> 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?

>> 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.

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

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.

>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.

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

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.