LETTERS
ence can be thought of as tantamount to subtle sanction-as though ‘praising with faint damns.” It is my contention that problem sexual behavior’ refers to the problem of parents who are often at a loss to comprehend the increasingly early arrival of sexual attitudes and ex‘
‘ ‘
‘
periences of their children. Thus early sexuality may be a product of biological change, and such change may be more relative to earlier menarche and-as is my thesis-biological priming. It has been my experience that parents were relieved to learn that the sexual drivenness of their daughters was possibly related to biology rather than the clich#{233}of sexual acting-out of unconscious factors.
Dr. Abernethy’s
point
regarding
the relationship
of above-
is implicitly
tionary
no data
Dr.
their
socioeconomic
were
representative
IQ of parents, was
but my impression
that
of the general
the
assembled
of
be
population.
convinced that there are other girls who have been with virilizing agents whose sexual behavior repreonly part of a cluster of symptoms. It remains for practo keep the possibility in mind, ask for the relevant and assemble data. Then the matter of whether enintelligence as a result of virilizing agents is a valid can be approached through matched studies using samples. GOODMAN,
Saddle
Selection
and
the distinction
pudiation festations
ning
and
of our efforts to understand the of psychopathological syndromes.
Rit’er,
to discover
differences
in how
psychosis origins We
psychiatric
human
condition,
there
is always
danger
and are
manibegin-
illnesses
that
his
depressed
is like-
or
anxious
phylogenetic
adaptation.
broad avenue, not a side and freedom. I believe it is evidence to speculate that facts suggest. H.
M.D. N. Y.
INGRAM.
York,
Replies
SIR: My operational for heuristic purposes.
because addressed troduction sue.
the
are
the
to the observ-
er will defend what seems to him to be successful and condemn as less fit that which he happens to dislike. According to Dr. Sloman, neurosis was more likely to occur in persons with poorer genetic endowment than the group at large.
definition I prefer
of neurosis was restricted to use the term “neurosis”
other theories I refer to use it and appear to have themselves to the same phenomenon I have. Inof another term would have confounded the is-
I agree with Dr. Ingram about the importance of differentiating the genetic mechanisms of neurosis and psychosis. I refrained from doing so, initially, only to avoid a dilution of I believe
disposition
is a re-
of neurosis. of natural selection the
of enhancing
Sloman
N.J.
genetically transmitted, and this information is certainly relevant to a paper on evolution. If Dr. Sloman does not feel this is the case, he should have offered more reason for excluding this vital area. Furthermore, Dr. Sloman purposely omits from his definition ofneurosis “the adaptive reactions of personality to anxiety and depression. ‘ ‘ I believe this omission is untenable. The cognitive, emotional, and behavioral reactions to painful affect, whether such reactions seem adaptive
or not, form an essential component Second, in applying the concept
to
of evolu-
healthy
New
that
transmission
there
is convincing
of
to neurosis
evidence
psychosis
is present
(I),
and
of a direct
that
in all of us but
of neurosis is the result of an interactional is no evidence of any specific gene or group
directly
neurosis
superior
DOUGLAS
genetic
Neurosis
between
application
is emotionally
endowment is a for much choice cynical in the absence of scientific we are determined more than the
M.D.
SIR: In his thoughtful attempt at explaining the relationship between the high prevalence of neurosis and Darwinian theory in “The Role ofNeurosis in Phylogenetic Adaptation, with Particular Reference to Early Man,” Leon Sloman, M.R.C.S. , L.R.C.P. , erred in certain important ways. First, the term “neurosis’ ‘ is used incorrectly. To gloss
over
incorrect
genetic It allows
gence There Natural
genetically
purpose
Our street.
focus.
D.
JEROME
by this
is that one who
cases
I am
primed sents titioners history, hanced concept control
EDITOR
neighbor. Third, the fact that we possess a potential to be neurotic does not mean that our becoming so is determined, to any degree, by our genes. Neither does it follow that because we suffer from neurosis, neurosis fulfills a purpose, even the
have
status
defended
biology
ly to
grand
the
THE
These unfortunate prehistoric neurotics presumably felt infenor and became anxious and depressed because they really were inferior. Eventually, in his view, their less adequate genetic contribution to the species was lost, and the genetic complement of the species was benefited. The position that
average intelligence and exposure to virilizing influences illustrates the need for further study in this area. Intelligence is the summation of multifactonal input, and it could as easily be stated that the sisters of daughters born to progestintreated mothers grew up in enhanced environments, with the primary progestin-enhanced sibling serving as additional input. It may be very difficult to reach endpoints of determination in this area, because it remains unsettled as to whether intelligence can ever be conceived of as an absolute or relative capacity. In the small number ofcases that I described, I
about
TO
contributing
to susceptibility
the the
preemer-
process. of genes
to neurosis.
Dr. Ingram’s basic objection seems to be his perception of an implied link between neurosis and genetic inferiority. I emphasized that my hypothesis applies to prehistoric man. In our society, the “Peter principle,” which states that one rises
to one’s
relax
and
highest
cause
oftechnological
enjoy
ral selection Although society,
advantage neurosis
Shields member presence
one’s
point
of inadequacy, makes it harder to (2). For this reason and bemedical progress. Darwinian natu-
successes and
can be said to no longer apply in our society (3). my hypothesis does not apply to contemporary it is possible
may, than
that
those
in certain those
who
are
(4) has demonstrated of a binovular twin of neurosis
who
are
circumstances,
in one
better
at
a genetic
be more
endowed.
that
the
For
less
prone
dis-
to
example,
intelligent
pair
is also more neurotic. The member of the twin pair may be
secondary to his or her intellectual disadvantage or, conversely, the neurosis may be primary and the poor intellectual performance secondary. These possibilities are not mutually exclusive and both would be in accord with my condept of the neurotic maladaptive vicious cycle. Dr. Ingram focuses on possible negative implications of what I have said, but I prefer to take a more positive view. For example, when a psychotherapist helps to eliminate a maladaptive vicious cycle in a patient, he or she may succeed in preventing more severe pathology, and a minimal intervention may therefore have a major impact. AmJPsychiatry
133:11,
November
1976
1351
LETTERS
tive tive
TO
THE
EDITOR
In the final paragraph of my paper, I referred to the posiaspect of healthy adaptation. My focus on the maladapcomponents was based on the need to be selective. In-
stead of elaborating on how the phylogenetic maladaptation of the individual leads to his or her ontogenetic maladaptation, one could have emphasized the positive aspect of adaptation by focusing on the mechanisms whereby phylogenetic adaptation promotes ontogenetic adaptation. I believe that there is ample evidence for this adaptive circle, which is precisely the converse ofthe maladaptive vicious cycle that I described. This could also be seen as a mechanism that promoted the action of natural selection by aiding the survival of the fittest. When Dr. Ingram argues that ‘ ‘it is cynical in the absence of’ scientific evidence to speculate that we are determined
more than the facts suggest.’ he shows a reluctance to apply evolutionary principles to human behavior. I suggest that the apparent absence of scientific evidence results merely from the limitations of space in my article. I have been impressed by the abundance of evidence for this theory emanating from various fields, including ethology, cultural anthropology. social psychology, etc. I agree with Dr. Ingram that our “genetic endowment . . . allows for much choice and freedom,” ‘
LETTERS
mits. Like The letter has
been
Am J Psychiatry
species.
REFERENCES I. Kety 55, Rosenthal D, Wender PH, et al: Mental illness in the biological and adoptive families of adopted individuals who have become schizophrenic: a preliminary report based upon psychiatric interviews, in Genetic Research in Psychiatry: Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the American Psychopathological Association. Edited by Fieve R, Brill H, Rosenthal D. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975, pp 147165 2. Peter U. Hull R: The Peter Principle. New York, William Morrow, 1964 3. Huxley J: Evolution: The Modern Synthesis. London, Allen and Unwin, 1963 4. Shields J: Personality differences and neurotic traits in normal twin schoolchildren. Eugenics Review 45:230-231, 1952 LEON
THE EDITOR are welcomed and will be published. other material submitted for publication. they must should not exceed 500 words. including references.
TO
made
will not ordinarily
1352
and I believe that the ideas I have presented could enable us to marvel at the creativity of our genetic potential, both in terms of our individual development and our evolution as a
/33:/
with
the
Editor,
and
be acknowledged.
/ November ,
1976
they
will
be subject
to the
SLOMAN,
M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P. Toronto, Ont. , Canada
iffound suitable, as space perbe typewritten double-spaced. unless a special arrangement usual editing. Receipt of letters
ence can be thought of as tantamount to subtle sanction-as though ‘praising with faint damns.” It is my contention that problem sexual behavior’ refers to the problem of parents who are often at a loss to comprehend the increasingly early arrival of sexual attitudes and ex‘
‘ ‘
‘
periences of their children. Thus early sexuality may be a product of biological change, and such change may be more relative to earlier menarche and-as is my thesis-biological priming. It has been my experience that parents were relieved to learn that the sexual drivenness of their daughters was possibly related to biology rather than the clich#{233}of sexual acting-out of unconscious factors.
Dr. Abernethy’s
point
regarding
the relationship
of above-
is implicitly
tionary
no data
Dr.
their
socioeconomic
were
representative
IQ of parents, was
but my impression
that
of the general
the
assembled
of
be
population.
convinced that there are other girls who have been with virilizing agents whose sexual behavior repreonly part of a cluster of symptoms. It remains for practo keep the possibility in mind, ask for the relevant and assemble data. Then the matter of whether enintelligence as a result of virilizing agents is a valid can be approached through matched studies using samples. GOODMAN,
Saddle
Selection
and
the distinction
pudiation festations
ning
and
of our efforts to understand the of psychopathological syndromes.
Rit’er,
to discover
differences
in how
psychosis origins We
psychiatric
human
condition,
there
is always
danger
and are
manibegin-
illnesses
that
his
depressed
is like-
or
anxious
phylogenetic
adaptation.
broad avenue, not a side and freedom. I believe it is evidence to speculate that facts suggest. H.
M.D. N. Y.
INGRAM.
York,
Replies
SIR: My operational for heuristic purposes.
because addressed troduction sue.
the
are
the
to the observ-
er will defend what seems to him to be successful and condemn as less fit that which he happens to dislike. According to Dr. Sloman, neurosis was more likely to occur in persons with poorer genetic endowment than the group at large.
definition I prefer
of neurosis was restricted to use the term “neurosis”
other theories I refer to use it and appear to have themselves to the same phenomenon I have. Inof another term would have confounded the is-
I agree with Dr. Ingram about the importance of differentiating the genetic mechanisms of neurosis and psychosis. I refrained from doing so, initially, only to avoid a dilution of I believe
disposition
is a re-
of neurosis. of natural selection the
of enhancing
Sloman
N.J.
genetically transmitted, and this information is certainly relevant to a paper on evolution. If Dr. Sloman does not feel this is the case, he should have offered more reason for excluding this vital area. Furthermore, Dr. Sloman purposely omits from his definition ofneurosis “the adaptive reactions of personality to anxiety and depression. ‘ ‘ I believe this omission is untenable. The cognitive, emotional, and behavioral reactions to painful affect, whether such reactions seem adaptive
or not, form an essential component Second, in applying the concept
to
of evolu-
healthy
New
that
transmission
there
is convincing
of
to neurosis
evidence
psychosis
is present
(I),
and
of a direct
that
in all of us but
of neurosis is the result of an interactional is no evidence of any specific gene or group
directly
neurosis
superior
DOUGLAS
genetic
Neurosis
between
application
is emotionally
endowment is a for much choice cynical in the absence of scientific we are determined more than the
M.D.
SIR: In his thoughtful attempt at explaining the relationship between the high prevalence of neurosis and Darwinian theory in “The Role ofNeurosis in Phylogenetic Adaptation, with Particular Reference to Early Man,” Leon Sloman, M.R.C.S. , L.R.C.P. , erred in certain important ways. First, the term “neurosis’ ‘ is used incorrectly. To gloss
over
incorrect
genetic It allows
gence There Natural
genetically
purpose
Our street.
focus.
D.
JEROME
by this
is that one who
cases
I am
primed sents titioners history, hanced concept control
EDITOR
neighbor. Third, the fact that we possess a potential to be neurotic does not mean that our becoming so is determined, to any degree, by our genes. Neither does it follow that because we suffer from neurosis, neurosis fulfills a purpose, even the
have
status
defended
biology
ly to
grand
the
THE
These unfortunate prehistoric neurotics presumably felt infenor and became anxious and depressed because they really were inferior. Eventually, in his view, their less adequate genetic contribution to the species was lost, and the genetic complement of the species was benefited. The position that
average intelligence and exposure to virilizing influences illustrates the need for further study in this area. Intelligence is the summation of multifactonal input, and it could as easily be stated that the sisters of daughters born to progestintreated mothers grew up in enhanced environments, with the primary progestin-enhanced sibling serving as additional input. It may be very difficult to reach endpoints of determination in this area, because it remains unsettled as to whether intelligence can ever be conceived of as an absolute or relative capacity. In the small number ofcases that I described, I
about
TO
contributing
to susceptibility
the the
preemer-
process. of genes
to neurosis.
Dr. Ingram’s basic objection seems to be his perception of an implied link between neurosis and genetic inferiority. I emphasized that my hypothesis applies to prehistoric man. In our society, the “Peter principle,” which states that one rises
to one’s
relax
and
highest
cause
oftechnological
enjoy
ral selection Although society,
advantage neurosis
Shields member presence
one’s
point
of inadequacy, makes it harder to (2). For this reason and bemedical progress. Darwinian natu-
successes and
can be said to no longer apply in our society (3). my hypothesis does not apply to contemporary it is possible
may, than
that
those
in certain those
who
are
(4) has demonstrated of a binovular twin of neurosis
who
are
circumstances,
in one
better
at
a genetic
be more
endowed.
that
the
For
less
prone
dis-
to
example,
intelligent
pair
is also more neurotic. The member of the twin pair may be
secondary to his or her intellectual disadvantage or, conversely, the neurosis may be primary and the poor intellectual performance secondary. These possibilities are not mutually exclusive and both would be in accord with my condept of the neurotic maladaptive vicious cycle. Dr. Ingram focuses on possible negative implications of what I have said, but I prefer to take a more positive view. For example, when a psychotherapist helps to eliminate a maladaptive vicious cycle in a patient, he or she may succeed in preventing more severe pathology, and a minimal intervention may therefore have a major impact. AmJPsychiatry
133:11,
November
1976
1351
LETTERS
tive tive
TO
THE
EDITOR
In the final paragraph of my paper, I referred to the posiaspect of healthy adaptation. My focus on the maladapcomponents was based on the need to be selective. In-
stead of elaborating on how the phylogenetic maladaptation of the individual leads to his or her ontogenetic maladaptation, one could have emphasized the positive aspect of adaptation by focusing on the mechanisms whereby phylogenetic adaptation promotes ontogenetic adaptation. I believe that there is ample evidence for this adaptive circle, which is precisely the converse ofthe maladaptive vicious cycle that I described. This could also be seen as a mechanism that promoted the action of natural selection by aiding the survival of the fittest. When Dr. Ingram argues that ‘ ‘it is cynical in the absence of’ scientific evidence to speculate that we are determined
more than the facts suggest.’ he shows a reluctance to apply evolutionary principles to human behavior. I suggest that the apparent absence of scientific evidence results merely from the limitations of space in my article. I have been impressed by the abundance of evidence for this theory emanating from various fields, including ethology, cultural anthropology. social psychology, etc. I agree with Dr. Ingram that our “genetic endowment . . . allows for much choice and freedom,” ‘
LETTERS
mits. Like The letter has
been
Am J Psychiatry
species.
REFERENCES I. Kety 55, Rosenthal D, Wender PH, et al: Mental illness in the biological and adoptive families of adopted individuals who have become schizophrenic: a preliminary report based upon psychiatric interviews, in Genetic Research in Psychiatry: Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the American Psychopathological Association. Edited by Fieve R, Brill H, Rosenthal D. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975, pp 147165 2. Peter U. Hull R: The Peter Principle. New York, William Morrow, 1964 3. Huxley J: Evolution: The Modern Synthesis. London, Allen and Unwin, 1963 4. Shields J: Personality differences and neurotic traits in normal twin schoolchildren. Eugenics Review 45:230-231, 1952 LEON
THE EDITOR are welcomed and will be published. other material submitted for publication. they must should not exceed 500 words. including references.
TO
made
will not ordinarily
1352
and I believe that the ideas I have presented could enable us to marvel at the creativity of our genetic potential, both in terms of our individual development and our evolution as a
/33:/
with
the
Editor,
and
be acknowledged.
/ November ,
1976
they
will
be subject
to the
SLOMAN,
M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P. Toronto, Ont. , Canada
iffound suitable, as space perbe typewritten double-spaced. unless a special arrangement usual editing. Receipt of letters
