People tend to show less mercy when being xenophobic towards traits such as intelligence, creativity, or even wealth because these traits are seen as beneficial traits to have and so it’s more fair to judge those who have these traits as unfairly better off than ourselves. When the trait being judged this way is a cognitive one, the benefits that the trait has can be undermined by the negative effects that result from the stigma (disregarding wealth probably).
Most people can relate to each other, but not because of some higher mental ability to understand each other but instead because they are more identical and synchronized enough to relate to each other, to converge on traits, ideals, and thoughts. Humans have a tendency to meme and mimic each other, doing the same things in groups. The idea of creativity is often closely tied to divergent thinking. Divergence is a deviation in ideas, in conclusions, and in perceptions. Converging perceptions and conclusions are just repetitions, norms, and memes. Divergence means you found something novel. And that’s all creative means. Finding the thing that others didn’t. This means being less able to relate to others perspectives because you are no longer in synchronicity with others. This is inherently necessary to find a novel creation or solution. This means that creativity can lead to loneliness and we know that loneliness is suffering.
The creatives are xenotypes. They are the ‘other’.
Xenophobia is a psychological orientation towards safety while xenophilia is a psychological orientation towards exploration. Safety is about protecting what you have while exploration is about gaining more than you have. Xenophobia focuses on convergence while xenophilia focuses on divergence. Xenotypes are those who have different traits than the subject being referred to in context. A xenotype is the “other”.
A social trend would naturally emerge in the formation of groups comprised of individuals who have these traits of xenophilia and xenophobia. Naturally those with xenophobia will tend to group together based on likeness, while those with xenophilia would tend to group up with those with less likeness. This means xenophiles may still find attraction towards groups of xenophobes, and thus face the consequences of interacting with them, namely facing the rejection of xenotypes.
Xenophobia is important in the development of tribalism. Xenophobia would promote relationships based on similarity and attenuating the development of relationships to those with differences. Xenophilia promotes individualism naturally as xenophiles will travel between tribes and are more likely to become the xenotypes of many different xenophobic tribes as they adopt the traits of these various tribes. Their heightened interest in dissimilarity would lead to less seeking of similar individuals. They are also not likely to converge on the traits that other xenotypes have unless they are traveling among each other. In general, xenophilia is not necessarily a trait that is good for building tribes. There is evidence of a biological mechanism of xenotolerance in individuals with a gene that encodes for the dopamine receptor type 4, that has been linked to fear of strangers at an early age. This study found an association of the gene to what could be xenophobia in essence: stranger fear. Those with longer repeat variants had less stranger fear at the age of 3 than those with the shorter repeat variants. The dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) enhances encoding of fear extinction, thus promoting xenotolerance, and promoting a loss of xenophobia, and phobic behavior in general. It is worth mentioning that ADHD has linked to the 7 repeat variant of the DRD4 gene.
Xenophilia likely emerges from the trait novelty-seeking. This is because those who are xenotypical to the xenophile would be inherently novel, until the xenophile has learned and familiarized themselves with the xenotype. At this point, the lack of novelty would inspire the xenophile to explore more novel people and places. Studies linking the gene to the novelty-seeking trait has had mixed results. A small result was found for long variants, but not the 7 repeat variant but ADHD has also shown a complex relationship with creativity, first studies found that DRD4 7R is linked to decreased divergent thinking, but later it was found that ADHD individuals have increased divergent thinking under specific conditions. It seems likely that measuring this is complicated, especially since the disorder has motivational and attentional issues that are likely involving the D4 dopamine receptor, which is basically what that study reveals.
But perhaps the gene is actually linked to a spectrum of xenophobia to xenotolerance, rather than novelty-seeking itself. Xenotolerant types might be more likely to develop novelty-seeking and xenophilia, but would not be inherently xenophilic nor have the novelty-seeking trait. Xenophilia and novelty-seeking might be traits acquired based on life events, similarly to how genes may control whether or not cilantro tastes like soap, but just because cilantro lacks a soapy taste doesn’t mean you are guaranteed to like it. A positive psychological association to novelty might be based on whether interactions with novelty go positive or negative, reinforcing your preference/nonpreference towards novelty. On the other hand, those with less repeat variant of the gene might be predisposed to fear novelty, even without prior experience to form positive or negative associations to novelty.
The DRD4 gene variants have been linked to political leaning as well. A study on political leaning found that those with a higher tolerance for disgust tend be more liberal while those with stronger disgust reactions tended to score as conservative. Similar studies have correlated xenophobia to disgust reactions as well. The DRD4 gene has also been linked to disgust reactions. This link of politics and xenotolerance to the DRD4 gene makes sense because the right has been associated with nationalism (implying xenophobia), while the left has been associated towards diversity (xenotolerance?) and support for immigration (import of xenotypes). The support for immigration is even more interesting because the DRD4 gene has also been linked to migration distance out of Africa, which makes sense because the xenotolerant would be more likely to explore novel places and hop between a more diverse range of social groups. It may be that liberals are more likely to be immigrants themselves, since the gene is associated to migration. ADHD has even been linked to children who have immigrant parents. Just looking at the correlations of personality traits that link to liberalism, such as open-mindedness, creativity, curious, and novelty-seeking, it seems there is overlap with those who have this gene. The DRD4 longer repeats are associated with novelty-seeking and openness/intellect. Conversely, conservatives were found to be organized, conventional, and orderly. These significance of these correlations will become more apparent in the evolution section.
The dopamine receptor D4 likely controls tolerance development in general, where you could imagine those with less xenotolerance feel comfortable at baseline (security in the known), and exploration doesn’t seem worth it’s risks. On the other hand, those with more xenotolerance would feel comfortable a little bit beyond baseline (the unknown is comfortable, or that comfort and tolerance develops quicker). This relationship to tolerance could explain the link that the longer repeat variation of the gene has to addiction. Theories of drug addiction have posited learning as the mechanism for addiction. Specifically, NMDA glutamate receptors have been implicated in tolerance formation and also drug memory. NMDA receptors are very important in learning and perception. Many recreational drug users have noticed opioid tolerance reversal by using drugs that block the NMDA receptor, and studies have shown that NMDA receptor blockers also prevent tolerance formation, and also capable of treating addiction. To “get used to” something in essence is what tolerance is, and this requires you to learn the stimuli via repeated exposure.
One of the mechanisms of the dopamine D4 receptor is to decrease the activity of GABA(a) receptors. One study found that stimulating GABA(a) receptors via midazolam resulted in decreased morphine tolerance, implying that a reduction of GABA(a) activity would increase tolerance to morphine. It was found that reducing and reversing GABA(a) stimulation enhances memory encoding and recall, and another study found mice that lacked the α5 subunit that boosts GABA(a) activity had enhanced learning and memory. In individuals with ADHD, those with the 7R variant outperformed those without this variant on an attention task, another study found increased learning when rewards were involved, and lastly, a study found increased learning of high-priority stimuli. This is evidence that the functional role of the dopamine D4 receptor may be enhance learning upon stimulation by reducing GABA(a) activity.
Accelerated Learning Model
Learning is about assimilating new information into our memory. Novelty-seeking is a trait where an individual seeks out new information, likely due to a rewarding sense that occurs from novelty. Exploration of novelty allows us to gather more information which has utility and the ability to improve our creativity and judgment by giving us more resources to deal with life problems. Knowing more information equips us to better handle daily life. Exploration of novelty is also inherently dangerous. This does not mean every novel situation is dangerous, but familiar situations are defined as being known, including knowing the safety profile of the situation, while novel situations are defined as not being known, again including not knowing the safety profile of the situation. From this, it is apparent that there is both good and bad that would come from the trait novelty-seeking. Increased information can increase safety and power one has in a situation, while increased exploration can increase risk and decrease safety while in the moment.
Imagine childhood. All experience is novel and unfamiliar. All stimuli is cognitively straining and challenging. This stimulates growth and engages the brain like a muscle. Those who are novelty seekers and have exploratory natures would more quickly learn the novel stimuli in their environment, thus turning the stimuli into familiarity. Perhaps most people pace their learning, allowing novel stimuli to last until late adulthood, at which point “age-related cognitive decline” ensues. This cognitive decline might be due to the lack of intellectual stimulation because you run out of novelty in late adulthood. It is natural to then see that novelty seeker types would more quickly run out of challenging and novel stimuli.
Novelty and Familiarity
Age related cognitive decline may be based on environmental factors partially, such as exposure to novelty. Novelty is a resource for which the access to this resource changes throughout life, fluctuating depending on the environment. As we age, sources of novelty will become more rare because learning transforms novelty into familiarity. Fluid intelligence is exercised when confronted with novelty and likely declines when not used frequently. Crystallized intelligence is exercised when utilizing familiarity and grows with another resource: familiarity/knowledge. Familiarity is a resource that increases throughout life, assuming memory loss or brain damage isn’t involved, simply due to the conversion of novelty into familiarity. This dynamic of converting novelty into familiarity would explain why fluid intelligence decreases with age while crystallized intelligence increases with age.
The dopamine D4 receptor likely functions to aide in adaptability under circumstances of novel stimuli, where the receptor increases learning and memory as to deal with novelty more rapidly. This makes sense as the longer variants of the gene are linked to migration distance out of Africa, implying that the gene is selected for under conditions of traveling to new environments. It is likely that those with this gene will become depressed and less motivated under circumstance of insufficient novelty, which is more common in settled societies. In settled societies, lots of repetition in lifestyle is expected to manage agriculture and divided labor in general. It now makes sense why this gene is also less common in China, where communism is the lifestyle and it may have been sexually selected against. The gain in tolerance that DRD4 would cause is expected to make mundane life boring, while having less of these receptors would slow tolerance and make settlement societies more bearable. The behavioral side effects of tolerance development may be the limiting factor in learning speed benefits.
Novelty-seeking and hyper-exploratory behavior has been observed in those with bipolar disorder. Some research has found an association of DRD4 variants and bipolar disorder, while others have failed to find an association. For the dopamine D4 receptor to be implicated in bipolar disorder would not necessarily require involvement of variants of the DRD4 gene, but potentially other dopaminergic genes, especially the dopamine transporter. It is thought that dopaminergic signaling may alter GABAergic signaling for those with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, which is likely via the mechanism of DRD4. An alteration of GABA(a) receptors was found among those with bipolar disorder, which can explain why those with the DRD4 gene might share symptoms with bipolar disorder. It is likely that the GABA(a) receptors are one of the genetic components of bipolar disorder symptoms relating to the dopamine 4 receptor stimulation, rather than genes controlling for the dopamine 4 receptor itself. The role of this dopamine receptor may just be to enhance the symptoms during times of high dopamine activity, namely stressors or novelty (presumably most stressors are novel). This turns out to be true, the same GABA(a) receptor subunit (α5) that was previously mentioned to associate with learning and memory was specifically associated to bipolar disorder as well.
A study found that bipolar hypomania is correlated with higher fluid intelligence and creativity, likely relevant to this anti-GABAergic mechanism. This study found that higher arithmetic scores at the age of 20, is correlated with a 12 fold increase in risk of developing bipolar disorder. Another study (2018) found that excellent school performance at age 16 is correlated to a 4 fold increase in risk of developing bipolar disorder. It could be that educational attainment for those with bipolar disorder decreases because the novelty depletion that occurs once you spend so long in the education system. It appears that bipolar disorder might be linked to intellectual or creative giftedness, so it may be worth designing schools or systems that cater to their special abilities and take into consideration the dynamic of restlessness, boredom, and lack of novelty.
Those with bipolar often score worse on memory and other cognitive tests but strangely score well on fluid intelligence tests. If mania and hypomania are the result of chasing rewarding novelty, or simply highly rewarding stimuli in general, we should expect lower performance on less rewarding tasks and increasingly so with severity of mania. The executive function disorder is due to the fact that executive function directs your mind towards the highest interests you have, the highest motivations you have take priority. These tests are likely incredibly non-rewarding and thus produce negative results as the stimuli in the task do not have enough novelty to take precedence over what their mind is manically showing interest in. Manic individuals are distracted by their more rewarding flight of ideas than some mundane test which fails to grab the necessary amounts of attention for them to perform well on. If the overlap of ADHD and bipolar disorder on GABA(a) functionality mediates this reward based behavior, then this study showing that those with the longer repeat variants of the DRD4 gene having increased learning when rewarded might give evidence of this under-rewarding problem that may exist in testing the cognition of those with bipolar disorder and ADHD. Managing daily life may become under-stimulating to individuals with the GABA(a) and DRD4 genes that correlate to bipolar disorder and ADHD respectively. This is especially the case for those managing the daily life among a settled society where the society is built by people who have a higher sensitivity to the rewards (less reward tolerance) of the relatively mundane lifestyle.
It seems that there exists a set of high level novelty that is only accessible to those who have familiarized themselves to the precursor knowledges. For example theories are more stimulating and require many novel facts to be acquired first. Theories might provide more stimulation than single facts could, making facts less prioritized after theorizing begins to take place. This is like drug tolerance and dose increasing. Those who have novelty-seeking traits might perform worse on certain cognitive tasks that are insufficiently novel, and especially in regards to executive functioning tasks, which inherently involve focus and attention towards the test that is presumably not more stimulating or novel than whatever is causing their distraction. Likewise, those experiencing depression might be undergoing withdrawals of novelty once they have reached a state of novelty depletion. The unwillingness to step down to seek the less rewarding sources of novelty, in this case individual facts, might lead the person to just sit, as if waiting for a big breakthrough, one that may not occur because more learning of facts are required as a precursor. Once tolerance has reset, the cycle may start again.
It seems that there exists a set of high level novelty that is only accessible to those who have familiarized themselves to the precursor knowledges. For example theories are more stimulating and require many novel facts to be acquired first. Theories might provide more stimulation than single facts could, making facts less prioritized after theorizing begins to take place. This is like drug tolerance and dose increasing. Those who have novelty-seeking traits might perform worse on certain cognitive tasks that are insufficiently novel, and especially in regards to executive functioning tasks, which inherently involve focus and attention towards the test that is presumably not more stimulating or novel than whatever is causing their distraction. Likewise, those experiencing depression might be undergoing withdrawals of novelty once they have reached a state of novelty depletion. The unwillingness to step down to seek the less rewarding sources of novelty, in this case individual facts, might lead the person to just sit, as if waiting for a big breakthrough, one that may not occur because more learning of facts are required as a precursor. Once tolerance has reset, the cycle may start again. This can be applied not only to an education model but likely any reward based behaviors that allow for a sense of increased progress and stronger relative rewards. The work place, video games, social ladder climbing, etc.
The longer repeat variants of the DRD4 gene have been correlated with risk-taking. There may be an alternative perspective on whether it is truly risk-taking. Increased novelty seeking would lead to an accumulation of more knowledge, arguably a more diverse set of knowledge as well. Risk of a decision decreases with knowledge relevant to the decision, and increases with ignorance of a decision. Those with novelty-seeking traits might appear to take relatively larger risks, when in fact it may be that they have relatively more knowledge that allows them to make the same decisions as others, with less relative risk as a factor due to increased knowledge. The nature of novelty-seeking may tend to result in more self-teaching which would lead to divergence from the normal education that has been systemized.
This may naturally lead to what we see as ‘creativity’ which may be in reality be a divergence of level of information or type of information due to the autodidactic nature of the novelty-seeking types. It could also be that those who are convergent with systemized education and parental teaching are going to make less risky decisions because the risks have been evaluated historically and decisions being made are in alignment with historical decisions that culture, parents and teachers control. This could explain the correlations of risk-taking to bipolar disorder and to ADHD, as well as the correlations of novelty-seeking to bipolar disorder and ADHD that is seen in the literature. These could also be explained as less fear and as xenotolerance, but both of these may emerge from the accumulation and interest of information and knowledge. Those experiencing mania were less responsive to disgust and fear facial expressions, which may be related to the mechanism overlap of reduced GABA(a) receptor activity that may be related to fear extinction. The GABA(a) receptor differences seen in bipolar disorder are associated with increased mania specifically, which adds evidence that the GABA(a) receptor is the mechanism for the disgust reaction. It may even be a combination of both decreased fear of consequence via fear extinction, and also increased knowledge and confidence in one’s choices due to previous positive predictions. Those without these traits may respond with more long-term fear after facing negative consequences that doesn’t become extinct easily resulting in more inhibited and less risky decision-making.
Non-migrants might sexually select against migrant types. Those low in DRD4 would sexually select against those high in DRD4. This is because xenophobia would be more prominent in those with lower DRD4 counts, due to lacking the fear extinction enhancement that high DRD4 can bring. Those with ADHD are much more likely to be immigrants. The DRD4 gene is likely linked to migration because it reduced fear when traveling into xenogeographies. The fearful types likely die off because of their fear behaviors. Schizophrenia has also been linked to migration, and linked to the long repeat DRD4 genes. Schizophrenia has been associated to parental famine, so perhaps migration to escape famine can lead to children with schizophrenia if the individual survives the migration. The link of DRD4 to schizophrenia may imply that initially the schizophrenic traits evolved based on a specific environment and then migration caused too significant a difference in environment, resulting conflicts of their traits with the environment and resulting in what we know as schizophrenia.
Accelerated learning and tolerance development are both necessary for dealing with the rapid change associated with migrating and perhaps other environmental changes. Those with bipolar disorder may exhibit a different form of adaptability than those with ADHD, but still an adaptability enhancement nonetheless. Instead of being based on hyper-sensitivity to novelty it may be based on more extreme changes of the seasons or other environmental factors rather than changes of geography. Maybe the cyclical nature of the seasons allow for modulation of adaptability based on external seasonal cues. It known that bipolar disorder has correlations to genes involved in circadian rhythm, and it is thought that these genes could have evolved in Neanderthals to be later transplanted into the human gene pool during the Pleistocene.
Longer DRD4 repeats have been correlated to the migration distance out of Africa, indicating that it is selected for under migratory circumstance, enhancing survival during migration. The DRD4 7 repeat variant seems to have originated in the human gene pool at an odd time, during the time that Neanderthals intermingled with humans in Europe. Neanderthals (technically their precursors) migrated out of Africa even before humans did. Since the DRD4 repeat lengths seem to be selected under migratory conditions, it makes sense that Neanderthals acquired the longer 7R variant first, meeting with the later humans who only had the 4R variant at the time. This writer claims that human progress wasn’t much until Neanderthals got involved, specifically citing the DRD4 7R variant as the cause (a mind-blowing read honestly, please do check it out).
Those in a settled society would select against these genes because the increase in learning and tolerance would cause a more rapid development of intolerance to repetition. Intolerance to repetition is just the increased tolerance to the rewarding aspects of that task, as previously described. This intolerance to repetition would undermine the development of structured societies, where the human (non-Neanderthals) would better excel, at the cost of increased xenophobia, nationalism, and decreased learning speed. The decreased learning speed is precisely why the humans would be better adapted towards a settled society, where one can enjoy more repetitious tasks without as much reduction in rewarding sensation. And, as previously shown, the link of DRD4 7R and addiction is also based on this tolerance to reward effect.
I wondered how big of a role government could play in the evolution of our species, and then I realized it must be quite drastic. We often assume that human evolution is barely relevant today with technological fixes for everything. So, I spent some time in a thought experiment, imagining an equality of outcome society.
Equality of outcome means dividing life quality equally to the total population. Individual life quality is enhanced the less people there are. This incentivizes exterminating those with seemingly less collective utility, because it directly rewards population reduction. Our xenophobia and biases may take hold and select mostly for genes of those we can relate with. There would be a selection based on collective utility as well, where the lazy, the weak, the seemingly useless will all be exterminated because of their detriment to others wellbeing. This causes a novel type of evolution and selection. The stigmatized groups will have their genes erased. The human hive would become more sentient as individuals are selected for their utility in a collectivist society. This is what ants have undergone. This is also a mechanism for auto-domestication of the human species since culture would almost certainly select for agreeable and conscientious types.
Common theories about the evolution of DRD4 7R assume that it progresses as we migrate. Instead, it could be that Neanderthals and humans both had significant amounts of DRD4 7R before the Neanderthals split off. It could be that they migrated at the point that human society was becoming increasingly collectivist and already exterminating the edge of the gene pool, which included themselves. Migration may have allowed for them to survive. Then once humans slowly began to migrate, they reunited with the Neanderthal branch, and gained some of their individualism back, accelerating the progress of individualism.
Traits of individualism would be seen as a detriment to society. Individualism allows one to explore ideas with greater depth. A society of collectivists simply couldn’t because it would mean a whole society focusing on one narrow perspective, as the individualist does. There are benefits to this narrow thinking, but there are also problems with integrating to society. Society wants a narrow collectivist focus, and other focuses would seem to be a detriment largely. The DRD4 7R gene is associated with ADHD, which is commonly seen as lazy and dysfunctional. The gene also associates to schizophrenia and sometimes bipolar disorder, which both may be more individualistic than what is normal as well. People with these conditions might be the first targets of a collectivist society to reject in order to improve the quality of life for the colony. There is even evidence of this, where socialist China only has 2% occurrence of the DRD4 7R gene, while capitalist and seemingly individualist America has nearly 50% occurrence of this gene.
This would occur via stigmatizing the traits of the individualists by the collective. This would result in less reproduction of these traits and even potentially violence or mistreatment that make it impossible to reproduce or survive. Those who are most suited for the collective would have a higher chance to breed, and the gene pool will increasingly slide away from the traits of individualism. This involves the dynamics of xenophobia and xenophilia as well. Where humans would evolve to become increasingly xenophobic with collectivism, stigmatizing individualists as mentally ill. Genes not suited towards the lifestyle in collectivism would be stigmatized.
Big pharma is like psycho-eugenics where we mechanically turn off the genetic influence of individualized genes towards society. This is almost as bad as eliminating the genes by stigma and cultural sexual selection.
To solve the Marxist Evolution problem, we must consciously and intelligently design society in order to retain traits that are beneficial to society, and we must thoroughly explore what we believe to be non-beneficial to society to make sure we are not tossing beneficial genes out. Genes linked to schizophrenia or bipolar might be increasingly rare (1-2% of the population) specifically because of these mechanics. These genes might also be linked to Einstein, or Isaac Newton, people who have contributed to the progress of society largely.
Going back to the political ideas, it would appear that Neanderthals may be the original liberals, the original migrants, the creative and open novelty-seekers, the xenophiles, xenotypes, and the explorers. While the humans were the original conservatives, resisting the change that migration brings for the safety and stability of a structured society on some level. It could be that Neanderthal genes are linked to creative progress of society but also instability and chaos, as the post that I recommended to you goes into detail about.
Most of the problems that get associated with bipolar disorder, ADHD, and maybe even schizophrenia could partly be due to a xenophobic society that has the power of majority rules, where the lingering Neanderthal lifestyle desires are causing these individuals to suffer the effects of living outside of their preferred environment.
Some of my other posts go into much more depth into how mental illness and creativity are linked and how divergence could be a mechanism for many of the symptoms, along with the social dynamics of rejection and xenophobia.
Neanderthal xenotypy may have not manifested in social chaos due to high incidence of xenophilia but it’s likely that ideological disagreement would occur at higher rates if the development of individuals ideologies were not convergent and synchronized. This synchronicity may have lead to greater collaborative power in the human species and allowed for massive society scale projects to take place (collectivism). It may also lead to mob mentality and a lack of diversity at times (xenophobia and tribalism).
Although these traits linked to bipolar and ADHD seem to be positive, namely the creativity, enhanced learning of novelty, there are clear problems for the people who have these traits to integrate with society. And it does not at all seem to be the case that there could even be a society made up entirely of people with these traits. Likely the slower learning of novelty is crucial for the stability and structure of society perhaps due to the increased number of people involved in more massive scale projects as well as the increased level of compartmentalized tasks and division of labor that is required for these massive scale projects are too mundane and require less novelty/exploration driven motivation that individuals with these traits seem functionally bound to.
Likewise, it may be that without these traits, society would see less progress, less invention, and less discovery.
Traditionally, people with these qualities are expected to push through a system designed against their traits before they can find jobs as scientists, artists, or inventors that may be more relevant for their talents. This is especially true for the exploratory careers that require higher academia. It seems that instead of promoting a shift in society that is geared towards favoring people with these traits, we should find ways to diagnose these individuals and allow them to live differently than the people without these traits in order to maximize their influence and contribution to society for the betterment of us all. It would improve the life quality of those who have these traits as well as those without who may benefit from their discoveries and inventions. Special academic programs could be designed that consider the nature of these traits. A system like this would almost certainly be best designed by individuals who have these traits.
Those with schizophrenia would likely need very early intervention and an especially different role in society. Their special quality might be to make judgments in an almost prophetic way or even to have an unfiltered perspective. This does not mean to have strong faith in their judgments necessarily but we could simply specialize them in a field that deals with patterns and predictions as this may fit their special traits. Their development would need to first be managed before their traits be manifested into serious career fields. Imagine something like a highly educated psychic working in forensics. I personally think that many psychotic symptoms can be managed via education, but this isn’t always easy due to many of the learning and trust issues that may develop when early intervention isn’t applied.
We should grant high levels of Universal Basic Income to the creative individuals, knowing they can’t manage themselves in a collective society. Then we allow them to be free to do as they wish, but pressure them to focus on learning and inventing. For each successful invention they are rewarded with further benefits. It helps manage the non collectivist tendency of these individuals and also would benefit all the rest of society by generating advances in technology and knowledge. This system in some sense could replace portions of classical academia. In the age of the internet, classic academia seems to be heavily flawed and overgeneralized, combining many different variations of thinkers, favoring a majority who is drastically less interested in academic pursuits, especially higher levels of academic pursuits.
If we are to become like ants, in terms of division of labor and efficiency, we must design a society that has roles for each person, and rely less on the natural emergence of roles under a hyper-generalized system such as academia, politics, economics, etc.
As a farewell note. . .
If you liked my writing and novel concepts, please consider donating by purchasing
My Music on almost all common platforms, because therefore you get music as well :).
It is very hard for me to do this work, as I am doing all of it on my own. That includes the photography and the synthesis of all instruments in my music as well, no presets were used!