@Hrothbern, there is a yardstick. It’s imprecise due to technical limitations, but that shouldn’t stop us from using it if it is directionally accurate.
My issue is not only with the precision of the yardstick but the nature of the yardstick and that includes how well everybody, the group around you, and if relevant your teacher at school, etc and ofc yourself is aware of that nature.
Specialists know already so little despite them having time, the right education and a whole toolset of well defined and precisely used words and concepts.
To get usefull boildowns out of that in colloquial language for laymen...
Mostly more disadvantages than advantages.
But I do believe that the mechanism is there
Here two examples.
Say that we have a bee-hive with a living Queen Bee.
Everything is orderly, everybody in the tredmill of working hard for the group.
Now the Queen Bee dies. From age, disease, predator, beekeeper mistake, or worker bees deciding they needed a new one
and because there is no Queen Bee surpressing larves becoming a Queen Bee with chemicals... a multitude of larves develop into a Queen Bees helped by special attention and food by the workers. If there would be no eggs common worker bees lay eggs.
The new Queen Bees swarm, mate, fight other virgin Queen Bees... and survivors of "the Great Disorder" start their own colony.
=> A month after the Queen is dead, it is by Divine Right long live the Queen... and business as usual... everything orderly and surpressed again.
The old adagium: peasants need Kings as hard as Kings need peasants.
I truly wish mankind emancipates one day so far that this outgroup favoritism mechanism is ended.
Another example the Locust.
The humble grasshopper in its daily life & survival encounters now and then pleasant times with very good food generation and multiplies enormously.
All grasshoppers secrete some special feromone and when the concentration in the air of that feromone passes a certain treshold, the grasshoppers change into locusts which is a huge physical transformation making them good in flying.
The evolutionary advantage simple: when there are too many grasshoppers in an area it is time to fly to new horizons and use the wind instead of just a bit of hopping to far away new grounds thousands of miles distanced.
Both are examples where rather complicated mechanisms are used by evolution.
These minor tweaks from that article have a far lower mutation treshold and are therefore most likely all over the place in our gene pool based on the many permutations that can arise and cause all kinds of (mental & social) diversity. All to the overall benefit for advancing gene pools that are tweaked pushing out the non-tweaked.
So... great for some scientists to dig into, but when this is driven by for profit Big Pharma ?
hm
Another look at the issue:
One of the "disorders" we have is left-handedness.
This is AFAIK a completely natural diversity and around 10%-15% of the people have it.
And yet, depending on country and culture, it is or has been heavily surpressed. Both by casual as forced repression.
I simply believe that surpressing something natural is almost always bad and if it would lead to higher average anxiety etc I will not be surprised.
My father was as kid simply hit with a cane on his hands when he did something left-handed.
Kids normally do not want to be the exception as well.
All are ingredients for small scale misery eroding natural self-respect.
And I believe very strongly that self-respect and respect for your integrity, of your body and mind, is very important.
But hey... here it comes... just like almost all medicinal drugs are being tested first on rodents.... and on male rodents (easier because of more stable hormonal level).... resulting in a skewed sample...
tests being done on anxiety and other mental studies are mostly done on "normal" right-handed people... because researchers want to exclude the "noise" from left-handed people you get from a mixed sample (and doing both separately doubles the cost)
Here an article from the Radboud university, Nijmegen, Netherlands making a plea to get that right:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140213112640.htm
And it does matter !
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180618222617.htm
Treatment for the most common mental health problems could be ineffective or even detrimental to about 50 percent of the population, according to a radical new model of emotion in the brain.
Since the 1970s, hundreds of studies have suggested that each hemisphere of the brain is home to a specific type of emotion. Emotions linked to approaching and engaging with the world -- like happiness, pride and anger -- lives in the left side of the brain, while emotions associated with avoidance -- like disgust and fear -- are housed in the right.
But those studies were done almost exclusively on right-handed people. That simple fact has given us a skewed understanding of how emotion works in the brain, according to Daniel Casasanto, associate professor of human development and psychology at Cornell University.
According to the new theory, called the "sword and shield hypothesis," the way we perform actions with our hands determines how emotions are organized in our brains. Sword fighters of old would wield their swords in their dominant hand to attack the enemy -- an approach action -- and raise their shields with their non-dominant hand to fend off attack -- an avoidance action. Consistent with these action habits, results show that approach emotions depend on the hemisphere of the brain that controls the dominant "sword" hand, and avoidance emotions on the hemisphere that controls the non-dominant "shield" hand.
The work has implications for a current treatment for recalcitrant anxiety and depression called neural therapy. Similar to the technique used in the study and approved by the Food and Drug Administration, it involves a mild electrical stimulation or a magnetic stimulation to the left side of the brain, to encourage approach-related emotions.
But Casasanto's work suggests the treatment could be damaging for left-handed patients. Stimulation on the left would decrease life-affirming approach emotions. "If you give left-handers the standard treatment, you're probably going to make them worse," Casasanto said.
"And because many people are neither strongly right- nor left-handed, the stimulation won't make any difference for them, because their approach emotions are distributed across both hemispheres," he said.
"This suggests strong righties should get the normal treatment, but they make up only 50 percent of the population. Strong lefties should get the opposite treatment, and people in the middle shouldn't get the treatment at all."
Here below a graph of % left-handedness after cultural (and genetical ?) "corrections" of some countries.
I once digged in into the Japan figures wondering whether it was genetic or cultural... whether perhaps --the long isolation of Japan-- the cultural repression had also effect on eliminating to some degree the genes for left-handedness.
It did not deliver results worth remembering except that there were gender effects as well indicating that repression from a general dominance culture was unsurprisingly stronger affecting female than male. Same seems to be with parents having higher or lower education (higher education leading to less traditional dominance).
https://www.statista.com/chart/20708/rate-of-left-handedness-in-selected-countries/#:~:text=McManus which found that the,China is a good example.
Our understanding of mental "disorders" is imo still very much "work under construction" and we need to be cautious with short cut conclusions with only a bit of scientific aura.