Individual Competitiveness


Some species will evolve under conditions which offer periodic advantage to both r and K-type psychologies. If resources are variable in their availability, a species may find itself periodically experiencing a plethora of resources, which produces a surge in the r-type cohort of the populace. Subsequent periods of resource insufficiency then will cull these r-type psychologies, aggressively, leaving a more K-type population. If the period of resource insufficiency is short enough, enough r-type psychologies will remain that they will be able to surge again, when resources again become easily acquirable.

When these conditions arise, both r and K-type psychologies will exist within populations. When this occurs, these psychologies will eventually evolve to compete with each other, as each is the Darwinian enemy of the other. In the book, we illustrate this using the Australian Giant Cuttlefish as an example.

During periods of resource insufficiency, the K-type psychologies will quickly eradicate the r-type trait in open, free competition. Those r-type individuals who persist will do so by adapting strategies to seek to avoid this outcome through competition aversion and subversion.

Conversely, the K-type psychology, so welcoming of free competition, will see its competitive drive gradually increase, until individuals are actually performing ritualized competitions prior to mating.

This state of affairs produces something beyond the mere acceptance of competition or aversions towards competitions that one sees in the r and K-type psychologies. Here, K-type psychologies evolve to actually purposefully test their own genetic mettle prior to mating. Those who fail such tests, and prove less fit than their peers actually evolve to accept their failure, and abide by the rules which govern such competitions. In the Australian Giant Cuttlefish, a large squid-like creature, males flash colorful patterns on their skins prior to mating. Those males who flash the brightest, most impressive displays then lay claim to females, and father children with them. Those males who fail to demonstrate sufficient control of their skin coloration accept their losses, and move on without mating. As a result of this self imposed competitive selection for fitness prior to mating, these Cuttlefish have evolved a skin structure which is capable of projecting an actual image of their background on their skin, camouflaging them perfectly.

In this case, the simple acceptance of competition evolved into a drive to compete, and this produced superior levels of fitness. We call this further evolution of the K-type psychology an individually Competitive psychology. Instead of a passive willingness to confront others when necessary, this psychology is driven to confront others in rule governed competitions, designed to actively test fitness, and reward the fit.

Of course, the r-type psychology persisted within this cuttlefish population as well. Confronted with a K-type psychology which evolved ever faster due to its embrace of competitive selections prior to mating, the r-type cohort of the population evolved to actually exploit the Competitor’s competitions, for personal gain.

When Competitive males meet, to compete with each other, the r-type male changes their skin coloration to the pastel colors of a female. They draw in their long, flowing male tentacles, making them short and stubby like a female’s. Dressed like a pastel colored female, these r-type males glide in past the brightly colored K-type males, and mate quickly with the waiting female, before slipping away unnoticed.

Here, the r-type psychology’s aversion to competition with peers adapts into an actual strategy designed to not just avoid competitions, but to actively seek advantage when confronted with the K-type Competitor’s competitive scheme. Those r-type individuals which simply sought to avoid the K-type Competitor’s competitions, failed to acquire mates, and died. Eventually however, a few adapted to exploit the Competitive male’s adherence to rules, and these rule breakers persisted, and became the defacto form of the r-type organism.

Because this diverges from the simple passive aversion to competition of the r-type psychology, we consider this an evolutionary advancement of the r-selected psychology, and we call it Anticompetitiveness.

In this model, note how the Competitor is driven to engage in complex, rule-governed selective competitions, designed to ascertain who is the most fit, and reward them from a Darwinian perspective.

By contrast, the Anticompetitor is designed to avoid engaging in these competitions, while still seeking advantage within the competitive environment through violations of the rules of honor which govern the competition.

Here, again, we see the Conservative’s drive towards a free market economy, regulated only to produce a fair assessment of each individual’s economic acumen. We see the Conservative’s innate perception that one must take responsibility for one’s own economic decisions, even if they turn out badly. We also see the Conservative’s willingness to tolerate disparities in these competitive outcomes, even if these disparities are bad for the Conservative themselves..

On the other side, we see the far left’s desire to use government to prevent these competitions (through such far left ideologies as Communism and Socialism), stifle their effects through redistribution of resources from successful to unsuccessful, as well as exploit governmental power so as to impose rules and restrictions upon others, while breaking such rules themselves for personal advantage.

The Conservative seeks an environment where everyone competes and decisions have consequences, and they call it freedom. The Liberal derides such a freely competitive environment as social Darwinism, and seeks to stifle such freedom through force of government, while seeking personal advantage for themselves wherever they can find it.

Clearly, as the r and K-type psychologies diverged in their evolution, they only became closer to the modern political ideologies of Liberalism and Conservatism.

Comments are closed.