>>14402586>1.You'll have to explain what you mean by 'others'. If you mean other people then you should throw yourself into traffic or at least get sterilized to spare any progeny from life as an imbecile. We're not talking about individuals, and I already explained that secondary pressures make sure the distribution of the population as a whole doesn't reach a maladaptive level of neuroticism, but we can expect to see crippling neuroticism on its fringes because there is a selection pressure for that trait. Neuroticism is a spectrum and not a problematic thing in itself. Everyone has some level of neuroticisim, whether it's low or high or just right to make sure we distinguish threats and non-threats perfectly.
>2.Let's slow things down to make sure we both understand what is meant by neuroticism here. Neuroticism is broadly defined as the sensitivity of perception to a threat. We are all wired to respond to threats, why that's the case should be clear (though my charity to you is why we're at this point). The strength of our response to a threat is in proportion to our perception of its severity. If a threat is underestimated our response would be inadequate, and we would me more likely to succumb to it. If a threat is overestimated we would overcompensate for that level of danger, which could be bad but in all likelihood is still far better than if we had been too complacent. In this way, higher levels of neuroticism are more advantageous than lower.
>redditor pattern fluff about 'pop-evo-psych' or some shitOP asked what the evolutionary advantage of neuroticism is. I spelled it out for you after you posted your little facetious remark, and now I've really driven it home. I'm speaking in concrete terms backed by rigorous theory that can be empirically tested. This has nothing to do with psychology as a field or how it claims neuroticism works, only why evolution would favor the behaviors it gives that label.
