"Whatever psychological properties Gengis Khan had, they (probably) made him extremely reproductively successful."
You point this out, but it probably made him very unlikely to be successful, but the lucky convergence of his traits and his life situation made it work - we don't know about the lives of the 9,999 others with the same traits…
"Whatever psychological properties Gengis Khan had, they (probably) made him extremely reproductively successful."
You point this out, but it probably made him very unlikely to be successful, but the lucky convergence of his traits and his life situation made it work - we don't know about the lives of the 9,999 others with the same traits who didn't make it. If we executed everyone who didn't win the lottery, in a few generations we'd conclude look back and conclude that playing the lottery was a great strategy! This is where reversion to the mean and iterated strategies over generations matters - if GK's madness-adjacent traits were truly revolutionarily useful (and not just mostly bad, but sometimes one-in-a-million lucky,) and heritable, then his kids, who inherited 50% of them, should experience better reproductive outcomes. And certainly modern genetics reveals that may be the case.
I am not sure Gene's.... uh...... genes..... (for madness) will be as successful.
Right, but there's competition. Lottery genes that are only good 1/1000 times might spread, but only maximally in situations where Genghis Khan's can have disproprortionate ancestors. Overall, they might still get outcompeted over time by genes that are good more often - but certainly, it explains why we still retain genes that sometimes produce very bad outcomes, because very rarely they produce extremely good (from the gene's perspective) outcomes.
>>but certainly, it explains why we still retain genes that sometimes produce very bad outcomes, because very rarely they produce extremely good (from the gene's perspective) outcomes.
Yes! I think some kind of mathematical formula could be written over it.
Some genes are good in most environments, but do not make individuals outstanding in any known environment. Some genes are not very good in most known environments, but can make individuals outstanding in some environments.
There should be some kind of balance between genes that depend on more unusual but bigger reproductive events and genes that are generally positive but uneventful.
"Whatever psychological properties Gengis Khan had, they (probably) made him extremely reproductively successful."
You point this out, but it probably made him very unlikely to be successful, but the lucky convergence of his traits and his life situation made it work - we don't know about the lives of the 9,999 others with the same traits who didn't make it. If we executed everyone who didn't win the lottery, in a few generations we'd conclude look back and conclude that playing the lottery was a great strategy! This is where reversion to the mean and iterated strategies over generations matters - if GK's madness-adjacent traits were truly revolutionarily useful (and not just mostly bad, but sometimes one-in-a-million lucky,) and heritable, then his kids, who inherited 50% of them, should experience better reproductive outcomes. And certainly modern genetics reveals that may be the case.
I am not sure Gene's.... uh...... genes..... (for madness) will be as successful.
Yes, "Gene" is a slightly unlucky pseudonym for a man who does not believe in evolution.
>>the lucky convergence of his traits and his life situation made it work
Exactly. And with enough such lucky convergences, also genes that reduce fitness in most situations can spread.
Right, but there's competition. Lottery genes that are only good 1/1000 times might spread, but only maximally in situations where Genghis Khan's can have disproprortionate ancestors. Overall, they might still get outcompeted over time by genes that are good more often - but certainly, it explains why we still retain genes that sometimes produce very bad outcomes, because very rarely they produce extremely good (from the gene's perspective) outcomes.
>>but certainly, it explains why we still retain genes that sometimes produce very bad outcomes, because very rarely they produce extremely good (from the gene's perspective) outcomes.
Yes! I think some kind of mathematical formula could be written over it.
Some genes are good in most environments, but do not make individuals outstanding in any known environment. Some genes are not very good in most known environments, but can make individuals outstanding in some environments.
There should be some kind of balance between genes that depend on more unusual but bigger reproductive events and genes that are generally positive but uneventful.
related? https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/art-design/2024/03/the-last-crimes-of-caravaggio
How much "madness" is mimetic instead of genetic?
Perhaps something similar to R vs K selected species.
Actually, yes. There should be "r" genes lying under the surface, waiting for that unusual environment where they thrive exceptionally.
(speaking of Gene's genes, here is an article about him:
https://www.deseret.com/indepth/2023/1/29/23575258/what-does-educated-tara-westover-family-think-about-reconciliation-book/