Another older researcher sees the same differences in Russia, and thinks them significant:
R-types = polyandric and K-types = monoandric
Terms by a Russian called Blonsky during the Soviet Era.
We’d nowadays call it the tendency to monogamy and polygamy (andry being replaced perhaps incorrectly).
People have long noted that two different models of human exist. Even each side has even seen the other, and labeled them “bad” in some way, without beginning to see their purpose.
It is one of the key reasons r/K will eventually take off stratospherically. People have always seen the archetypes, but never seen their mechanistic purpose. Once the purpose becomes apparent, the entire model is given full credibility because every facet falls into place at once as part of a cohesive model that explains everything.
It is really quite elegant.
[…] Another older researcher sees the same differences in Russia, and thinks them significant: R-types = polyandric and K-types = monoandric Terms by a Russian called Blonsky during the Soviet Era. We’d continue […]
It has a lot going for it, that’s for sure.
But to what extent does it account for agency, human will? If it doesn’t take that into account (for many) it will be wanting.
Thanks for your great writing.
Consider the apple. Some are sweet, some are sour; some are good, some are bad. You should write a book about it. Or how about twenty four chapters devoted to the different sides of a coin? I’m sure you can correlate it with politics somehow. There are probably many people that would benefit from your analyses of heads versus tails. I’m sure you can explain why one is better than the other…
…or maybe not. You still haven’t adequately explained why k is better than r ; instead you just offer endless circle-jerk tirades corroborating brazen bigotry and hatred.
Perhaps you can elaborate on the difference between hot and cold, or up and down. Which is right and which is left? Which side are you on?
When K is ascending society is a marvel of greatness. When r ascends, it destroys that society and triggers a collapse.
I see even carnival barkers can take a shot at philosophy from time to time.
instead you just offer endless circle-jerk tirades corroborating brazen bigotry and hatred.
A pretty good encapsulation of “r” if I’ve ever seen one. On one hand, we have the casual throw away profanity that emits like CO2 from the carnival barker, usually a sexual reference, something we’d never repeat in front of our grandmothers. r’s love resorting to the profane, because their father loves it when they do.
On the other hand, we see you mocking AC’s worthy efforts to define an objective truth, an objective reality, and that’s of course cod liver oil to your average r, so you reflexively spit it out (that was me *not* making one of your profane references).
You finish your rant about the impossibility of one thing being superior to another, and then conclude by saying one group of bigots and haters is *definitely* better than another group of bigots and haters.
People like you really deserve everything you’re going to get for being – objectively – such stupid malicious liars.
When all they have is hate and ad hominem, we’ve already won the argument.
Explaining why K is better to an r might well be an exercise in futility.
To an r-type, K is not better. K means people start setting standards and excluding the incompetent. That’s hardly a selling point for the incompetent.
You know an ideology by what it produces. The type of person especially.
Society is a marvel of greatness? Society is an abstract term. There are many kinds of societies. There are societies that we have not even imagined. Are they all a marvel of greatness? And are you suggesting that destroying a society or triggering its collapse is not greatness? And what is greatness anyway?
You’ve haven’t employed a scientific method at all. In fact, it appears as if you’ve been drinking. What role does K play when societies are ascending? There is nothing scientific about your r/K selection theory; it’s just a phallus symbol.
I’m sure you see those everywhere, don’t you?
The subtitle to “The Barber of Seville” is “The Useless Precaution.”
Indeed. Your daddy’s rubber was a useless precaution.
Another angle for r vs K. Maladpatives vs Adaptives. Unfit vs Fit.