africa. Zinjanthropus was not our distant ancestor, but this unmistakable DNA trail shows that everyone of us on the planet is linked to a common male and female ancestor from 60,000 years ago.
Get over it. We're all related.
The letter that started it all: An invitation from JS Henslow to Charles Darwin to serve as naturalist on the HMS Beagle.
Further reading from Knowledge is Necessity: Darwin and the Psychiatric Advantage
Labels:
darwin,
evolution,
John McManamy,
natural selection
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)