3 ms·

There is some conjecture that Neanderthal ancestry brings a larger risk of schizophrenia. https://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(21)003

by chasil 4y ago

There is some conjecture that Neanderthal ancestry brings a larger risk of schizophrenia. https://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(21)00328-0/fulltext https://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-32...

ncmncm 4y ago
For us anyway. Doesn't mean neanderthals suffered from it. I.e., it could be just a neuromolecular incompatibility.
svnt 4y ago
Am I reading the paper incorrectly? The finding was the opposite (i.e. that increased NeanderScore is correlated with reduced schizophrenia diagnoses/symptoms), wasn’t it? The inspiration for the study appears to be to explore why humans do and animals don’t appear to have schizophrenia, and assuming Neanderthals are closer to animals. I agree about calling it conjecture though. The finding had marginal p-values in a study that appears to be hiding its sample size (it doesn’t disclose the ratio of schizophrenia cases to controls in its four case-control datasets) and so is quite possibly underpowered.
- feet 4y ago
  >assuming Neanderthals are closer to animals What does that even mean
  - svnt 4y ago
    In terms of neurological structure and function they seem likely to have had a more typical primate/mammalian appearance. This assumption is commonly made because they don’t appear to have worked with abstract symbols and may not have been able to develop language beyond animal communication.
barbariangrunge 4y ago
The article describes them as a different species — but doesn’t that mean we should not have been able to create viable offspring with them? What am I misunderstanding?
- Vecr 4y ago
  Species are somewhat arbitrary, basically at the time of species categorization was it common to think reproduction within this fuzzy group was more common than in some other proposed categorization, or something like that. Probably even less effort was put into it than that in some cases, some people just want to name a "species", no matter how dubious it is. Your definition must not say various sub-Saharan African groups are different species, despite their genetic diversity, or for that matter that there are more than one currently existent Human species, otherwise quite a few people will get mad.

by chasil 4y ago

ncmncm 4y ago

For us anyway. Doesn't mean neanderthals suffered from it. I.e., it could be just a neuromolecular incompatibility.

svnt 4y ago

Am I reading the paper incorrectly? The finding was the opposite (i.e. that increased NeanderScore is correlated with reduced schizophrenia diagnoses/symptoms), wasn’t it? The inspiration for the study appears to be to explore why humans do and animals don’t appear to have schizophrenia, and assuming Neanderthals are closer to animals. I agree about calling it conjecture though. The finding had marginal p-values in a study that appears to be hiding its sample size (it doesn’t disclose the ratio of schizophrenia cases to controls in its four case-control datasets) and so is quite possibly underpowered.

feet 4y ago
>assuming Neanderthals are closer to animals What does that even mean
- svnt 4y ago
  In terms of neurological structure and function they seem likely to have had a more typical primate/mammalian appearance. This assumption is commonly made because they don’t appear to have worked with abstract symbols and may not have been able to develop language beyond animal communication.

barbariangrunge 4y ago

The article describes them as a different species — but doesn’t that mean we should not have been able to create viable offspring with them? What am I misunderstanding?

Vecr 4y ago
Species are somewhat arbitrary, basically at the time of species categorization was it common to think reproduction within this fuzzy group was more common than in some other proposed categorization, or something like that. Probably even less effort was put into it than that in some cases, some people just want to name a "species", no matter how dubious it is. Your definition must not say various sub-Saharan African groups are different species, despite their genetic diversity, or for that matter that there are more than one currently existent Human species, otherwise quite a few people will get mad.