SA from an evolutionary perspective...

S

slicenrice

Well-known member
for all of us guys who believe that we will probably never reproduce due to our SA, depression, and other issues, i feel like there is an evolutionary explanation.

the desirable male, who can function socially and succeed better in society (people without SA) have more desirable genes than the males who have more difficulty functioning in society (people with SA).

thus, apply charles darwin's "survival of the fittest" law, and the need to socialize is clearly a vital one for the "survival" of the human species, because it is key to succeeding (with regards to function in society).

we become weeded out of the gene pool over time, because less and less of us will reproduce, hence our genes will not be present in subsequent generations, and our undesirable traits are eventually weeded out.

so sad, but i feel this is true. perhaps socializing is as important to humans as, say, being fast is to an antelope. :(
 
Generical

Generical

Well-known member
Interesting but i sorta assumed things like sa, depression etc. are on the rise.

Although it can run in families i think it's heavily influenced by environmental factors too.

Everything is on the rise really, i mean talk to an 'old' person and they'll probably tell you there was never such a thing as sa (not because it was found in the 70's or 80's can't remember) but just becasue people always seemed to just get on with it back then. People we're just considered shy and it had nothing to do with a mental illness.

Yeah obviously cases back then possibly aren't going to be documented but it's very possible that simply the rise of mental illness is solely because of society today.
 
Incognito

Incognito

Well-known member
Yes you forget environmental factors. SA isn't some judgement from on high declaring that you are doomed to misery. We have medications, therapies, and techniques for dealing with it. Nature is always against us but we beat her all the time. Why should it be different with SA?
 
S

slicenrice

Well-known member
Incognito said:
Yes you forget environmental factors. SA isn't some judgement from on high declaring that you are doomed to misery. We have medications, therapies, and techniques for dealing with it. Nature is always against us but we beat her all the time. Why should it be different with SA?
Click to expand...

ahh, but you forget something. evolution is based on "natural selection". by using medications, i do not see how one can argue that is following the same purpose. we are using an artificial means to defeat something that is hampering our prospects of reproduction. if nature were to go through its course, with no medications or unnatural interventions allowed, then i would not pass on my genes to the next generation. sadly, this seems to be the case even with the artificial assistance i receive :(
 
spaz

spaz

Active member
You suggest that males without SA have more desirable genes than those without. Being comfortable in the presence of other people doesn't mean that much. I'm sure you have many traits that are genetically based that would be considered very valued from an evolutionary perspective e.g intelligence. This is genetically based. And many people who don't have SA reproduce freely, but they often have few traits that are beneficial to their offsprings survival. Look at trailer trash. They are often the most successful in passing on their genes.
So I would not assume that SA is natures way of weeding out the inferior stock. In fact, if you find a girl who you are comfortable with, and I'm sure you will, you probably will have kids and be a good father ( I say this because it seems that most people with SA are more considerate/ caring of other people).
Don't assume that because you may not be going out and having sex with lots of girls right now because of SA that you will never reproduce (unless you are already 60+ years old!).
 
silentbutdeadly

silentbutdeadly

Well-known member
spaz said:
You suggest that males without SA have more desirable genes than those without. Being comfortable in the presence of other people doesn't mean that much. I'm sure you have many traits that are genetically based that would be considered very valued from an evolutionary perspective e.g intelligence. This is genetically based. And many people who don't have SA reproduce freely, but they often have few traits that are beneficial to their offsprings survival. Look at trailer trash. They are often the most successful in passing on their genes.
So I would not assume that SA is natures way of weeding out the inferior stock. In fact, if you find a girl who you are comfortable with, and I'm sure you will, you probably will have kids and be a good father ( I say this because it seems that most people with SA are more considerate/ caring of other people).
Don't assume that because you may not be going out and having sex with lots of girls right now because of SA that you will never reproduce (unless you are already 60+ years old!).
Click to expand...
+1
 
Quetzalcoatl

Quetzalcoatl

Well-known member
Social anxiety was examined in a study I read in school. It asserted that social anxiety is caused by an exaggeration in a normal human socializing process.

This function in humans is to be socially acceptable... easy enough. More specifically, this genetic trait was passed on because while people evolved, humans were grouped into small groups of hunter/gatherers and banded together in small "tribes". For a human to be outed by this tribe, would mean certrain death.

The hypothesis is that this natural instinct for people to want to be accepted is the starting point for come sort of corruption in the process that can very well be caused by factors independent of our hard wired genetics.
 
Predacon

Predacon

Well-known member
I don't know by this line of thinking, people with social phobias would haved died out years ago. I seem to remember reading somewhere that there is an evolutionary benefit to such fears as more fearful people are less likely to take risks making them more likely to live longer and have children, at least in theory. :D
 
SwampFox

SwampFox

New member
A while ago I read about a research project where personalities in a squirrel population were studied. They found out that when there was lots of food around, the more active and courageous individuals were able to raise more offspring than the shy ones because of the extra food they collected. When there was less food around, the shy ones did better because they conserved their energy while the active ones were wasting it and still not finding much to stockpile. Apparently this is why neither type has died out.

I don't know how well this applies to human populations, but I have an impression that it is the modern urban culture (where wealth is easy to store) that emphasises social skills whereas people living in primitive nomadic culture (where excessive wealth is more of a burden) are often depicted as quiet.

And at least in Europe people tend to be more social in places where urban culture has existed for a long time (Mediterranean) than where it is a new phenomenon (Northern Scandinavia).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top