Criticism Of r/K Theory In The Comments

You don’t see this here every day. In this post, I wrote this:

As the research shows, once you attach such an aversive stimulus pathway to a concept in the amygdala, you cannot destroy that neural pathway, unlike in other areas of the brain… At most, with extensive deconditioning work, you can create a second suppressive-circuit to suppress the amygdala trigger…

Carmen decides to try and criticize that assertion about the amygdala, and me, in the comments:

What specific research? Citations please, NOT your own interpretation of studies that have little to do with your own premises. You have been known to take research and twist and turn their conclusions to “prove” your own point.

Notice the distraction with the argument, and then the slipping in the subtle assertion I lie about research. Carmen is not trained in hypnosis, but as a leftist, naturally has some subconscious grasp of trying to slip snide comments under the radar. I suspect it is a byproduct of never being able to directly confront people due to physical limitations.

I told her to check the book for the cite, and she responded with this:

YOUR research, huh. “As the research shows, once you attach such an aversive stimulus pathway to a concept in the amygdala, you cannot destroy that neural pathway, unlike in other areas of the brain.”

Because that neural pathway can be altered so as the aversive stimulus is reduced in intensity, thus decreasing fear. Besides, your track record of research is, shall we say, dubious.

More subtle, unsubstantiated insults. It was getting tedious, so I went with the amygdala-bang to move Carmen on:

I know as a leftist, you assume you automatically can show up and school everyone in any subject at any moment because you know everything, but you don’t know what you are talking about here. The base neural pathway is not altered. What is altered is that a suppressive pathway is created to suppress the initial aversive stimulus. Normally I wouldn’t waste time tracking down a cite for a leftie with a double digit IQ…

See Whalen, P. J., Phelps, E. A. (Eds.), The Human Amygdala, (p. 205). New York : Guilford.:

Even though extinction training can eliminate the expression of conditioned fear, there is abundant evidence that extinction does not erase or undo the fear learning. After extinction conditioned fear can return in a range of circumstances, including the simple passage of time (spontaneous recovery), exposure to the US (reinstatement), or exposure to the CS in a novel context (renewal)… The recovery of fear indicates that extinction training results in new learning to inhibit the expression of conditioned fear…

… These extinction resistant cells are consistent with behavioral data suggesting that extinction does not erase the fear memory, as evidenced by the recovery of conditioned fear following extinction.

That is pretty much the textbook on the subject of the amygdala, written by the handpicked experts in each facet of the field, so you must be feeling like quite a tool right now.

Carmen responds:

You initially talked about the neural pathway is destroyed, then backtracked and stated the initial neural pathway is not altered, but rather a suppressive pathway is created. Which to me means you read the source I provided, realized you were wrong, and then corrected yourself here.

So I initially said the amygdala neural pathway was destroyed, and Carmen was the one who corrected me, by telling me a suppressive pathway was created, and it wasn’t destroyed?

Here is the first quote which set this off, which Carmen claims has me saying the amygdala pathway was destroyed, and not mentioning a suppressive pathway:

As the research shows, once you attach such an aversive stimulus pathway to a concept in the amygdala, you cannot destroy that neural pathway, unlike in other areas of the brain… At most, with extensive deconditioning work, you can create a second suppressive-circuit to suppress the amygdala trigger, but that secondary pathway is always weak in its operation. The initial aversive stimulus is easily re-triggered through it…

So Carmen actually switched up who was arguing what, in so doing forgetting that she was wrong. Notice Carmen could not keep straight what she was arguing. She began saying that quote was wrong, and then when shown it was not, she switched things in her brain and claimed I had said what she said, and she had corrected me by saying what I said.

I was going to leave this in the comments, but I realized I saw significance in this for a reason and it is important that adherents of r/K understand why this is important.

Carmen couldn’t keep straight in her mind whether amygdala pathways were permanent, or temporary, or what she said in regards to it because she has no knowledge of cognitive neuroscience. To anyone who understands the subject, this is highly significant, and understanding why will explain in part why we begin life liberal and go Conservative as our amygdala begins small, and grows big, and why we so rarely see people go the other way.

The reason this has stuck in my brain so hard is because it violates something you learn early on in cognitive neuroscience. Most memory circuits operate according to what are called Hebbian precepts. It is a fancy way of saying most memory circuits get strong with use, and disappear with disuse. So if you exercise the circuit, it upregulates production of all the parts that make it strong, and it builds up like a muscle. Likewise, if you don’t use the circuit, a Hebbian synapse will waste away, and whatever it did will be lost.

You see this effect in life. You learn calculus and get great at it by doing it every day. As you do, your calculus neurons grow strong and the synapses connecting the ideas fire off very powerfully. You become a machine at interweaving different equations. You see the graphs overlay and affect each other in your mind, you spot relationships between variables and the equations that relate them, and you can go effortlessly from position to velocity to acceleration all along the way. Integrals, derivatives, limits, it all flows out of your brain immediately as you do it repeatedly and exercise the neurons. Leave the field, and after ten years, you can barely do anything. All of the circuits have wasted away and their connections no longer fire strongly enough to pull out the memories of what to do.

Likewise, you meet someone at a party, learn their name, and don’t see them for a few years, and good luck if you run into them on the street. It even manifests in the physical dexterity of musical instruments, and the reaction times of fighters. So the entire rest of the non-amygdala brain, and everything outside the spinal cord, operates based on a rule of use it or lose it.

But the amygdala is different, and when you first learn of it, it surprises you. The amygdala only needs a circuit to be created once, and it will maintain it for life, regardless of how much it is used. With time, and exposure to the stimulus in a harmless environment you can diminish the effect of the circuit, but that memory circuit is still there firing when exposed to the conditioning stimulus. The difference is that after such deconditioning, a new path, most likely in the prefrontal cortex, develops and “learns” to suppress the amygdala-memory’s effect. But reduce exposure again, and that PFC circuit can waste away, while the amygdala-circuit remains, and later re-exposure will trigger the fear again, something called spontaneous renewal.

You can see why this would be in nature. Life or death circumstances don’t arise daily. You probably don’t get to practice experiencing them. A man may only be attacked by, and escape, a Saber-toothed Tiger but once. But just because it doesn’t happen all the time, doesn’t mean holding onto that memory, and all the warning signs which preceded it is not important. Clearly the vital importance of amygdala-tagged memories, means how often they are used should not matter. Evolution heard that criticism and included the feature in our build. Learn an amygdala memory once, and for better or worse, you will probably carry it to your grave.

It is interesting to me, because if the whole brain worked like the amygdala, every memory you formed would remain for your entire life. That would be cool. Of course that was impractical, due to processing/storage limits of the brain (though I have wondered if there might be aliens somewhere whose brains and skulls evolved the ability to grow continuously, and whose neural circuitry worked that way, with the oldest among them walking around with giant heads, and an internet-sized encyclopedic level of knowledge. I imagine they would have big-headed conservatives with lots of experience who know how the world works, and pea-headed simpleton leftists, who still think if you import violent foreigners they will stop being violent and celebrate your kindness.)

But this is why you do not often see a conservative become a leftist. Those circuits don’t waste away on their own. In the cases you do see, it would not surprise me to find that there is a T. gondii like parasite causing physical damage within the amygdala, and physically ablating the circuitry there.

That Carmen didn’t know this, or recognize the significance enough to keep straight in her head what was being argued shows she is new to the field. But she raised one other interesting point. In her desperation to convince everybody else that r/K Theory has been widely debunked, and the work here has long been the subject of ridicule throughout the world, she pointed to a single blog written by a guy who I strongly suspect never even read Evopsych. He kept saying I never mentioned density dependence (I did), he kept trying to tie it to white vs black instead of politics (I recommend against that because it mixes r’s and K’s and muddies the water, unlike politics), and he refused to look at mortality as mortality that fed competition, or mortality that killed randomly and eliminated competition in the recovery. To him, intermittent drought in a desert that kills all equally and then abates and allows unfettered population explosion is the same as long-term drought that leaves just a few watering holes that everyone fights over constantly. I’m not about to rehash it all.

But the point is, in terms of criticism, he is just about it. You will not find criticism of r/K Theory online, even among the left, and the only trolls we get here are of Carmen’s ilk – amateurs in the subject who just pop in to take a few poorly aimed shots, before disappearing into the mist when their criticisms fall flat.

The left cannot touch this. By its very design, it triggers amygdalae too much. To criticize it they would have to hold it in their hand and look at it, and they can no more do that than they could hold a critical mass of plutonium in their hand and examine it to prove it is not radioactive.

r/K is dangerous also, because it makes such good sense on so many levels. Whether you look at it from the perspective of what you see in politics, or rabbits and wolves, or evolutionary ecology, or genetic drive, or history, or homosexuality, or sexual dimorphism, or genetics, or cognitive neuroscience and the amygdala, or pathogens, or social sciences and criminal psychology, or pedophilia, or child-protective urges, or economics, or just news and current events, r/K fits. If you dig down to the cites and the science, it holds perfectly. But I think the real reason everyone hopes it will stop spreading and disappear is that on the surface, where so many people will look, it makes perfect sense out of things which otherwise make absolutely no sense.

And so we continue here to promote it to those who will spread it, until everyone in the world knows of it.

Which they undoubtedly will.

Tell others about r/K Theory early and often, because they may not store it in their amygdalae

This entry was posted in Amygdala, Conservatives, K-stimuli, Liberals, Politics, Psychological Manipulation, Psychology, r-stimuli, rabbitry. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Criticism Of r/K Theory In The Comments

  1. M.S. Leavell says:

    I’m doing what I can to promote R-K Selection on the Personality Cafe.com forums. There’s a small hive of leftists there and it’s had good results so far, using R-K inspired arguments and “outgrouping” against them. I’ve also told some of the more conservative-libertarian members about it.

  2. Robert What? says:

    To my limited knowledge, the publisher of the blog “Little Green Footballs” has gone from K to r. Do you know anything about that?

    • There is one other means by which that may happen, which doesn’t involve cognitive neuroscience these days. Lets just say if I had some horrible secret that might ruin me, and a weak, non-rebellious nature, this site could have ended up going r. There are other forces at play.

  3. Samuel Skinner says:

    The Not Politically Correct link is genuinely bad. I’ll cover the most obvious mistakes.
    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/06/28/rk-selection-theory-a-response-to-anonymous-conservative/


    You don’t get it. Mongoloids being r-selected is straight from Rushton. He asserts that they have cold-adaptations. Cold adaptations are due to cold weather. Cold weather is an agent of r-selection (temperature extreme).

    Mongoloids have a variety of genetic adaptions to cold. If you drop one buck naked in the winter, they will still freeze to death. The actual adaption they have is wearing thick clothing covering the entire body, something that is both K and not existent in Africa. Needless to say knowing how to gather materials, make clothing and maintain it is a K selective pressure.


    Endemic (native) disease is an agent of K-selection. Since the disease is constant, then the population under that agent of K-selection can prepare ahead for disease.

    That requires the preparation to actually work; if preparation has less effect on genetic pay offs then having children faster, having children faster wins.


    Do groups not work together in Africa to reach common goals? In the Pleistocene as well? Citations? Think before you write (and cite), because hunting bands in our species began with Homo erectus.

    NPC talks about clannishness and IQ difference in other posts. So he does believe that groups in Africa do not work together to reach common goals. I’m honestly not sure what he is thinking here.


    Density-dependent pressures are things such as endemic disease in Africa—which is necessary for a K-selected history since density-dependent natural selection occurs at or close to the environmental carrying capacity

    Yes, if a disease is transmitted through person to person contact and non-discriminatory. Malaria is transmitted through mosquitoes; the amount adding additional people increases its rate is negligible.

    • Phil78 says:

      “Mongoloids have a variety of genetic adaptions to cold. If you drop one buck naked in the winter, they will still freeze to death. The actual adaption they have is wearing thick clothing covering the entire body, something that is both K and not existent in Africa. Needless to say knowing how to gather materials, make clothing and maintain it is a K selective pressure.”

      The cold adaptations of Mongoloids he was referring to was their stockier bodies, which while naked would likely die is an actual physical adaptation nonetheless.

      He has covered this in articles on endo, ecto, and mesomorphs.

      As for “K pressures” beinf the making of clothing, your assertion of clothing being a factor ignores the actual R/K trait outlines he has covered, including the effect of cold environments.

      “That requires the preparation to actually work; if preparation has less effect on genetic pay offs then having children faster, having children faster wins.”

      That’s an assumption, seeing how the customs of protecting young NPC has cited was present for thousands of years.

      “Indeed, in Africa, measures can be taken to reduce the number of those infected with malaria, such as mothers shielding their babies from mosquitoes, to even herbal remedies which have been in use for thousands of years (Wilcox and Bodecker, 2004). ”

      https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/06/28/rk-selection-theory-a-response-to-anonymous-conservative/

      “NPC talks about clannishness and IQ difference in other posts. So he does believe that groups in Africa do not work together to reach common goals. I’m honestly not sure what he is thinking here.”

      He discussed diversity effecting altruism and conscientiousness/IQ correlation between races, but in no post I could find does he directly state or investigate the level of cooperation outside of what could be presumed of the R/K theory taken as valid.

      Pretty much all articles he had once used the R/K theory he has no revised.

      “Yes, if a disease is transmitted through person to person contact and non-discriminatory. Malaria is transmitted through mosquitoes; the amount adding additional people increases its rate is negligible.”

      Endemic doesn’t mean necessarily “spread by people”, it would kjust have to be particular to a region, population, or environment.

      In the context of Africa, it is endemic and thus a K selection factor.

      http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3234

      • Samuel Skinner says:

        “The cold adaptations of Mongoloids he was referring to was their stockier bodies, which while naked would likely die is an actual physical adaptation nonetheless.”

        And blacks are adapted to the tropics with darker skin, more sweat and lankier bodies. Tibetans can intake more oxygen. Whites have lighter skin which allows more Vitamin D absorption at higher latitudes. You can’t use physical adaption to temperature to measure r versus k for humans because all races are physically adapted to their environment.

        “As for “K pressures” beinf the making of clothing, your assertion of clothing being a factor ignores the actual R/K trait outlines he has covered, including the effect of cold environments.”

        Because his trait outline is wrong. That is the point of my critique.

        “That’s an assumption, seeing how the customs of protecting young NPC has cited was present for thousands of years.”

        I looked at the link already. The reason I mentioned ‘has to work’ is the article it links to admits they have no idea if the herbal remedies actually work. There is zero reason to believe they do. Traditional medicine in China, India, Europe and the Arab world had little to no effect on infectious disease despite the vast array of compounds and herbs they were willing to dispense. It is almost certain to be the same in Africa for the same reason- if there was something that had an effect on an infectious disease, eventually the disease would gain immunity.

        The same goes for ‘shielding their infants’. It is unlikely that African mothers knew that mosquito carry malaria (although they probably do now); they are most likely making the obvious connection between insect bites = bad. Parents all over the world have made the same connection. This has not stopped children from getting insect borne diseases.

        “He discussed diversity effecting altruism and conscientiousness/IQ correlation between races, but in no post I could find does he directly state or investigate the level of cooperation outside of what could be presumed of the R/K theory taken as valid.”

        I’m not sure what you are talking about.

        “Endemic doesn’t mean necessarily “spread by people”, it would kjust have to be particular to a region, population, or environment.

        In the context of Africa, it is endemic and thus a K selection factor.”


        Density-dependent pressures… since density-dependent natural selection occurs at or close to the environmental carrying capacity

        If a disease isn’t spread person to person it isn’t a density dependent factor; the rate of malaria does not change if you add additional people to an area. Given Africa’s exceptionally low historical population density, it is also doubtful it was at environmental carrying capacity. In short his exception doesn’t work.

        The exception is necessary because for it to be a K selection factor, it requires K selection. The actual selection has been the evolution of sickle cell anemia (among other traits) which kills the offspring if it possess two copies. Writing off half of your offspring (those with two copies and those with zero) is r-selected behavior.

        • Phil78 says:

          :And blacks are adapted to the tropics with darker skin, more sweat and lankier bodies. Tibetans can intake more oxygen. Whites have lighter skin which allows more Vitamin D absorption at higher latitudes. You can’t use physical adaption to temperature to measure r versus k for humans because all races are physically adapted to their environment.”

          But he wasn’t saying that Asian were R selected, as he discredits the legitemacy of applying R/K to human in general as it was already tossed aside in ecology.

          The point was, using the traditional method, cold adaptations would be R.

          “Because his trait outline is wrong. That is the point of my critique.”

          He was using the original outline when the concept of R/K was created. Explain how that is “wrong” beyond what Rushton interprets.

          “I looked at the link already. The reason I mentioned ‘has to work’ is the article it links to admits they have no idea if the herbal remedies actually work. There is zero reason to believe they do. Traditional medicine in China, India, Europe and the Arab world had little to no effect on infectious disease despite the vast array of compounds and herbs they were willing to dispense. It is almost certain to be the same in Africa for the same reason- if there was something that had an effect on an infectious disease, eventually the disease would gain immunity.”

          Yet it begs the question of what verification is available of how Africans gain genetic immunity from their diseases, and direct evidence of having more children being the result if Herbal medicine in these regions, which are comparatively R selected, did not work.

          “The same goes for ‘shielding their infants’. It is unlikely that African mothers knew that mosquito carry malaria (although they probably do now); they are most likely making the obvious connection between insect bites = bad. Parents all over the world have made the same connection. This has not stopped children from getting insect borne diseases.”

          How does their interpretation of Malaria change the fact that they had customs, intentionally or not, that acted as a means to support the survival rate of their children which would be K selected and it was used as a means of medical customs?

          And As I said before, if preparation for diseases used traditionally in K selected people didn’t work, how do we know that their genetic selection was different from Africans?

          “I’m not sure what you are talking about.”

          You said he talked about IQ and clannishness as evidence that he believes Africans don;t cooperate. I said that nowhere does he states this dorectly, he only mention clannishness in the context of diversity.

          Had he said anything that implied he thought that, he has now revised it in article updates by dropping R/K theory.

          “If a disease isn’t spread person to person it isn’t a density dependent factor; the rate of malaria does not change if you add additional people to an area.”

          It does.

          https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2875-7-218

          https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-017-1694-2

          Higher the density, the less it is transmitted however. Regardless, this is orrelevant as R/K itself, as an explanation to differences in fertility, is insufficient.

          “Given Africa’s exceptionally low historical population density, it is also doubtful it was at environmental carrying capacity. In short his exception doesn’t work.
          The exception is necessary because for it to be a K selection factor, it requires K selection. The actual selection has been the evolution of sickle cell anemia (among other traits) which kills the offspring if it possess two copies. Writing off half of your offspring (those with two copies and those with zero) is r-selected behavior.”

          While disease did suppress population density and resulting child mortality is associated with birth rates,
          https://gps.ucsd.edu/_files/faculty/mccord/mccord_research_empirical.pdf

          The plasticity of these traits isn’t as what Rushton’s research implied.

          https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Madsen-Fig1.jpg

          see the High fertility of Asians prior to more modern times.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition

          “In stage two, that of a developing country, the death rates drop quickly due to improvements in food supply and sanitation, which increase life expectancies and reduce disease.”

          https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2016/04/changing-narrative-fertility-decline-africa/

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          “But he wasn’t saying that Asian were R selected, as he discredits the legitemacy of applying R/K to human in general as it was already tossed aside in ecology.”

          r/k wasn’t tossed aside in ecology. It is a perfectly fine descriptor of the difference between different parental investment and childcare strategies.

          “The point was, using the traditional method, cold adaptations would be R.”

          Adaption to the environment is shared by all races of man. You cannot used a shared characteristic to point to differences between races.

          “He was using the original outline when the concept of R/K was created. Explain how that is “wrong” beyond what Rushton interprets.”

          I already did. Humans have technological and cultural options to adapt to the environment, the usage of which is K selected.

          “Yet it begs the question of what verification is available of how Africans gain genetic immunity from their diseases, and direct evidence of having more children being the result if Herbal medicine in these regions, which are comparatively R selected, did not work.”

          I’m not sure what is mysterious here. Europeans have higher levels of resistance to the Black Plague because of outbreaks over about 5 centuries. Endemic disease results in r selection (have more children/have mutations that hurt children but enable survival against disease) and k selection (have higher quality children to survive disease). Exactly what strategy is pursued depends on the nature of the situation. You can’t simply plug in disease= x selection.

          “How does their interpretation of Malaria change the fact that they had customs, intentionally or not, that acted as a means to support the survival rate of their children which would be K selected and it was used as a means of medical customs?”

          We are talking about r or k selection relative to other human populations. Other human populations also had customs to protect individuals from disease. The existence of these customs cannot be used as an example of differential selection for populations because they are universal.

          “And As I said before, if preparation for diseases used traditionally in K selected people didn’t work, how do we know that their genetic selection was different from Africans?’

          Because the amount of diseases people were exposed to were not the same. Africa is tropical AND as the birthplace of humanity there was more time for parasites and diseases to adapt to human hosts; that is the reason that there is more large animals in Africa then the rest of the world (where they were hunted to extinction).

          “You said he talked about IQ and clannishness as evidence that he believes Africans don;t cooperate. I said that nowhere does he states this dorectly, he only mention clannishness in the context of diversity.”

          Then he wasn’t thinking things through. A mark against him and evidence of an emotional or off the cuff response.

          Note that this is easier to check then the rest of Anonymous Conservatives argument.
          http://cdn2.africatravelresource.com/resources/Malaria/03malaria-map-600.jpg

          Malaria is a big killer and it doesn’t affect all of Africa equally. Compare to the largest historical African states- the Mali empires expansion stops at the year long malarial zone.

          “It does.”

          That is urban versus rural. Since the vast majority of humanity lived in rural environments until recently the distinction is irrelevant for the historical effects on Africans.

          “The plasticity of these traits isn’t as what Rushton’s research implied.”

          Three things:

          1) Africans reach sexual maturity faster then whites or Asians. That is the relevant measure for ‘amount invested in child rearing’; comparing lifetime fertility will give you a misleading result if the gap between generations are different.

          2) Africans exclusively dominate 6-7 TFR at the start; ‘Asians’ and Latin America are about 5.8

          3) North Africa includes Arabs and South Africa includes Indians, Whites, Orientals and other in South Africa. Both of these skew the data and give the appearance of Africa undergoing demographic transition.

          “see the High fertility of Asians prior to more modern times.”

          That would be a stronger argument if ‘Asia’ didn’t include Orientals, Indians and Arabs. As it is, without breaking the groups apart it doesn’t tell us anything on its own.

          I should note this is an area where I depart from Anonymous Conservative; I agree with reactionaries that the biggest predictor of fertility is the relative status of women (Because women seek to marry a man with higher status then themselves). So I don’t think non-African fertility rates are comparable to tell you how R or K a population is.

          • Phil78 says:

            “r/k wasn’t tossed aside in ecology. It is a perfectly fine descriptor of the difference between different parental investment and childcare strategies.”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

            “The theory was popular in the 1970s and 1980s, when it was used as a heuristic device, but lost importance in the early 1990s, when it was criticized by several empirical studies.[4][5] A life-history paradigm has replaced the r/K selection paradigm but continues to incorporate many of its important themes.[6]”

            ‘Adaption to the environment is shared by all races of man. You cannot used a shared characteristic to point to differences between races.”

            “Shared characteristic”? The point isn’t “adaptation to the environment”, it’s cold adaptation in R/K theory and what it indicates by the traditional method.

            “I already did. Humans have technological and cultural options to adapt to the environment, the usage of which is K selected.”

            Except I have already explained that R/K theory was already discredited by Rushton’s application, and that he use of it wasn’t consistent with what was established on the traits in animals, which was the whole connection Rushton based his research on.

            “I’m not sure what is mysterious here. Europeans have higher levels of resistance to the Black Plague because of outbreaks over about 5 centuries. Endemic disease results in r selection (have more children/have mutations that hurt children but enable survival against disease) and k selection (have higher quality children to survive disease). Exactly what strategy is pursued depends on the nature of the situation. You can’t simply plug in disease= x selection.”

            You gave a hypothetical example to explain and association between fertility and disease selection, that’s not “proof” of the casual association.

            https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/black-death-survivors-and-their-descendants-went-on-to-live-longer/

            “Scientists long believed that the Black Death killed indiscriminately. But DeWitte’s previous research found the plague was like many sicknesses: It preferentially killed the very old and those already in poor health.”

            The Disease mainly killed off those who were already in frail health. Thus, we have “proof” of higher quality resistance in Europeans, why wouldn’t it be the same in African population with Sickle Cell and would necessitate more children in general? And what data do we have to draw on to understand the selection.

            “We are talking about r or k selection relative to other human populations. Other human populations also had customs to protect individuals from disease. The existence of these customs cannot be used as an example of differential selection for populations because they are universal.”

            Except children care was a specific racial difference asserted by Rushton through R/K theory if you recall.

            “Because the amount of diseases people were exposed to were not the same. Africa is tropical AND as the birthplace of humanity there was more time for parasites and diseases to adapt to human hosts; that is the reason that there is more large animals in Africa then the rest of the world (where they were hunted to extinction).”

            The reason why you have megafauna extinct in Eurasia is because of A. Global Climate shifts or B. Overhunting.

            Second, Humans evolved in the Savannah of East and North Africa, not Tropical West/central Africa, which was only populated comparably by humans by 40-30k like Europe, as far as evidence can tell.

            New adaptations there would occur.

            “Then he wasn’t thinking things through. A mark against him and evidence of an emotional or off the cuff response.”

            No, lets roll back, You claimed that he believed in Africans lacking cooperation in place of NPC asking for citation from Rushton, which Rushton did not have.

            If anyone wasn’t prepared, it’s you.

            “Malaria is a big killer and it doesn’t affect all of Africa equally. Compare to the largest historical African states- the Mali empires expansion stops at the year long malarial zone.”

            How does this pertain to my comment on African cooperation? I even said later in my article that it did inhibit centralization, but that’s not the same as cooperation.

            In other words, that says they lived in small groups but tells little of how the cooperated within their groups.

            “That is urban versus rural. Since the vast majority of humanity lived in rural environments until recently the distinction is irrelevant for the historical effects on Africans.”

            We are not talking about the state of historical Africans, the point was investigating the effect of density on Malaria transmission, Both studies noted it make significant difference.

            And as I said, it would be irrelevant as R/K is discredited.

            “Three things:

            1) Africans reach sexual maturity faster then whites or Asians. That is the relevant measure for ‘amount invested in child rearing’; comparing lifetime fertility will give you a misleading result if the gap between generations are different.”

            Based on Blacks and whites in Africa, it doesn’t hold as it does in America.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2939974/

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12415029

            Fertility differences being rooted deep into the stone age is a major tenant of Rushton’s R/K application, gaps between groups through time are relevant.

            The year gap between Blacks and Asians on the onset of reported intercourse, to the point that it would effect child rearing, is smaller than the overall differences in the amount of reported intercourse.

            “2) Africans exclusively dominate 6-7 TFR at the start; ‘Asians’ and Latin America are about 5.8”

            My links in my last comment explains that. Again, R/K theory says that has been a traits development since the stone age but wasn’t case until recently.

            “3) North Africa includes Arabs and South Africa includes Indians, Whites, Orientals and other in South Africa. Both of these skew the data and give the appearance of Africa undergoing demographic transition.”

            I noticed that. Had you gone through all of my links you would’ve known that as well as I included one explain why West/central Africa didn’t experience as large of an increase.

            I never mention anything about a “African increase” but an Asian similarity in TFR.

            “That would be a stronger argument if ‘Asia’ didn’t include Orientals, Indians and Arabs. As it is, without breaking the groups apart it doesn’t tell us anything on its own.”

            All of those groups would be less “R” than Africans. Regardless, see here.

            http://www.geocurrents.info/population-geography/total-fertility-rates-by-country-1950-and-2015

            China had a much closer rate towards Africans. You even see West and Central Africa’s decreasing due to development as the economic model would suggest, even being so for Europe prior towards it;s industrial era. The pattern, based on ancient selection mind you according to Rushton, would be Blacks highest, Asians lowest.

            “I should note this is an area where I depart from Anonymous Conservative; I agree with reactionaries that the biggest predictor of fertility is the relative status of women (Because women seek to marry a man with higher status then themselves). So I don’t think non-African fertility rates are comparable to tell you how R or K a population is.”

            You do understand that I’m talking about RUSHTON says, not what AC says. R/K theory is used heavily to explain it.

            Further, this didn’t stop you to making your second point based on TFR to validate R/K theory.

          • Phil78 says:

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2333491
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4011385/

            Caldwell and Bongaarts on African Fertility and demographic transition in respect of ideal family size drive Higher fertility, factors of mortality are used to REPLACE loss children for economic reasons, not for Malaria prevention specifically.

            And regarding the use of “R/K” contributions.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_history_theory#r.2FK_selection_theory

            While used as distinctive traits, they are still linked to “density dependency” and their importance has dropped since then.

            https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/06/24/rk-selection-theory-a-response-to-rushton-by-racerealist-and-afrosapiens/

            “Reznick et al, (2002: 1518) write: “The distinguishing feature of the r- and K-selection paradigm was the focus on density-dependent selection as the important agent of selection on organisms’ life histories. This paradigm was challenged as it became clear that other factors, such as age-specific mortality, could provide a more mechanistic causative link between an environment and an optimal life history (Wilbur et al. 1974, Stearns 1976, 1977). The r- and K-selection paradigm was replaced by new paradigm that focused on age-specific mortality (Stearns 1976, Charlesworth 1980).” r/K selection theory was dropped for the much stronger life-history approach (Graves, 2002)—which uses some elements of r and K, but otherwise those terms are no longer used since other factors are more important as agents of selection, rather than density dependence and independence as was commonly thought.”

            Same reads here, the only recent life history paper outside of Rushton that applies to humans. And, off course, it shifts through human history.

            http://www.u.arizona.edu/~ajf/pdf/Ellis,%20Figueredo,%20Brumbach,%20&%20Schlomer%202009.pdf

            “There is no firm support, however, for Pianka’s (1970) application of r-K
            selection theory to the evolution of LH strategies (e.g., Promislow and Harvey 1990;
            Reznick et al. 2002; Roff 2002). Nonetheless, some animals do show characteristics
            of hypothetical r selection and are now generally referred to as displaying a fast LH
            strategy, whereas other animals show characteristics of hypothetical K selection and
            are now generally referred to as displaying a slow LH strategy. The criticism of
            Pianka’s (1970) model is not that density-dependent selection is irrelevant to LH
            variation, but rather that other selective pressures, such as age-specificity of
            mortality and environmental variability, play a more fundamental role in structuring
            the evolution of LH strategies. Consequently, the primary importance ascribed to
            density-dependence effects has waned over time.”

            And, off course, it shifts through human history.

            “Many modern human populations are characterized by low rates of externally
            imposed morbidity-mortality (owing to our position as the top predator and the
            general advances in disease prevention and treatment), low levels of resource
            scarcity/energetic stress (owing to highly efficient food production), and high levels
            of population density/social competition (urbanization). As shown in Fig. 3, the cooccurrence
            of these three factors should favor the development of slow LH
            strategies, as in classic K selection. In this context, individuals may trade off current
            for future reproduction by delaying first birth or increasing birth intervals to accrue
            greater reproductive capacity (e.g., more resources and sociocompetitive competencies
            that can be converted into reproduction). Many people in Western societies, for
            example, delay reproduction to enhance their education, work skills, and
            socioeconomic status. This trade-off may benefit individuals reproductively by
            enabling them to produce more competitive offspring (see Low et al. 2002).
            The other side of the coin is that the combination of low levels of resource
            scarcity/energetic stress, low rates of extrinsic morbidity-mortality, and low levels of
            population density/social competition should promote fast LH strategies, as in
            classic r selection (see Fig. 3). A case in point is the European expansion into
            suitable ecologies throughout the world (“Neo-Europes”), such as the Americas,
            South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand, in the early modern era (Crosby 2004).
            The demographic parameters of these populations had previously been limited by
            such factors as scarcity of arable land, social strife, and endemic diseases in Europe.
            The lifting of such constraints, however, resulted in movement toward faster LH
            strategies and greatly increased population growth rates in the new environments.”

            he does however mention contraints.

            “Because the costs and benefits of different LH trade-offs vary as a function of
            individual characteristics and local circumstances, optimal LH strategies vary across
            individuals within and between populations. These individual and population
            differences develop through a combination of genetic variation and phenotypic
            plasticity in response to environmental conditions. Natural selection favors mechanisms
            of phenotypic plasticity that enable organisms, within their species-typical
            range, to adjust LH strategies within their own lifetimes. These developmental
            mechanisms actually make LH trade-offs by selecting between or “making decisions”
            about alternative ways of distributing resources (Chisholm 1999). Selection favors
            mechanisms that, in response to socioecological conditions, trade off resources
            between growth, maintenance, and reproduction in ways that recurrently enhanced
            inclusive fitness during a species’ evolutionary history. In this manner, individuals
            adapt LH strategies to local conditions. At the same time, however, many allelic
            variations are maintained within populations, biasing development toward different
            sets of LH trade-offs and increasing phenotypic diversity.”

            And as far as African Americans go, the relationship is tied into a genetic-environmental response, similar to how the previous paper outlines.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4324554/

            For people in general.

            http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1474704916677342

          • Phil78 says:

            “The year gap between Blacks and Asians on the onset of reported intercourse, to the point that it would effect child rearing, is smaller than the overall differences in the amount of reported intercourse.”

            meant to be associated with this.

            https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/1998/05/gender-and-ethnic-differences-timing-first-sexual-intercourse

          • Samuel Skinner says:

            ““The theory was popular in the 1970s and 1980s, when it was used as a heuristic device, but lost importance in the early 1990s, when it was criticized by several empirical studies.[4][5] A life-history paradigm has replaced the r/K selection paradigm but continues to incorporate many of its important themes.[6]””

            So they changed the name and kept some of the components. If the components they dropped are ones AC is using, say so.

            ““Shared characteristic”? The point isn’t “adaptation to the environment”, it’s cold adaptation in R/K theory and what it indicates by the traditional method.”

            Adaption to hot weather isn’t covered by the traditional method?

            “Except I have already explained that R/K theory was already discredited by Rushton’s application, and that he use of it wasn’t consistent with what was established on the traits in animals, which was the whole connection Rushton based his research on.”

            I don’t grasp what you are trying to say here. Are you claiming the theoretical model AC is proposing (cold weather pushes for K traits in humans because of the need for cultural and technological solutions) isn’t valid?

            “You gave a hypothetical example to explain and association between fertility and disease selection, that’s not “proof” of the casual association.”

            Again, not following. The link between fertility and disease is pretty clear- after a die off the population rebounds. If a population is near carrying capacity and suffers a die off, the growth rate of the survivors increases.

            “The Disease mainly killed off those who were already in frail health.”

            All diseases (except for the Great Pandemic) preferentially target those in frail health.

            “Thus, we have “proof” of higher quality resistance in Europeans, why wouldn’t it be the same in African population with Sickle Cell and would necessitate more children in general? And what data do we have to draw on to understand the selection.”

            Europeans don’t have higher quality resistance because of the plague (well, not significantly). The plague hit Europe sporadically over the time span of several centuries and did not hit all of Europe simultaneously so there was weak long term evolutionary pressure.

            “Except children care was a specific racial difference asserted by Rushton through R/K theory if you recall.”

            And? ‘Africans invest in child care’ does not counter ‘Africans invest less in childcare’.

            “Second, Humans evolved in the Savannah of East and North Africa, not Tropical West/central Africa, which was only populated comparably by humans by 40-30k like Europe, as far as evidence can tell.”

            Those places also have malaria and tropical parasites.

            “No, lets roll back, You claimed that he believed in Africans lacking cooperation in place of NPC asking for citation from Rushton, which Rushton did not have.”

            No. I said he (NPC) SHOULD believe Africans lack in cooperation because he already believes they are clannish and low IQ. The fact he has to ask for evidence for something he should already know is evidence he is not actually judging things rationally.

            “How does this pertain to my comment on African cooperation? I even said later in my article that it did inhibit centralization, but that’s not the same as cooperation.”

            Shrug. It is an example. If you have any data at all, feel free to provide it.

            “In other words, that says they lived in small groups but tells little of how the cooperated within their groups.”

            Give a metric you consider a proxy for cooperation; otherwise it is untestable.

            “Both studies noted it make significant difference.”


            Results indicate clearly that strong significant differences exist between Pf PRs sampled in urban and rural locations globally, with urban areas exhibiting consistently lower values (average difference = 30.54%). This difference is due to Africa+ only, as similar results were not found for the Pf PR surveys across the rest of the world, with no significant differences found between rural and urban surveys, though the sample size was small.

            https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2875-7-218

            Not seeing where they separate density from urban versus rural.

            “Based on Blacks and whites in Africa, it doesn’t hold as it does in America.”

            Something weird is going on there; I can speculate, but I don’t have the expertise to offer anything but a laymen’s opinion.

            “Fertility differences being rooted deep into the stone age is a major tenant of Rushton’s R/K application, gaps between groups through time are relevant.”

            AC does not use Rushton’s theory. AC thinks all groups have degrees of r and k in their members.

            “The year gap between Blacks and Asians on the onset of reported intercourse, to the point that it would effect child rearing, is smaller than the overall differences in the amount of reported intercourse.”

            I’m pretty sure you meant to phrase that differently.

            “China had a much closer rate towards Africans. ”

            Everyone did. High levels of child mortality meant that any society that didn’t have a high enough TFR ceased to exist.

            “You even see West and Central Africa’s decreasing due to development as the economic model would suggest, even being so for Europe prior towards it;s industrial era. ”

            Or the spread of women’s education.

            “The pattern, based on ancient selection mind you according to Rushton, would be Blacks highest, Asians lowest.”

            I’m not Rushton. I have not read his theory. I have not talked to the man. I have never meet or interacted with him in any form. I have no idea why you want me to defend Rushton’s theory.

          • You cannot take a Biology 101 class without learning about r/K. It is in the textbooks, and it is seen as an excellent theory, akin to Newtonian Physics. Sure relativity and Quantum Mechanics came along and showed that Newtonian physics wasn’t the entire ball of wax. But you still learn Newtonian Physics, because it is fundamental to understanding everything else.

            r/K still holds as the basic foundation behind reproductive strategies and life history traits.

          • Phil78 says:

            :So they changed the name and kept some of the components. If the components they dropped are ones AC is using, say so.”

            See my second comment elaborating on R/K position in biology.

            “Adaption to hot weather isn’t covered by the traditional method?”

            It is.

            “I don’t grasp what you are trying to say here. Are you claiming the theoretical model AC is proposing (cold weather pushes for K traits in humans because of the need for cultural and technological solutions) isn’t valid?”

            No, at least it wasn’t part of the original model.

            “Again, not following. The link between fertility and disease is pretty clear- after a die off the population rebounds. If a population is near carrying capacity and suffers a die off, the growth rate of the survivors increases.”

            “Pretty clear” doesn;t equal what was actually found to occur in the population. Again, a theoretical model versus what occurs in a specific population in adaptation in disease.

            See my second link on how producing alot of children in Africa wasn’t due necessarily to disease survival.

            “All diseases (except for the Great Pandemic) preferentially target those in frail health.”

            The point is that there was a selection againat specific people during the plague thus changing the genetic of the european population.

            “Europeans don’t have higher quality resistance because of the plague (well, not significantly). The plague hit Europe sporadically over the time span of several centuries and did not hit all of Europe simultaneously so there was weak long term evolutionary pressure.”

            Then what did you imply by “higher quality children” in your previous comment?

            “And? ‘Africans invest in child care’ does not counter ‘Africans invest less in childcare’.”

            Yet that’s what we need to establish, as the only reference so far that you have attributed to reflect childcare is “sexual maturity” which is indirect compared to the study on the protection of infants from endemic diseases, a trait that would be K.

            What we need is actual information on rearing differences African and non-African populations.

            “Those places also have malaria and tropical parasites.”

            Hardly to the same extent.

            https://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/images/e/e1/Picdistr.gif

            “No. I said he (NPC) SHOULD believe Africans lack in cooperation because he already believes they are clannish and low IQ. The fact he has to ask for evidence for something he should already know is evidence he is not actually judging things rationally.”

            Show my the “should” in your comment- ‘NPC talks about clannishness and IQ difference in other posts. So he does believe that groups in Africa do not work together to reach common goals. I’m honestly not sure what he is thinking here.’

            “How does this pertain to my comment on African cooperation? I even said later in my article that it did inhibit centralization, but that’s not the same as cooperation.”

            Shrug. It is an example. If you have any data at all, feel free to provide it.

            Give a metric you consider a proxy for cooperation; otherwise it is untestable.

            “Both studies noted it make significant difference.”

            “https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2875-7-218

            Not seeing where they separate density from urban versus rural.”

            It list multiple as references for testing the information available on population surface on it’s ability to pinpoint “risk areas” by population density.

            “The extremes of both low and high population density modify malaria transmission and have profound consequences for estimates of its public health burden [10, 11, 12, 13, 14]. In areas of exceptionally low population density, there may be insufficient numbers of people to support transmission [10], ”

            “Something weird is going on there; I can speculate, but I don’t have the expertise to offer anything but a laymen’s opinion.”

            Fair enough.

            “AC does not use Rushton’s theory. AC thinks all groups have degrees of r and k in their members.”

            Then that opens a whole new can of worms.

            First, what is AC’s background in science and what sources does he uses? A Dichotomy of strategies is supported by science, but the classification and selection factors are more complex in how it’s used on organisms.

            “I’m pretty sure you meant to phrase that differently.”

            See my other comment, gave a further explanation.

            “Everyone did. High levels of child mortality meant that any society that didn’t have a high enough TFR ceased to exist.”

            And what do you know about Africa and Child mortality?

            “Or the spread of women’s education.”

            Education, along with Medicine and Urbanization, are all included under the Model.

            “I’m not Rushton. I have not read his theory. I have not talked to the man. I have never meet or interacted with him in any form. I have no idea why you want me to defend Rushton’s theory.”

            Rushton, and secondarily Ellis, applied R/K to humans and for good reason most others used his works regarding Fertility difference, growth difference (like you argued), and child rearing.

            The likelihood that AC would even be discussing r/k on humans without Rushton would be nil.

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

            To AC,

            “You cannot take a Biology 101 class without learning about r/K. It is in the textbooks, and it is seen as an excellent theory, akin to Newtonian Physics. Sure relativity and Quantum Mechanics came along and showed that Newtonian physics wasn’t the entire ball of wax. But you still learn Newtonian Physics, because it is fundamental to understanding everything else.”

            I did take a Ecology course in my Junior year and I, of course, learned R/K theory. Doesn’t change the fact of the reality of how it’s application became more complex and life history strategies.

            My links, which by now ought to be out of moderation, outline how it applies to humans.

            “r/K still holds as the basic foundation behind reproductive strategies and life history traits.”

            Yet it’s application in organisms, including humans, have changed. Rushton’s application of it on humans was not only diverged from the original understand, but was well after it;s revision under Ecology.

          • What we are doing here is not something where you can point to a single old study, and say, here it all is, in one place. Bringing all this together is new, even if what is being brought together is well established.

            The issue is, you have one area of study of humans (political science) where it is long established that humans spontaneously diverge into two groups, which the literature has recognized are so divergent that they call them Left and Right, as in each points in the opposite direction. The literature examining that divide establishes that there are several disparate qualities which all seem unrelated, but which all diverge similarly among the groups. Competitiveness/aggression, Aversion-to-competition/pacifism. Marriage/monogamy, and dislike-of-marriage/promiscuity. Two-parent-heterosexual-rearing/family values, rear however you want. Shield young from all sexual influence until mature and maintain a sex-free culture, or educate/expose children to sexual material at an early age. Loyalty to a competitive in-group, and shall we say, a more flexible attitude.

            In another area of study in biology you have both r/K Theory and the study of reproductive strategies and life history traits. Say what you want about any specific part of that, but overall, it shows that all of those traits have different uses in nature to facilitate survival/reproduction, they are imbued instinctually, and that they diverge the exact same way.

            When you look at humans, and give free resources and ease, as in r-selection, to a population, you note you get leftism. Pull those resources to force competition, as in K-selection, and you get rightism.

            Now I know you didn’t read the book because you are hung up on the use of the phrase “r/K Theory.” In the book there is a chapter devoted to that. I use the meme of r/K Theory for the same reason it is taught in biology – it is a quick way to bring people up to speed on the purposes of these traits, and how they affect reproduction/survival under different conditions. But I am clear, what we are doing here is new, and even r/K Theory is not exactly what we are talking about. It is the meme and educational tool. There may be areas which, as r/K Theory ultimately saw, need to be divided and explained further. In a shift to K, will sexual mores lag behind aggression in the beginning, producing aggressive and competitive individualists who also like the promiscuity they have grown accustomed to in r? How does epigenetics actually model the brain, and does it favor changing certain traits more than raw genetics, or environmental modeling? How does each instance potentially affect survivability and reproduction in its respective situation?

            Some humans may be designed for short shifts to K, followed by long periods of r. They may go violent but stay promiscuous. Other humans have inbreeding, and all the kin-selection effects bred in over time. None of that means political urges do not have an evolutionary purpose, and an evolutionary root. It just means there is the natural variation I expect we will find, if we try to create a model which closely explains everything.

            If it is done right, this will ultimately be a massive field of study with thousands of biologists and political scientists taking it apart and trying to figure how aggressive stimuli affect people’s r/K traits, vs sexual stimuli, vs pleasureable things like food, vs quick blips of K followed by long periods of r, vs long constant K, vs disease mortality that is totally random, and on and on.

            Maybe that will happen, maybe the leftist shrieks will be enough to simply stall it here, with everyone on the right accepting it unquestioningly, and everyone on the left shrieking every time they hear it. I have no idea how that will work. Until then, there is what has been amassed so far, which is more than enough to show that politics, (without trying to explain each and every individual’s reasons for their positions with 100% clarity) is a result of reproductive instincts that were geared to facilitate survival and reproduction under various circumstances. Some people are adapted to ease and free resources, some are adapted to harshness and adversity, and some of each are able to alter their programming to be more flexible. And all of that produces a population that divides spontaneously, and changes with resource provisioning.

            On Rushton, unless he ever mentioned politics (he didn’t), he is really of little use here. You have married black conservatives and married white conservatives and married Asian conservatives. They all have more in common psychologically than the leftists of their fellow races. Mixing them along racial lines only muddies the waters, and hides that all races have been exposed to harshness and ease, and have adapted the requisite psychologies to function and persist under either.

          • Phil78 says:

            “Shrug. It is an example. If you have any data at all, feel free to provide it.

            Give a metric you consider a proxy for cooperation; otherwise it is untestable.”

            This is the best outline of pre-colonial relations.

            https://www.academia.edu/13671697/PRE-COLONIAL_REGIONALISM_IN_WEST_AFRICA

          • Phil78 says:

            “What we are doing here is not something where you can point to a single old study, and say, here it all is, in one place. Bringing all this together is new, even if what is being brought together is well established.”

            Alright, lets see.

            “The issue is, you have one area of study of humans (political science) where it is long established that humans spontaneously diverge into two groups, which the literature has recognized are so divergent that they call them Left and Right, as in each points in the opposite direction. The literature examining that divide establishes that there are several disparate qualities which all seem unrelated, but which all diverge similarly among the groups. Competitiveness/aggression, Aversion-to-competition/pacifism. Marriage/monogamy, and dislike-of-marriage/promiscuity. Two-parent-heterosexual-rearing/family values, rear however you want. Shield young from all sexual influence until mature and maintain a sex-free culture, or educate/expose children to sexual material at an early age. Loyalty to a competitive in-group, and shall we say, a more flexible attitude.”

            While valid descriptors to distinguish and correlate, this seems more akin to collectivism and individualist societies, or rather secular and nonsecular societies, than the general R/K dynamic.

            “In another area of study in biology you have both r/K Theory and the study of reproductive strategies and life history traits. Say what you want about any specific part of that, but overall, it shows that all of those traits have different uses in nature to facilitate survival/reproduction, they are imbued instinctually, and that they diverge the exact same way.

            When you look at humans, and give free resources and ease, as in r-selection, to a population, you note you get leftism. Pull those resources to force competition, as in K-selection, and you get rightism.”

            The problem with this is that while free resources are generally advocated by the Left as well as pacifism, exactly how does changes in sexual and childrearing stances translate to R/K survival, based mainly on offspring number and development which is the actual survival element of R/K?

            That would make them more narcissistic, less productive, and not put much emphasis on values, but in terms of the two traits I stated above it doesn’t seem to show.

            The lack of marriage would actually decrease fertility, a typical un-R trait in terms of survival, as can be seen in Liberal versus conservative whites.

            http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2015/12/among-whites-conservative-liberal.html

            Hell, religiosity, which would likely correlate with emphasis on traditional structures, correlates with fertility as well.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2723861/

            When it comes to free resources and higher fertility tied with higher sexual promiscuity, that’s mainly seen among minorities who are also impoverished and live under, well, non-pacific conditions. This brings back my model with demographic transition, that if government resources that are in reality only “mild” symptom reliving resources, if not symptom promoting, then that just keeps conditions where they are with no real change then fertility (survival factor) being the way it is among government resources is no real surprise.

            “Now I know you didn’t read the book because you are hung up on the use of the phrase “r/K Theory.” In the book there is a chapter devoted to that. I use the meme of r/K Theory for the same reason it is taught in biology – it is a quick way to bring people up to speed on the purposes of these traits, and how they affect reproduction/survival under different conditions. But I am clear, what we are doing here is new, and even r/K Theory is not exactly what we are talking about. It is the meme and educational tool. There may be areas which, as r/K Theory ultimately saw, need to be divided and explained further. In a shift to K, will sexual mores lag behind aggression in the beginning, producing aggressive and competitive individualists who also like the promiscuity they have grown accustomed to in r? How does epigenetics actually model the brain, and does it favor changing certain traits more than raw genetics, or environmental modeling? How does each instance potentially affect survivability and reproduction in its respective situation?”

            See above to get a good start on the basic discontinuity between the traits you describe and how that ties into R/K like survival purposes.

            “Some humans may be designed for short shifts to K, followed by long periods of r. They may go violent but stay promiscuous. Other humans have inbreeding, and all the kin-selection effects bred in over time. None of that means political urges do not have an evolutionary purpose, and an evolutionary root. It just means there is the natural variation I expect we will find, if we try to create a model which closely explains everything.”

            Evolutionary/biological differences in political thought? Not unreasonable, but for reasons I stated above, even for a meme, I would detach the label of R/K.

            “If it is done right, this will ultimately be a massive field of study with thousands of biologists and political scientists taking it apart and trying to figure how aggressive stimuli affect people’s r/K traits, vs sexual stimuli, vs pleasureable things like food, vs quick blips of K followed by long periods of r, vs long constant K, vs disease mortality that is totally random, and on and on.”

            Again, not unreasonable, but I would be careful with the label in regards to survival strategies.

            “Maybe that will happen, maybe the leftist shrieks will be enough to simply stall it here, with everyone on the right accepting it unquestioningly, and everyone on the left shrieking every time they hear it. I have no idea how that will work. Until then, there is what has been amassed so far, which is more than enough to show that politics, (without trying to explain each and every individual’s reasons for their positions with 100% clarity) is a result of reproductive instincts that were geared to facilitate survival and reproduction under various circumstances. Some people are adapted to ease and free resources, some are adapted to harshness and adversity, and some of each are able to alter their programming to be more flexible. And all of that produces a population that divides spontaneously, and changes with resource provisioning.”

            This is where I have issues.

            To be clear, I’m not opposed to these traits being biological, but I am opposed to describing these as adaptations as that would imply ancestral selection regarding their frequency, which we do not exactly know why empirically. As far as I’m concerned, if there is established

            Technically speaking, until we know of how they arise and in what environmental context, it’s best to label them as variations.

            “On Rushton, unless he ever mentioned politics (he didn’t), he is really of little use here. You have married black conservatives and married white conservatives and married Asian conservatives. They all have more in common psychologically than the leftists of their fellow races. Mixing them along racial lines only muddies the waters, and hides that all races have been exposed to harshness and ease, and have adapted the requisite psychologies to function and persist under either.”

            I see, so you argue that micro environments/cultures leads to these “adaptations”.

            From my view I would rather label these under paradigms like “collectivism versus individualism” in regards to culture/social interaction, regarding economics I would go along with say “Alpha” versus “Beta” if you look up how Betas groom dominant males for breeding success, and traditionalism versus Modernism and/or post modernism (modernist could be like those who automatically opposed traditionalist thoughts, post modernists being those who goes into the deeper stance against narratives in general), in regards to politics specifically.

          • I feel in some ways like there are two things at play here. One, you have not read much here, or read the book, so you aren’t clear on things like how high rearing urges drive desire for children, and how birth control mixed with low rearing urge, (as in the r-strategy) will lower birth rates. Jane Fonda, or Cher, or Madonna, would have far more kids than Sarah Palin, if they were in the natural environment like rabbits, without birth control or abortion. There would be even more still, if they were primitive ancestors who didn’t really link sex and the babies which popped out nine months later, as I suspect most animals do not. The knowledge linking sex and babies being born, as well as birth control and abortion combining with a low desire to have children and rear them, have altered how the r-strategy plays out in humans. That is basic on this site, it has been dealt with scores of times. As is the idea of “spreading bet” (promiscuity) being noted in r-selection, and monogamy/sexual-selectivity/mate monopolization in K.

            This is important. Biological r/K Theory, as described in the sciences, is not necessarily what leftism and rightism are today because we have several things we have developed which our r and K strategies have not yet adapted to. Some are outright deleterious to the strategy, like birth control and abortion. But Classical r/K Theory is the mechanism that imbued the ideological urges in humans, in our ancient evolutionary environment in the natural world. We are more looking at the total mechanism that produced politics here, than just politics in the moment right now. People say here leftists are r, or conservatives are K, but what they mean is they are exhibiting classic behaviors of r-selection or K-selection that are designed for the natural environment (and which may or may not work in the modern milieu). I think it telling that people here instinctually lionize “being K,” even where it is maladaptive, such as in the highly r-selected environment of the modern world during a resource glut.

            You also have not come across the areas where we discuss that crime is r-selected in that it is a search for free resources. Nothing is more r than burglar who wants to walk through a house and just pick up free smartphones, free laptops, and so on. You can almost see the prehistoric human picking fruit up off the ground, and how he is seeking an environment like that he is designed for. And a mugger is not much different, in that he will pass by the 200 lb weightlifter when he is unarmed, to pull a gun on an old grannie who cannot resist and has to give him free money. Criminals choose the weak, which is different from a boxer or a soldier, or just a normal conservative American. Add guns to a society and let citizens fight back, and confrontational crime goes down because it is not free resources any more.

            Some other things you should check out before positing criticisms (which I very much like, and thank you for, BTW), is the role of epigenetics, and environmental modeling of the amygdala. The book will be free in Kindle in a few weeks, probably. Sign up at the main page for the email alert and get a copy (you can read the kindle on any computer with Amazon’s free software), because I would like to get your take after you read the whole thing, which is much more comprehensive, and looks at the issue from many more perspectives, than just r/K as you learned it in evolutionary ecology. You really need to see the genetics studies, the studies on brain adaptation to stresses, vs political brain structures, time frame perceptions, social science studies, epigenetics, genetics, and migration. It all fits together, and each area explains what is not in the others, as it fits in with them.

            Second, you seem to have some sort of different cognitive style, so I think this is also a clash of cognitive styles. Sometime it is to the point I have to read what you wrote twice before I can process it. That isn’t bad writing, just our brains work differently. People who I suspect think like you write me periodically, to tell me they have to read what I wrote multiple times to understand what I am saying. We will probably always have some disconnect simply because of how we see things, and what we each need to feel comfortable with an idea.

            On the other things – you focus on individualists and collectivists. This work uses political ideologies instead for a couple of reasons. Mostly, it is because it is well defined by others, so when an independent researcher says the right and the left are “x,” and another independent researcher elsewhere says r and K are “y,” and you can then show x=Y, it makes a stronger argument than just me defining them and saying they are the same.

            Second, an individualist in a K-selected society will be different from an individualist in an r-selected society, IMO, so even if there is research on individualism/collectivism, if it doesn’t take that into account, it will not be of much use. The individualist in a K-selected society will be more r, supporting of porn, promiscuity, gay rights, out-group interests, and other violations of the K-selected society’s norms. I suspect he would be a collectivist, if his entire society were r. Likewise an individualist in an r-selected society will want to carry a gun, be left alone by government, and experience less taxation. If r and K are right, then an individualist is an individualist if he wants to do the opposite of those around him. K’s will be collectivist/conformist in K-societies, and r’s will be collectivist conformist in r societies.

            I prefer r/K as the meme to convey this for a few reasons, ranging from the accuracy of the meme (most important as inaccuracies would allow this to be torn apart by a lot of people who won’t like it), to the density of information it can convey, to its novelty to political scientists (making it “sticky” and unique), to how easily it is explained with rabbit/wolf examples, to search engine optimization. I do come from a biological sciences background, so it appeals to me there too because I see the genetics working and the adaptation it provides. If you lean toward social sciences, and it doesn’t appeal to you, I would like to probe how to make it appeal to you for obvious reasons. This needs to spread to change how people view the world and freedom.

            But I think we are stuck with r/K. I don’t think any other terminology will work for a few reasons. One r/K is the most accurate. Collectivist/individualist is not quite the same, or as well defined, and it doesn’t imply this is biological, which it is. Alpha/Beta, is more social structure, and varies too. Hugh Hefner is Alpha in an LA club where he would seduce women effortlessly compared to an Army infantry officer who was ramrod straight and respectful of everyone, but put Hugh on a battlefield and he is zeta to a Chesty Puller. Traditionalism/modernism can fail because they are not well defined in that some cultures with a long history of r will see leftist tendencies as traditionalist, like in the Soviet era transitioning to privatization and capitalization. Again, I see areas of confusion where those who would want to knock it down would tear it apart, and I couldn’t complain because it would be inaccurate. Then there is the fact r/K has been around for a few years here, it has held well in the face of all criticisms, and it clearly appeals to a subset of high IQ’s on the right who like to share data online. Plus r/K is everything in one fell swoop if you compare the literature on it vs the literature on the left/right political divide. There is no separate theory for economics, and social aspects, and group/conflict, and personalities.

            The truth is, this is spreading well as r/K. Already if I pulled out now, it would still spread many times faster than I was able to spread it myself alone a few years back. And that is accumulative. In a year it will be faster still, and the faster it spreads, the faster it spreads. At this point I could not stop it.

            The downside is leftists cannot contemplate it, so academia will be a tough sell. My plan is saturate the right, get the younger generation sold, and then make academia feel ignorant and ashamed if they do not address it.

          • Samuel Skinner says:

            “It is.”

            Then how is it different from adaption to cold weather? If genetic adaption to climate extremes is a trait in the model and both groups have it, then it means the groups don’t diverge in that characteristic.

            “No, at least it wasn’t part of the original model.”

            AC is explicitly NOT USING THE ORIGINAL MODEL.

            ““Pretty clear” doesn;t equal what was actually found to occur in the population. Again, a theoretical model versus what occurs in a specific population in adaptation in disease.”

            Are you denying that population follows an S-curve growth rate as it approaches carrying capacity? So that being moved down the curve results in a fertility increase?

            “See my second link on how producing alot of children in Africa wasn’t due necessarily to disease survival.”

            Producing lots of children was necessary in all pre-modern civilizations due to high infant mortality. I think that Africa had a higher mortality rate then elsewhere; if you disagree, you need to show comparative mortality rates or evidence that indicates comparative rates.

            “The point is that there was a selection againat specific people during the plague thus changing the genetic of the european population.”

            “Then what did you imply by “higher quality children” in your previous comment?”

            There are a couple of important things to know about infectious diseases
            -they tend to hit during famines and war when peoples immune resistance is down
            -they tend to become less virulent over time; the less efficient at killing carriers, the more people get infected
            -human populations do generate resistence; it can be higher quality (all the poor people die first), but usually it is just changing around the antigens. In the context of Europe, higher quality is referring to the increase in living standards following the black death; I am not sure how much is genetic (ala Farewell to Alms) versus cultural so I didn’t make it an explicit argument.

            “Yet that’s what we need to establish, as the only reference so far that you have attributed to reflect childcare is “sexual maturity” which is indirect compared to the study on the protection of infants from endemic diseases, a trait that would be K.

            What we need is actual information on rearing differences African and non-African populations.”

            IQ is tied to parental investment in children.

            “Hardly to the same extent.”

            And black plague is from the steppes which hardly had the disease to the same extent the rest of the world suffered from it.

            “Show my the “should” in your comment- ‘NPC talks about clannishness and IQ difference in other posts. So he does believe that groups in Africa do not work together to reach common goals. I’m honestly not sure what he is thinking here.’”

            I left out ‘clannishness and low IQ are associated with not working together to reach common goals’ which should be the second sentence. Skipped over it since I thought it was the obvious inference he should be making.

            “It list multiple as references for testing the information available on population surface on it’s ability to pinpoint “risk areas” by population density.”


            This difference is due to Africa+ only, as similar results were not found for the Pf PR surveys across the rest of the world,

            Implies that density is not tied to malaria mortality.

            “And what do you know about Africa and Child mortality?”

            African populations were substantially lower density then the rest of the world. Either
            -Africa had a lower carrying capacity
            OR
            -Africa had a higher mortality rate

            “Education, along with Medicine and Urbanization, are all included under the Model.”

            Hasidic Jews in the US have a fertility rate of 8.
            https://www.rt.com/usa/356885-satmar-bans-women-university/

            The fertility rate isn’t dominated by impersonal economic trends to the degree economists make it sound, unless you count ‘the crushing hand of the state’ as an impersonal factor.

            “This is the best outline of pre-colonial relations.”

            It covers the Mali Empire, groups that are smaller then modern West African states and a Berber tribal coalition. The idea of regionalism is also questionable; the number of different languages spoken in West Africa points against it with 520 languages currently spoken in just Nigeria.

          • Phil78 says:

            “Then how is it different from adaption to cold weather? If genetic adaption to climate extremes is a trait in the model and both groups have it, then it means the groups don’t diverge in that characteristic.”

            I meant that hot versus cold was included in the original model, not that simply “climate adaptation” is a trait of both.

            “AC is explicitly NOT USING THE ORIGINAL MODEL.”

            Seeing how NPC was referring to the original R/K in his article, and so far we have been speaking in terms of ecological pressures and fertility, and how the model we were both referring to is R/K, communication wasn’t clear to begin with.

            “Are you denying that population follows an S-curve growth rate as it approaches carrying capacity? So that being moved down the curve results in a fertility increase?”

            No, I deny that fertility increases resulting from selection for more kids with faster growth rates is what is proven in the case of malaria in Africa. See my studies on the fertility increase being for economical motivations primarily.

            “Producing lots of children was necessary in all pre-modern civilizations due to high infant mortality. I think that Africa had a higher mortality rate then elsewhere; if you disagree, you need to show comparative mortality rates or evidence that indicates comparative rates.”

            That actually begs the question of how do we know it was for disease survival back then as well, in a primary sense, seeing how back then they had a traditional economic style like African do now.

            “There are a couple of important things to know about infectious diseases
            -they tend to hit during famines and war when peoples immune resistance is down
            -they tend to become less virulent over time; the less efficient at killing carriers, the more people get infected”

            Alright

            “-human populations do generate resistence; it can be higher quality (all the poor people die first), but usually it is just changing around the antigens. In the context of Europe, higher quality is referring to the increase in living standards following the black death;”

            Then that’s not really K selection…that’s demographic transition as I pointed out if mutation aren’t the factor you meant.

            “I am not sure how much is genetic (ala Farewell to Alms) versus cultural so I didn’t make it an explicit argument.”

            Your phrasing didn’t make that clear-“Endemic disease results in r selection (have more children/have mutations that hurt children but enable survival against disease) and k selection (have higher quality children to survive disease).”

            “IQ is tied to parental investment in children.” I’ve read of it having a moderate effect on child abuse, though interpersonal traits have been shown to have higher effect.

            https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/02/25/chaos-and-nationhood-with-blacks/

            We can assume that for Africa. The question is, however, is this tied to selection simply for more children to survive? Not necessarily as, reared poorly or better in comparison to First World nations, they are kept for economical benefits.

            Again, much like the case for farmer populations in most other places current and in history.

            “And black plague is from the steppes which hardly had the disease to the same extent the rest of the world suffered from it.”

            The point isn’t on “origin”, it’s the significant of the disease on selection of a population.

            “I left out ‘clannishness and low IQ are associated with not working together to reach common goals’ which should be the second sentence. Skipped over it since I thought it was the obvious inference he should be making.”

            Actually if You read HBD chick surveys on “clannishness” versus “individualism”, they lie inbetween. So by proxies, it would’ve been a off presumption.

            “Implies that density is not tied to malaria mortality.”

            If you read the study it was testing the population surface information of those other areas to pinpoint associations, not the actual density information.

            Nonetheless, it DOES show that in Africa density is relevant as that is our point, so saying it’s “not tied” in incorrect

            “African populations were substantially lower density then the rest of the world. Either
            -Africa had a lower carrying capacity
            OR
            -Africa had a higher mortality rate”

            That doesn’t answer my question. I asked the question to guide to the “obvious point” that child mortality itself would explain it, making it universal as you pointed out with medical customs and not “discrete”.

            “Hasidic Jews in the US have a fertility rate of 8.
            https://www.rt.com/usa/356885-satmar-bans-women-university/

            Very traditional culture? Yeah, that would sustain a high fertility rate if you see my links to AC on the topic. Also, how does this one specific culture disproves a general trend. This is a case of exceptions proving the rule.

            “the fertility rate isn’t dominated by impersonal economic trends to the degree economists make it sound, unless you count ‘the crushing hand of the state’ as an impersonal factor.”

            Well lets put it like this, how many children do urban people living in small spaces usually have compared to rural people? That’s basically one of the first steps in decreasing fertility rate.

            Children, in history and current, are a cost.

            “It covers the Mali Empire, groups that are smaller then modern West African states and a Berber tribal coalition. The idea of regionalism is also questionable; the number of different languages spoken in West Africa points against it with 520 languages currently spoken in just Nigeria.”

            You seemed to mis the part out it was scattered centeralized states, the narrowing down specific “speakers in West Africa” being interconnected by trade network being the “regionalism” he’s talking about.

            “Most central authorities in the pre-colonial West African states delib-erately promoted the fluidity of commerce, by limiting their functions to maintaining security and collecting taxes, avoiding any effort to meddle in social relationships.26
            The absence of the complex structure of the modern day state system facilitated the process. In the context, a network of inter-connectedness and interdependence through transportation systems made up of pack animals, the canoe complex, and head porterage devel-oped. For example, the Rivers Benue and Niger, like their counterparts elsewhere in the sub-region, stimulated a network of interactions within the basin through waterways.
            27 Similarly, rather than an obstacle, the Sa-hara desert promoted commerce with the introduction of the camel, com-pelling the establishment of caravan routes that not only wove the West Africa economy into whole, but linked it with other regions of the conti-nent and the world.
            28 Hence, the coastal communities could exchange their products and ideas with the communities in the hinterland, particu-larly the Igbo occupying the forest zone. Similarly, the Yoruba, the Mande and Fante speaking people, among others, of the forest zone had robust commercial interactions with the Hausa, Fulani, Tuaregs, and other inhab-itants of the Savannah zone.29 This resulted in the emergence of a loose but distinct community, transcending sovereign political entities, connect-ing other parts of the sub-region. The picture that emerged in the long run was that of a classical common market .”

            By that logic, the ancient meditteranean relations should be discounted as a form of “regional cooperation”.

          • Phil78 says:

            To AC

            “I feel in some ways like there are two things at play here. One, you have not read much here, or read the book, so you aren’t clear on things like how high rearing urges drive desire for children, and how birth control mixed with low rearing urge, (as in the r-strategy) will lower birth rates. Jane Fonda, or Cher, or Madonna, would have far more kids than Sarah Palin, if they were in the natural environment like rabbits, without birth control or abortion. There would be even more still, if they were primitive ancestors who didn’t really link sex and the babies which popped out nine months later, as I suspect most animals do not. The knowledge linking sex and babies being born, as well as birth control and abortion combining with a low desire to have children and rear them, have altered how the r-strategy plays out in humans. That is basic on this site, it has been dealt with scores of times. As is the idea of “spreading bet” (promiscuity) being noted in r-selection, and monogamy/sexual-selectivity/mate monopolization in K.”

            While “promiscuity”, in ancient times, I would believe result in high birth rates, there’s something that clashes with that if we are going to link “aggression” with K selected people in humans.

            Seeing how aggressiveness and desire to mate in primitive setting match, pacifist in that setting would likely have less active sex drives.

            Further in Classical R/K, “aggressiveness” of preferably “dominance” is part of alpha selection, a differen category altogether. You could still integrate it into your framework however.

            “This is important. Biological r/K Theory, as described in the sciences, is not necessarily what leftism and rightism are today because we have several things we have developed which our r and K strategies have not yet adapted to. Some are outright deleterious to the strategy, like birth control and abortion. But Classical r/K Theory is the mechanism that imbued the ideological urges in humans, in our ancient evolutionary environment in the natural world. We are more looking at the total mechanism that produced politics here, than just politics in the moment right now. People say here leftists are r, or conservatives are K, but what they mean is they are exhibiting classic behaviors of r-selection or K-selection that are designed for the natural environment (and which may or may not work in the modern milieu). I think it telling that people here instinctually lionize “being K,” even where it is maladaptive, such as in the highly r-selected environment of the modern world during a resource glut.”

            I could buy this, the things is that traits themselves are born by mutations, selection refers to their frequency in populations based on carrying capacity.

            So I would say that they would be “types” rather than “selected”. You could still argue however about how social shifts changes preferences in behavior.

            “You also have not come across the areas where we discuss that crime is r-selected in that it is a search for free resources. Nothing is more r than burglar who wants to walk through a house and just pick up free smartphones, free laptops, and so on. You can almost see the prehistoric human picking fruit up off the ground, and how he is seeking an environment like that he is designed for. And a mugger is not much different, in that he will pass by the 200 lb weightlifter when he is unarmed, to pull a gun on an old grannie who cannot resist and has to give him free money. Criminals choose the weak, which is different from a boxer or a soldier, or just a normal conservative American. Add guns to a society and let citizens fight back, and confrontational crime goes down because it is not free resources any more.”

            Then that wouldn’t be pacifism as you attributed to r selected humans, would it? It would be aggressive competition, just at different tears as in nature pairings in competition within species isn’t about “fairness”, it’s about who is present in front of resources and there “masculinity” in comparison. The weak often get deliberately trampled by the strong.

            Granted, you can still make a framework out of this.

            “Some other things you should check out before positing criticisms (which I very much like, and thank you for, BTW),”

            Your welcome, don’t mean to come off particularly aggressive either.

            “is the role of epigenetics, and environmental modeling of the amygdala. The book will be free in Kindle in a few weeks, probably. Sign up at the main page for the email alert and get a copy (you can read the kindle on any computer with Amazon’s free software), because I would like to get your take after you read the whole thing, which is much more comprehensive, and looks at the issue from many more perspectives, than just r/K as you learned it in evolutionary ecology. You really need to see the genetics studies, the studies on brain adaptation to stresses, vs political brain structures, time frame perceptions, social science studies, epigenetics, genetics, and migration. It all fits together, and each area explains what is not in the others, as it fits in with them.”

            I just might actually, Your assertion and rebuttals are looking clearer to me towards an actual dichotomy, I now just think some tweaking in traits should be accounted for.

            “Second, you seem to have some sort of different cognitive style, so I think this is also a clash of cognitive styles. Sometime it is to the point I have to read what you wrote twice before I can process it. That isn’t bad writing, just our brains work differently. People who I suspect think like you write me periodically, to tell me they have to read what I wrote multiple times to understand what I am saying. We will probably always have some disconnect simply because of how we see things, and what we each need to feel comfortable with an idea.”

            I see that as well, happens often.

            “On the other things – you focus on individualists and collectivists. This work uses political ideologies instead for a couple of reasons. Mostly, it is because it is well defined by others, so when an independent researcher says the right and the left are “x,” and another independent researcher elsewhere says r and K are “y,” and you can then show x=Y, it makes a stronger argument than just me defining them and saying they are the same.”

            Granted I think both sets can be mistranslated to people, but perception-wise I think people will have a more consistent view of political differences.

            I was going more with something more individually fitting like the “Five B personality traits”.

            “Second, an individualist in a K-selected society will be different from an individualist in an r-selected society, IMO, so even if there is research on individualism/collectivism, if it doesn’t take that into account, it will not be of much use. The individualist in a K-selected society will be more r, supporting of porn, promiscuity, gay rights, out-group interests, and other violations of the K-selected society’s norms. I suspect he would be a collectivist, if his entire society were r. Likewise an individualist in an r-selected society will want to carry a gun, be left alone by government, and experience less taxation. If r and K are right, then an individualist is an individualist if he wants to do the opposite of those around him. K’s will be collectivist/conformist in K-societies, and r’s will be collectivist conformist in r societies.”

            I agree with this. And again, I meant to imply that all of the sets that I used would be aggregated like Myer-Briggs types. Sorry if that didn;t translate well.

            :I prefer r/K as the meme to convey this for a few reasons, ranging from the accuracy of the meme (most important as inaccuracies would allow this to be torn apart by a lot of people who won’t like it), to the density of information it can convey, to its novelty to political scientists (making it “sticky” and unique), to how easily it is explained with rabbit/wolf examples, to search engine optimization. I do come from a biological sciences background, so it appeals to me there too because I see the genetics working and the adaptation it provides. If you lean toward social sciences, and it doesn’t appeal to you, I would like to probe how to make it appeal to you for obvious reasons. This needs to spread to change how people view the world and freedom.”

            I personally view humans as complex social animals so a biological perspective doesn’t bother me. I basically would have more appeal to the name would have some divergence for “classic” R/K like “Neo R/K Strategies” or something along those lines.

            “But I think we are stuck with r/K. I don’t think any other terminology will work for a few reasons. One r/K is the most accurate. Collectivist/individualist is not quite the same, or as well defined, and it doesn’t imply this is biological, which it is. Alpha/Beta, is more social structure, and varies too. Hugh Hefner is Alpha in an LA club where he would seduce women effortlessly compared to an Army infantry officer who was ramrod straight and respectful of everyone, but put Hugh on a battlefield and he is zeta to a Chesty Puller. Traditionalism/modernism can fail because they are not well defined in that some cultures with a long history of r will see leftist tendencies as traditionalist, like in the Soviet era transitioning to privatization and capitalization. Again, I see areas of confusion where those who would want to knock it down would tear it apart, and I couldn’t complain because it would be inaccurate. Then there is the fact r/K has been around for a few years here, it has held well in the face of all criticisms, and it clearly appeals to a subset of high IQ’s on the right who like to share data online. Plus r/K is everything in one fell swoop if you compare the literature on it vs the literature on the left/right political divide. There is no separate theory for economics, and social aspects, and group/conflict, and personalities.”

            I see where you are going, however for “sophistication” purpose I think a R/K label ALONG with sub categories would work better

            “The truth is, this is spreading well as r/K. Already if I pulled out now, it would still spread many times faster than I was able to spread it myself alone a few years back. And that is accumulative. In a year it will be faster still, and the faster it spreads, the faster it spreads. At this point I could not stop it.

            The downside is leftists cannot contemplate it, so academia will be a tough sell. My plan is saturate the right, get the younger generation sold, and then make academia feel ignorant and ashamed if they do not address it.”

            I agree, at the very least, the differences should be addressed from a biological perspective and not closed out.

          • I appreciate the input. I am not that strong in the area of classical psychology theory, like Big 5 and Meyers Briggs, so I appreciate the contributions there.

            On aggression, I see two types. One could be your combat military operator, who is about the group and “principle,” above their own well being. They have a contentment with working hard for moderate gain. They are fiercely aggressive, but it is rarely for personal gain, and when they fight, the danger or toughness of their opponent is not an element in the calculation. They will dive on a hand grenade for a buddy, and willingly burn in. I see in them a stoic amygdala that decides on some principle, and then relentlessly pursues it selflessly, despite any fear or personal concerns.

            The second aggression is not so much aggression, as selfish opportunism, and I see it in most crime. Criminals seek the weak. The old lady is a preferable target to the strong man, if they are unarmed. They use guns when everyone is unarmed and helpless to resist, so they can be aggressive without risk. When I see their amygdala, I see an amygdala that is hyper-triggerable, in that not having free resources can drive them to risk imprisonment in all sorts of crazy and stupid behaviors, and they do not want to face any sort of competition when they do them.

            I think the criminal’s amygdala is similar to the pacifist’s amygdala, just the pacifist usually has a high enough IQ to get to a place where those resources flow without the stupidity, or need to be aggressive. But if a pacifist had his back against the wall, I would expect the same sort of opportunistic aggression, seeking the weak, and trying to find a way to do aggression without risk, like bringing a gun into a gun-free zone.

            The bottom line is the Marine who dives on a hand grenade to save his buddies may be a killing machine on the battlefield. But there is something very different in him, compared to the mugger who targets old ladies. I think aggression is different between the two.

            I agree that the fullest picture, to describe the world completely may require sub-types, but I think to describe why the political world always splits into a left and a right, and other paths like libertarianism never catch on despite their reasonableness, it does pretty good.

          • Samuel Skinner says:

            1″No, I deny that fertility increases resulting from selection for more kids with faster growth rates is what is proven in the case of malaria in Africa. See my studies on the fertility increase being for economical motivations primarily.”

            We are talking over the long run. Evolution dominates over the long run.

            2″That actually begs the question of how do we know it was for disease survival back then as well, in a primary sense, seeing how back then they had a traditional economic style like African do now.”

            The relevant question is compared to other populations. I believe the tropics are infamous bad when it comes to disease.

            3″Actually if You read HBD chick surveys on “clannishness” versus “individualism”, they lie inbetween. So by proxies, it would’ve been a off presumption.”

            Link? As far as I’m aware we have this
            https://i1.wp.com/geneticseducation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Consanguinity-world-map-Bittles.jpg

            The only African states we have data on are less clannish then South India and the middle East and more clannish then anywhere else on the planet.

            4″Nonetheless, it DOES show that in Africa density is relevant as that is our point, so saying it’s “not tied” in incorrect”

            Or the cities were built in malaria free zones.

            5″That doesn’t answer my question. I asked the question to guide to the “obvious point” that child mortality itself would explain it, making it universal as you pointed out with medical customs and not “discrete”.”

            I’ve numbered these- I can’t find what you were originally referencing.

            6″Very traditional culture? Yeah, that would sustain a high fertility rate if you see my links to AC on the topic. Also, how does this one specific culture disproves a general trend. This is a case of exceptions proving the rule.”

            You’ll note that is the trait all the ‘traditional cultures’ with high tfr’s have in common.

            7″Well lets put it like this, how many children do urban people living in small spaces usually have compared to rural people? That’s basically one of the first steps in decreasing fertility rate.

            Children, in history and current, are a cost.”

            There are Hasidic Jews in New York City. It is not the city or the expense that makes people not have children.

            8″You seemed to mis the part out it was scattered centeralized states, the narrowing down specific “speakers in West Africa” being interconnected by trade network being the “regionalism” he’s talking about.”

            Because that isn’t really regionalism? That existed since at least the stone age judging by the distribution of goods.

            9″By that logic, the ancient meditteranean relations should be discounted as a form of “regional cooperation”.”

            Ancient Mediterranean relations were not forms of regional cooperation. The coalition against Persia by Greek city states is a form of regional cooperation. The Olympics were a form of regional cooperation.

          • Phil78 says:

            To AC,

            I agree with you in how to distinguish aggression, the biological keu is Serotonin in my opinion. Basically, Testosterone fuels aggression but “unstable aggression” of criminals usually is associated with relatively lower serotonin compared to T.

            So a pacifist, typically a low T (low competition drive) who happens to have low serotonin in comparison and experience a temporary T drive in the instance of a fight or flight response would fight unstably.

            Overall, good talk.

          • Phil78 says:

            “We are talking over the long run. Evolution dominates over the long run.”

            “Long run” as in…what? And define “evolution” in application to humans because forms of cultural diffusion, such as farming or pastoralism, could change genetic in terms of resistance to food overtime.

            Pressures just don’t stay static over time.

            “The relevant question is compared to other populations. I believe the tropics are infamous bad when it comes to disease.”

            Yet, despite that, I have reffered to studies that points towards other explanation in high fertility in Africans

            3″Actually if You read HBD chick surveys on “clannishness” versus “individualism”, they lie inbetween. So by proxies, it would’ve been a off presumption.”

            “Link? As far as I’m aware we have this
            https://i1.wp.com/geneticseducation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Consanguinity-world-map-Bittles.jpg

            The only African states we have data on are less clannish then South India and the middle East and more clannish then anywhere else on the planet.”

            And using such a small number of countriesm, all of which having a large number of Muslim inhabitant, how much of a conclusion did you have faith in if this was your evidence?

            “There are however a couple of places that don’t seem to fit as well. Most poignant of these is sub-Saharan Africa. HBD Chick’s hypothesis doesn’t cover much of Africa, especially the non-Muslim parts. It’s unclear if the historic mating among non-Muslim Blacks was particularly consanguineous (though it was, and remains in many places, polygynous). However, as we clearly know, sub-Saharans do behave like considerably clannish people in some ways, yet a lot more like typical outbreeders in other ways.”

            https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/03/27/where-hbd-chicks-hypothesis-works/

            “Or the cities were built in malaria free zones.”

            Except those cities AREN’T “malaria” free, they just have lower rates and is still a problem as one of the link stated.

            “I’ve numbered these- I can’t find what you were originally referencing.”

            This-

            You: “Everyone did. High levels of child mortality meant that any society that didn’t have a high enough TFR ceased to exist.”

            Me:“And what do you know about Africa and Child mortality?”

            You:”African populations were substantially lower density then the rest of the world. Either
            -Africa had a lower carrying capacity
            OR
            -Africa had a higher mortality rate”

            The point was that previously you made a comment that implied a universailty towards high fertility to fend of child mortality, places that obviously didn’t necassarily had high malaria.

            The point then begins of what outline do we have of Africans and Non Africans for thousands of years that make’s africa’s high fertility a unique case rather than a “universal case” in where it can be adjusted.

            “You’ll note that is the trait all the ‘traditional cultures’ with high tfr’s have in common.”

            Yeah, I clearly acknowledge that. And seeing how that changed with the onset of industrial infrastructure, and Africa’s progress in both line up with each as small as the increase/decrease occurred, what point are you making.

            7″Well lets put it like this, how many children do urban people living in small spaces usually have compared to rural people? That’s basically one of the first steps in decreasing fertility rate.

            Children, in history and current, are a cost.”

            “There are Hasidic Jews in New York City. It is not the city or the expense that makes people not have children.”

            Again, dealing with an exceptional culture of people with the title of “Orthodox”.

            See here.

            http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/07/nyregion/orthodox-neighborhood-reshapes-itself.html?mcubz=0

            With higher SES skills and resources on average, they can afford to have alot of children.

            Otherwise, they live suburbs which goes in line with there SES status.

            http://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/chapter-2-intermarriage-and-other-demographics/

            As for High fertility groups and Urban areas, you have Blacks who live in more economically unstable conditions and as a result receive far more abortions.

            Unless you have literature that points elsewhere, you aren;t priving anything.

            “Because that isn’t really regionalism? That existed since at least the stone age judging by the distribution of goods.”

            Are you referring to the practiced used by West Africans or regionalism itself?

            If the former, see the conlsuding point- “This resulted in the emergence of a loose but distinct community, transcending sovereign political entities, connect-ing other parts of the sub-region. The picture that emerged in the long run was that of a classical common market .”

            That falls pretty damn close to economic regionalism.

            “Ancient Mediterranean relations were not forms of regional cooperation. The coalition against Persia by Greek city states is a form of regional cooperation. The Olympics were a form of regional cooperation.”

            Confusion coalition and culture convergence with cooperation. Again, the nature of ancient meditteranean markets would count as economic regionalism.

            https://www.britannica.com/topic/economic-regionalism

  4. everlastingphelps says:

    The difference is that after such deconditioning, a new path, most likely in the prefrontal cortex, develops and “learns” to suppress the amygdala-memory’s effect.

    More likely, the anterior cingulate cortex.

    Only quibble. Seriously. And they both cover Brodmann area 32, so maybe we are both right.

  5. Pitcrew says:

    Anyone trying to figure out why the left is so unhinged, r/K is the only explanation. It explains everything, especially the “whistling past the graveyard” that r-types are so prone to do. Pathways in the amygdala are permanent, a good anecdote is military veterans who dislike a 7.62 Soviet firing but aren’t phased by oodles of 5.56mm and 7.62x51mm. And of course they love the brrrrttttt sound of close air support. The human ear and amygdala can distinguish all of these and registers the sound they make. Vietnam Vets (mostly young draftees) permanently hate anything AK or commie-bloc chambered. Their first experience hearing it was in combat, and their amygdalas definitely recall to this day. Later on, newer Army units trained with all manner of weapons, especially foreign, extensively before combat deployments. This reduces any shock of hearing these weapons fired in combat and removes that first question “Is that one of ours shooting?”, and of course they train to identify all sorts of sounds, from all directions and distances. They do this when as close as high amygdala as possible, which occurs in an operational training environment. The later guys love the AK’s, some have even had to use them more than their issued M4’s.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      There are alternate explanations. The reactionaries prefer status competition, holiness spirals and progressivism being a religion. There are some who favor more structural explanations; aggregating all power to the state and people start competing on victim status in order to secure intervention. There is the obvious ethnic competition and screwing over competitions. There are probably others I am forgetting.

      Fortunately we don’t need to argue out the details; we get a front row seat on what will transpire and insofar as the predictions between the different theories are different, we can see which ones are correct.

      That said I suspect reality has too much detail for predictions to easily be made. The situation on the ground is often too weird. For example blacks are the most r group in the US but

      http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/modern-immigration-wave-brings-59-million-to-u-s-driving-population-growth-and-change-through-2065/9-26-2015-1-30-23-pm-2/

      Total Fertility Rate
      White 1.7
      Black 1.91
      Hispanic 2.5 (1.98 for 3rd generation)
      Asian 1.6
      Native 2.03

    • Snafui says:

      “Veterans who dislike…” just reading that caused my skin to crawl. But I also get uncomfortable to the sound of helicopters but for a different reason: I had to sleep days–tried to sleep–within a few hundred yards of the LZ and to this day I can hear them better than Radar O’Reilly from MASH.

  6. Sam J. says:

    A.C. this is one your very best post. It really explained a great deal to me.

  7. Snafui says:

    I’ve been trying to explain that no matter what information placed in front of them they are incapable of grasping it–as in it is a physical problem.

    When confronted with reality and one continues to force fantasy on others what steps can you take to limit their decision making capacities for other people? This is affecting lives in negative ways and they do not care because their fantasies trump reality in their minds.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      It is always hazardous to question the official narrative. Since people are smart enough not to do it outspokenly, what people check for is signs of doubt. As such most people’s unconscious strategy is to uncritically accept what is popular and parrot slogans without comprehension.

      Or in other words, people don’t think logically or rationally most of the time. Some people never think logically or rationally. On subjects where there is no personal investment (politics) this reaches exceptionally high (if not near total) levels.

  8. Pingback: Now Trump Turns The NFL Debate |

  9. Pingback: Now Trump Turns The NFL Debate | - Top

  10. lobsterhelmet says:

    Nothing could be sweeter than to get in on the ground floor of the great retributive project to restore honor and virtue to a civilization gone mad.

Leave a Reply