What I've came to hold personaly is a socio-constructicivist account of illness / disease I think. One argument is that things considered mental illnesses today could have been adaptive during evolution, for example a psychopath could have maximized their reproductive success even though it is unwanted in our society. And the psychopath could also be perfectly happy with their own psychology.
It’s an interesting idea. From an evolutionary perspective one could make such an hypothesis, but it would likely be frequency-dependent. What is optimal in a species can depend on how many individuals have that trait.
Walter (if I may),
With all due respect, and apart, apparently, from the argument of Quill Kukla as summarized here, this strikes me as a straw man argument, at least insofar as Kukla is hardly representative of the relevant literature, which I've gathered together here (see too the appended lists at the end): https://www.academia.edu/44125866/The_Parameters_Values_and_Constraints_of_Public_Health_Social_Epidemiology_Ethics_and_Law_a_basic_bibliography
All the same, I appreciate the provocation!
Best wishes,
Patrick
What I've came to hold personaly is a socio-constructicivist account of illness / disease I think. One argument is that things considered mental illnesses today could have been adaptive during evolution, for example a psychopath could have maximized their reproductive success even though it is unwanted in our society. And the psychopath could also be perfectly happy with their own psychology.
It’s an interesting idea. From an evolutionary perspective one could make such an hypothesis, but it would likely be frequency-dependent. What is optimal in a species can depend on how many individuals have that trait.