Warfare and Group Selection

In a heavily K-selected, conflict-prone environment, it has become apparent that some individuals will adapt by banding together with others. This will produce a group competitive environment. In the book, we delve into group selection and the research associated with it in much greater detail. Here we will only point out that the group competitive environment is individually selective for individuals who both function well within a group and successfully band together with others who function well within a group.

After a bunch of groups set about killing each other, the group which survives (and produces the next iteration of the species) will be composed of individuals who worked well with others in pursuit of common goals, and who sought out others of like mind to join with them. There will be a lot of genetic collateral damage for sure, but statistically, over time, this will produce a population of individuals who exhibit pro-social natures, and who seek out compatriots of similarly pro-social, group-centric bents.

This is the next evolution of the K-selected psychology. It is the foundation of our modern civilization. It is also the origin of group warfare, as well as our modern business environment. Most importantly, it is this evolutionary step that is responsible for all of the pro-social traits we value in humans today, from honesty, to honor, to loyalty, to selflessness.

Because joining into groups, for the purposes of seizing resources in free competition, is such a divergence from the K-type and individually Competitive psychologies, we differentiate this evolution of the K-type psychology from previous incarnations, and term it the Warrior psychology.

Confronted with the highly K-selected, group competitive environment, the r-type Anticompetitor did not have many options. If they stayed alone, they would die during periods of resource scarcity, either through starvation or at the hands of groups of K-type Warriors. If they sought to join in a group with other r-type Anticompetitors, for the purposes of war, they would have been killed by fitter, and more capable K-type groups.

Confronted with these circumstances, the r-type psychology did what it did in the case of the Giant Cuttlefish. It first used deception to avoid being killed, by becoming programmed to seek to join with groups of K-type individuals, portraying themselves as part of the group. It then further adapted to this competitive environment by seeking it’s own personal advantage through using the K-type psychology’s rules of competition against them.

Using psychological research into the personality traits of ideologues, we show how Liberal openness to out-group interests, Liberal willingness to break rules, Liberal rejection of authority, and Liberal tendencies towards non-violence are all traits which would tend to being defeat to a society which followed them in a K-selective, group competitive environment. These are also traits designed to curry favor with individuals in the very out-groups which seek to defeat the Liberal’s in-group. We also note that the use of betrayal of one’s population as a survival strategy in group competition would allow an r-type psychology to use a foreign force of K-type individuals to eradicate the r-type individual’s local competition for mates and resources. If the r-type psychology curried favor with this enemy, before initiating the defeat of their population, they would be well positioned to actually use the K-type Warrior’s competitions against him, ala the r-type transvestite cuttlefish’s exploitation of the rules governing their flashing competitions. Following their society’s defeat, the conquering force would likely allow them to survive, and might even promote them to positions of power within the new occupation. Meanwhile, their primary competition within the population, the K-type Warriors, were killed in the defeat, without the r-type individuals even having to compete against them.

Since the r-type adaption to group competition is such a complex divergence from simple individual Anticompetitiveness, we differentiate this further evolution of the r-type psychology by naming it Appeasement.

In the book, we show how the Liberal’s diminished amygdala volume in their brain is associated with a tendency to judge threats as allies, as well as exhibit diminished pro-sociality, both of which would tend to produce defeat in group competition. We examine research showing Liberals will show increased openess to out-group interests, and diminished loyalty to in-group interests. We also point out how r-strategists need a form of mortality, applied to their population, to free up the resource availability they need to enjoy adantage, relative to K-strategists. Using violent conflict to reduce popualtion loads, and kill local K-selected competition is a brilliant strategy to increase the ability fo the r-strategist to survive, under what would otherwise be lethal K-selecting environmental conditions.

Interestingly, faced with the prospect of certain defeat as a lone individual within a group competitive species during periods of K-selection, the r-type psychology adapted to be ready to seek a high risk, high reward strategy of using betrayal as a strategy in group competition, to eliminate their K-selected opponents. It is a brilliant adaption.

The only threat such a strategy offers, is the possibility of out-grouping, by K-selected members of the in-group. If out-grouped, or otherwise exposed for what they are, the r-selected Liberal will be quickly killed or perhaps expelled, which would likely prove just as fatal. As a result, it would be likely that Liberals would have evolved a strong aversion to any such stimulus.

Before one criticizes this controversial conclusion, one must remember that ideology is a spectrum. On the one side will be the diehard nationalist. He will tend to embody K-type traits, such as support for freedom, reduced tendencies towards anticompetitiveness and redistributionism, increased support for abstinence until monogamy, and support for high-investment, traditional child rearing. On the other end of the spectrum will be the diehard Liberal Hippie, who opposes all forms of aggressive capitalism, competition, and economic freedom. The Hippie will tend to support promiscuity and early onset sexual behavior, and he will tend to perform lower investment child-rearing. Of course, the Hippie will also espouse pacifism, as a means of seeking his own nation’s defeat in times of war, against an evil communist enemy who tortured his own troops.

These urges, including the urge to use betrayal in group competition, will present in all manner of leftism. The only difference in their presentation will be in degree of leftist ideology, and opportunity. From opposing the surge in Iraq, to supporting the release of detainees in Guantanamo, to viewing the US as inherently evil, this work is the only scientific study to date which explains all of these traits.

It would be foolish to ignore it’s logic, especially when it offers us such an opportunity to grasp the psychological levers which control their behavior.

Comments are closed.