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.
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/