Natural selection wants us to be crazy — at least a little bit.
Cooperative relationships were critical to ensuring access to food, whether through farming or more strategic hunting, and those with blunt social skills were unlikely to survive,
Do we really see family lines in humanity die off because of "lack of social skills"?
In some cases, do we not find those with less social skills having more children?
...nature cares about genes, not joy,
Now, matter possesses "personality".
But even if 16 million men today can trace their genes to Genghis Khan (nature's definition of uber-success can be measured by his prolific paternity), very few potential despots achieve such heights.
Success defined by naturalism - prolific paternity of this nature?
Certain types of depression, however, Geary continued, may be advantageous.
That's nice. Remember this the next time naturalists look at you crazy when you suggest there can be purpose in suffering.
Evolution likely favored individuals who pause and reassess ambitions, instead of wasting energy being blindly optimistic.
Natural selection also likely held the door open for disorders such as attention deficit.
Where's the hope for humanity now that it's not just toward the fittest, but the unfit that it moves?
Similarly, in its mildest form, bipolar disorder can increase productivity and creativity. Bipolar individuals (and their relatives) also often have more sex than average people, Geary noted.
The goal now for all should be to become bipolar?
Sex, and survival of one's kids, is the whole point — as far as nature is concerned
What about being bi-polar, depressed, unsocial, etc.? Oh, what about "prolific" paternity? Who determines the ultimate point?
Summary: Naturalism.... One must BE crazy!