Another ad-hoc hypothesis (which I invented on the spot right now): Look to the hunter-gatherer past. A certain amount of neuroticism is good if your most significant reproductive challenge is 'continuing to get along with the other people in your group'. Since women compete with other women through social ostracism, and expelling people they do not like from the tribe, being worried about what your female neighbours think about you is important for women. Men have historically been willing to put up with other men who are substantially less concerned with social harmony and deferring to what the neighbours think - as long as these men bring some other skill or ability to the teams they are in. If you are a really skilled hunter, it doesn't matter that much if you are oblivious to or ignore social disapproval. Your behaviour is going to have to be really egregious before the other people in the tribe decide to ostracise or kill you.
Fast forward to the future. A good many men find themselves similarly in positions where the skills they demonstrate means they do not have to be worried about social ostracism, i.e. "They couldn't cancel Joe Rogan". But many more others are predominantly competing in games of social one-upmanship, and where it is not what you know but who you know that gets you ahead. A little more neuroticism may help these people become more successful.
And thus, when you come by looking at the data about the value of neuroticism for men, you get results which boil down to 'it all depends ....' :)
I believe it was Gordon Tullock who made the argument that totalitarian regimes tended to breed out a penchant for liberty via taking off the heads of those who would stick out their necks. I think that would apply here as well, where male neuroticism becomes more common in situations less focused on skills and competency and more focused on politics and socializing, e.g. large corporations where contributions are hard to track.
For more on this angle I highly recommend reading Bateson, Brilot and Nettle's 2011 paper, Anxiety: An Evolutionary Approach. They also argue that negative emotions (namely anxiety disorders) are adaptive and they give a very good explanation for A) Why that is, and B) Why it relates to higher psychopathology, which is generally (personally) maladaptive. More broadly, Nettle's individual differences theory is a good way of explaining the adaptive benefits of neuroticism.
Increased survival at the species level. Nettle's argument would be that evolution set neuroticism high for humans because it maximized our survival back when everything in the world could kill us if we didn't have the right tools and a tight social network.
Then he'd say "Okay. So, humans have a pretty high neuroticism level on average, compared to, say, lions. But humans vary--some are more neurotic, some are less neurotic. Since our species has a high 'anchor point' you don't have to be too far above the human average to become neurotic to the point of being socially impaired."
So, using a high "human average" as a base, he'd say that it doesn't take much by way of anxiety-provoking personal/social circumstances to compromise a person's ability to function, and some people whose personal neuroticism levels are biologically higher than the human average are going to have major pathology just due to the misfortunes of chance.
I don't think I ever saw an association flip sign after sibling control like in the Power et al paper. My first hunch is some weird model specification problem. If it's not an error, it basically shows a local fertility minimum at intermediate levels of psychiatric problems and a rebound at higher levels. So siblings of patients are the worst off and actual patients slightly better, although still worse than the general population.
Would increased average female neuroticism explain the fact that female-female couples have higher dissolution rates than male-male and male-female couples?
Do we have the data to assess the effect of concordance *between* partners on these? I.E., do high-openness people have a lower chance of dissolution if paired with another high-openness person, or is it higher no matter what? I've seen smaller MBTI data that suggest more preferences in common increase relationship ratings, particularly with the N/S axis which correlates with Openness, but the MBTI is a much blunter instrument (it falsely dichotomizes and drops Neuroticism).
Another ad-hoc hypothesis (which I invented on the spot right now): Look to the hunter-gatherer past. A certain amount of neuroticism is good if your most significant reproductive challenge is 'continuing to get along with the other people in your group'. Since women compete with other women through social ostracism, and expelling people they do not like from the tribe, being worried about what your female neighbours think about you is important for women. Men have historically been willing to put up with other men who are substantially less concerned with social harmony and deferring to what the neighbours think - as long as these men bring some other skill or ability to the teams they are in. If you are a really skilled hunter, it doesn't matter that much if you are oblivious to or ignore social disapproval. Your behaviour is going to have to be really egregious before the other people in the tribe decide to ostracise or kill you.
Fast forward to the future. A good many men find themselves similarly in positions where the skills they demonstrate means they do not have to be worried about social ostracism, i.e. "They couldn't cancel Joe Rogan". But many more others are predominantly competing in games of social one-upmanship, and where it is not what you know but who you know that gets you ahead. A little more neuroticism may help these people become more successful.
And thus, when you come by looking at the data about the value of neuroticism for men, you get results which boil down to 'it all depends ....' :)
I believe it was Gordon Tullock who made the argument that totalitarian regimes tended to breed out a penchant for liberty via taking off the heads of those who would stick out their necks. I think that would apply here as well, where male neuroticism becomes more common in situations less focused on skills and competency and more focused on politics and socializing, e.g. large corporations where contributions are hard to track.
I guess that explains East Asian civilization where "saving face" and conformity are extremely more important than in the West.
For more on this angle I highly recommend reading Bateson, Brilot and Nettle's 2011 paper, Anxiety: An Evolutionary Approach. They also argue that negative emotions (namely anxiety disorders) are adaptive and they give a very good explanation for A) Why that is, and B) Why it relates to higher psychopathology, which is generally (personally) maladaptive. More broadly, Nettle's individual differences theory is a good way of explaining the adaptive benefits of neuroticism.
What are the adaptive benefits in short?
Increased survival at the species level. Nettle's argument would be that evolution set neuroticism high for humans because it maximized our survival back when everything in the world could kill us if we didn't have the right tools and a tight social network.
Then he'd say "Okay. So, humans have a pretty high neuroticism level on average, compared to, say, lions. But humans vary--some are more neurotic, some are less neurotic. Since our species has a high 'anchor point' you don't have to be too far above the human average to become neurotic to the point of being socially impaired."
So, using a high "human average" as a base, he'd say that it doesn't take much by way of anxiety-provoking personal/social circumstances to compromise a person's ability to function, and some people whose personal neuroticism levels are biologically higher than the human average are going to have major pathology just due to the misfortunes of chance.
Another possibility is that the higher fertility of siblings is driven by some sort of social stratification bias
Many men find some neuroticism feminine, endearing and attractive in a woman. Nobody finds schizofrenia attractive.
Maximizing the secondary TFR of my grandkids by marrying the most depressed, neurotic woman possible?!
Agrees with my 'field experience'.
I don't think I ever saw an association flip sign after sibling control like in the Power et al paper. My first hunch is some weird model specification problem. If it's not an error, it basically shows a local fertility minimum at intermediate levels of psychiatric problems and a rebound at higher levels. So siblings of patients are the worst off and actual patients slightly better, although still worse than the general population.
Would increased average female neuroticism explain the fact that female-female couples have higher dissolution rates than male-male and male-female couples?
Interesting research!
Do we have the data to assess the effect of concordance *between* partners on these? I.E., do high-openness people have a lower chance of dissolution if paired with another high-openness person, or is it higher no matter what? I've seen smaller MBTI data that suggest more preferences in common increase relationship ratings, particularly with the N/S axis which correlates with Openness, but the MBTI is a much blunter instrument (it falsely dichotomizes and drops Neuroticism).
They looked into some of that, but they don't find much (these are interactions).
Oh well. Thanks anyway!
Uhm...MS-Paint has "straight line" and "word" functions...
You think I'm using MS paint? I have news for you.
Ah.
Snark raises its ugly head.
Hmmm...I wonder which trait(s) is/are associated with snark?
Never knew: whoch trait(s) your shirk diagnosed?
A totally unnecessary comment