[FollowingTheDao]

There’s no such thing as a “pro schizophrenia genes”. There are only genes that increase the risk of schizophrenia, and this is probably due to environmental variables.

Exchanging a risk for cancer for a risk of schizophrenia is not a win-win situation. You’re just switching one set of risk genes for another.

[01HNNWZ0MV43FF]

> There are only genes that increase the risk of schizophrenia

I think that's what GP was saying?

> You’re just switching one set of risk genes for another.

I think... that's what GP was saying?

[FollowingTheDao]

>> You’re just switching one set of risk genes for another. > I think... that's what GP was saying?

If you are switching one low survival gene for another there is no net benefit.

[lazyasciiart]

You're begging the question, They asked is there some unnoticed survival benefit.

[mark-r]

It depends very much on the likelihood that the gene causes a disorder, and the deadliness of the disorder. Those two outcomes could be vastly different.

[ekaryotic]

>Exchanging a risk for cancer for a risk of schizophrenia is not a win-win situation But it can be though. Consider a population that works with carcinogens like coal. due to capitalist class structures, they cannot leave their occupation, so a gene that would increase their survivability would be a great help.

[dustbunny]

Schizophrenia is far more likely to prevent you from reproducing than cancer, because schizophrenia hits way earlier.

[FollowingTheDao]

Yes, this is what I was going to comment, and adding that it was funny they used a coal miner as an example since my family side that has the mood disorders were all coal miners in central PA.