Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

Recommended Posts

As I was listening to the gene wars podcasts one thing kept going trough my head. "The alpha male athlete" who is 1) Competitive & takes responsibility (K selection) but 2) has a super high sex drive and is polygamic. Where does he fall in the r/K theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

r

Wider Range in Intelligence.
Strong in group preference. Genocidally so.
Breed over and then to carrying capacity.
Less Conscientious usually. 
Spray and Pray.

r Country: Not really sure, but maybe an African one or former Yugoslavia and Venuzuala. 

K

Usually physically stronger. Tend to be Taller.
Tend to be smarter overall.
Risk adverse, Less Entreprenurial.
Slower maturation.
Tend to be more conscientious. Though not always, thinking of perhaps China or the Native Americans... maybe.
Tend to be more competitive. Again though, not always, off shoot of conscientiousness(more K) and agreeableness(More r) perhaps.
Breed to carrying capacity of environment, or under capacity.
Weak Ingroup preference or even Outgroup preference!
Greater sexual dimorphism. Men more masculine, Women more femmine.
One Shot One Kill.

K Country: Norway, maybe Iceland might be more K.

-------

@QwertyDavid

1) What sort of athlete? American Football is going to usually be more r imo. Makes me think of the beginning of the movie Idiocracy. On the otherhand, if they're taking a calculated risk for a scholarship, might be a bit different.

2) Polygamy is definitely more r.

3) Lawyers maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, QwertyDavid said:

People who got their life together but also have a super high sex drive, what are they?

What do you mean by "got their life together"?

Like for me, I think someone who "got their life together" would want to pay it forward and start a family.

Also not sure what having a "super high sex drive" is trying to imply. Pretty sure any male with healthy levels of testosterone can feel like they have a high sex drive 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I mean is this:

You have super competitive athletes (more K) who are having a lot of sex with different people (more r)

And testosterone has K and r effects, it makes you more competitive, physically stronger and increases sex drive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2018 at 9:27 PM, RichardY said:

r

Strong in group preference. Genocidally so.
Breed over and then to carrying capacity.
 

 

Group selection and in-group preference is K.

https://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/the-theory/rk-selection-theory/

Quote

As time goes on, and K-selection continues, forming into competitive groups will often emerge as a strategy to acquire resources. This will add add loyalty to in-group to the suite of K-type psychological characteristics.

Living at the carrying capacity of the environment is K.

r selection is anti-competitive or non-competitive in an environment where resources are largely free and unlimited. Think of a bunch of rabbits in a field of grass with a high mortality rate due to predation. There will always be more than enough grass for those rabbits as long as the hawks and foxes keep their population down. Rabbits do not fight back against predators and they do not compete against each other for food.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2018 at 8:35 AM, QwertyDavid said:

As I was listening to the gene wars podcasts one thing kept going trough my head. "The alpha male athlete" who is 1) Competitive & takes responsibility (K selection) but 2) has a super high sex drive and is polygamic. Where does he fall in the r/K theory?

Monogamy is K because it allows two parents, which increases offspring quality. In the age of birth control, it is possible to be polygamous but still K in that regard. However, if he's having kids with lots of different women, I'd argue he's r, because he will produce lower quality, r-selected children of single mothers. The point of K selected competition is to find a high quality K selected mate. If he's having kids with lots of women, he's not doing that, because high quality K women would not allow that. Depending on how promiscuous and risky his behavior is, he could be r, K, or not fit well in either category. IMHO. r/K selection is a bit confusing. I don't fully understand it myself yet. I'd recommend Anonymous Conservative's book on the topic.

Edited by Will 001
clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ticketyboo said:

Group selection and in-group preference is K.

I disagree with in group preference due to genetic factors. Group selection only so far as bonds of trust can be formed between two people, not so much the drug induced connection between mother and child.

1 hour ago, ticketyboo said:

Living at the carrying capacity of the environment is K.

I'd say they live below carrying capacity, in anticaption of changes in environmental conditions. Such as changes in temperature leading to poor crop yields. Or waiting to maturity of seed as with the Red Squirel vs the Grey Squirel eatting sooner, by deferral of the red squirel allowing an increase in future potential carrying capacity, rather then living at carrying capacity as you suggested.

Where as r live at carrying capacity which are then checked by lack of resources or changes in the environment. Even though rabbits will not usally deplete vegatation due to predation, unless we are talking Australia(myxomatosis...) where there will not always be enough grass, or island rabbit colonies

1 hour ago, ticketyboo said:

r selection is anti-competitive or non-competitive in an environment where resources are largely free and unlimited. Think of a bunch of rabbits in a field of grass with a high mortality rate due to predation. There will always be more than enough grass for those rabbits as long as the hawks and foxes keep their population down. Rabbits do not fight back against predators and they do not compete against each other for food.

Is anti-competitive. Which is why in group preference is important. I mean that in the base biological sense and not through any social bonds of trust that may develop. I'm thinking of more southern european countries(Italy) or the middle east, where motherfu*ker is possibly not an insult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@RichardY Anonymous Conservative's seminal book states that in group preference is K. You might be confused because White people currently have weak in-group preference. According to the book, some human populations are innately more r, and some more K. However, they also adapt to their immediate environment. Right now, White people are not very K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Will 001 said:

@RichardY Anonymous Conservative's seminal book states that in group preference is K. You might be confused because White people currently have weak in-group preference. According to the book, some human populations are innately more r, and some more K. However, they also adapt to their immediate environment. Right now, White people are not very K.

How do you know you're not confused? The conservatives are typically losing, so why are you taking some annoymous ones advice?

What is a K-Selected country then, to give an example?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 minutes ago, Will 001 said:

@RichardY I know I'm not confused because it's the seminal book on r/K selection in politics. 

So, because you say so? Conservatives are losing so how does it make it "seminal"? The second defintion of seminal may be more appropriate.

I mean I guess Japan could be considered K. But their history is kind of messed up with rapid technological development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Will 001 At least Darwin had the balls to publish his name, kind of hard to talk about someone when you don't know their name. There was actually a scientist before Darwin that developed an evolutionary theory, but was not acknowledged, heard it from listening to "A history of Western Philosophy".

Conservative psychology in the populace – since the wolves are the only psychology which is capable of weathering the storm produced by the rabbit

Must be some viscious rabbits, as the rabbits seem to be emasculating the wolves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cashing in with word salad. Oh look at "me" these are the conservative pundits that have said things about r/K now buy my book. SAVE AMERICA!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.