Dwarkesh Patel

And to the extent that the genetics are relevant to why that population replaced the other one,

Why should that not count towards what we understand to be selection over the last 10,000 years?

Okay.

In this next section, David explains the nitty gritty of the methodology of this paper.

It's honestly a bit technical and I wanted you to get a sense of the results first.

So I've moved that section to the end.

If you want to understand the methodology, just stick around for the full episode.

Okay.

You found these locations that seem to be under selection.

Oh, another clarifying question.

So you have

You say 3,800 locations, which we were 50% confident have been under selection in the last 10,000 years.

Does that also mean that outside of those 7,200, you're confident the other location the genome are not under selection?

No.

And just to make sure I understand, this is not to say that behavioral traits or psychiatric traits or cognitive traits are not under selection.

It's just that the individual sites where such traits are controlled are not especially likely to be

among the locations that you've identified as under selection.

Interesting.

Okay, so it might be helpful to, in the paper, you have many examples of this intensification of selection around the Bronze Age.

And so feel free to navigate it yourself, but it might be helpful to go through some of these examples.