Archimedes Posted July 8, 2015 Author Posted July 8, 2015 I've read more about r/K than you. The blogger who introduced me to it is The Anonymous Conservative, who has a much better grasp of r/K than does Stefan. AC uses r/K selection to generalize about people with heavily r-selected personalities versus people with heavily K-selected personalities. I just picked up on your form-of-argumentation and find you to be a very r-selected individual. Based on that, I made a prediction. If it's right, it's right; if it's wrong, it's wrong - but calling it "immature" to make those predictions is a very r-selected personality trait. No, calling someone immature when he says "you prefer X" or "you like X", even though that person as no way to know if he's right or not, has nothing to to with r/K-selection theory. It's called setting your boundaries. You tried to push certain traits on me, and I refused to accept it. That was a competitive behavior on my part. Anway, I think you make things up as you go along, because if you really thought I was r-selected, why would you assume I prefer civilization, which is much more competitive than hunter gatherer societies? That's a contradiction.
MMX2010 Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 No, calling someone immature when he says "you prefer X" or "you like X", even though that person as no way to know if he's right or not, has nothing to to with r/K-selection theory. It's called setting your boundaries. You tried to push certain traits on me, and I refused to accept it. That was a competitive behavior on my part. Anyway, I think you make things up as you go along, because if you really thought I was r-selected, why would you assume I prefer civilization, which is much more competitive than hunter gatherer societies? That's a contradiction. I make the prediction that you prefer civilization because you're sending these messages over the internet. If you truly didn't prefer civilization, you'd be living in a place where there is no internet. This is far from "making things up as I go along".
Archimedes Posted July 8, 2015 Author Posted July 8, 2015 That's not why I say you are making things up as you go along. If I prefer civilization, I also prefer competition. Therefore I can't be a r-selected individual.
MMX2010 Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 That's not why I say you are making things up as you go along. If I prefer civilization, I also prefer competition. Therefore I can't be a r-selected individual. No, you can prefer civilization and hate competition, and compete in very specific ways. The Anonymous Conservative calls such people "rabbits" - and he has an extensive number of posts about them, their competitive tactics, and their brain structures. When I compare his articles to your comments in this thread, I find yours to be severely lacking. His assertions have more detail, more depth, and have been made over a series of articles for more than a year. Yours are just shallow, and laced with emotional language - exactly the way a "rabbit" would behave. If you'd like to explore the material in depth, check out anonymousconservative.com/blog.
J. D. Stembal Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 I agree with you if you're comparing human beings to other animals. I'm more interested in using the terms to compare individual human beings to each other. Humans cannot be both r and K at the same time. It's a contradiction. Our species doesn't work in this way (we would ultimately become two different species through divergent evolution), which is the source of some of the confusion in this thread. To alleviate the confusion, you have to acknowledge that Stefan was using the r/K strategy theory as an analogy to illustrate the problems of the welfare state. It's more straight-forward to talk about the state in economic terms and identify violations of the NAP. Mixing in evolutionary theories because they lend an air of scientific legitimacy may not be the best choice. It's an extended mixed metaphor to put it plainly.
Archimedes Posted July 8, 2015 Author Posted July 8, 2015 No, you can prefer civilization and hate competition, and compete in very specific ways. The Anonymous Conservative calls such people "rabbits" - and he has an extensive number of posts about them, their competitive tactics, and their brain structures. When I compare his articles to your comments in this thread, I find yours to be severely lacking. His assertions have more detail, more depth, and have been made over a series of articles for more than a year. Yours are just shallow, and laced with emotional language - exactly the way a "rabbit" would behave. If you'd like to explore the material in depth, check out anonymousconservative.com/blog. I wasn't emotional, until you crossed my boundaries. It's normal human behavior to become competitive, once somebody tries to push you into a corner. Before that I argued based on facts and evidence. I think you are projecting shallowness and emotional language onto me, as you talk about my character instead of responding to my arguments. Humans cannot be both r and K at the same time. It's a contradiction. Our species doesn't work in this way (we would ultimately become two different species through divergent evolution), which is the source of some of the confusion in this thread. Most species are both r and K at the same time. As are humans. r/K is not a dichotomy.
J. D. Stembal Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 Most species are both r and K at the same time. As are humans. r/K is not a dichotomy. It is a dichotomy with humans due to our extended cranial development. We have one of the longest gestational periods of all animals to boot. R-strategy simply does not apply to us. Can you give me an example of a plant, bacterium, animal or fungus that is both? Under what environmental circumstances? http://www.hypertextbookshop.com/biofilmbook/v004/r003/contents/chapters/chapter002/section004/blue/page003.html
Archimedes Posted July 8, 2015 Author Posted July 8, 2015 It is a dichotomy with humans due to our extended cranial development. We have one of the longest gestational periods of all animals to boot. R-strategy simply does not apply to us. Can you give me an example of a plant, bacterium, animal or fungus that is both? Under what environmental circumstances? Yes, our brain and pregnancy time is a K-characteristic. But there are also humans who engage r-selected behavior, otherwise we wouldn't have things like immigration, welfare, and so on. That's why I think humans are displaying r and K characteristics depending on the environment. Trees have traits like longevity and strong competitiveness, which are characteristics of K-strategists. But they also produce thousands of offspring, which are traits of r-strategists.
J. D. Stembal Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 Yes, our brain and pregnancy time is a K-characteristic. But there are also humans who engage r-selected behavior, otherwise we wouldn't have things like immigration, welfare, and so on. That's why I think humans are displaying r and K characteristics depending on the environment. Trees have traits like longevity and strong competitiveness, which are characteristics of K-strategists. But they also produce thousands of offspring, which are traits of r-strategists. Immigration and welfare are machinations of the state, not biological characteristics of our species. Is voting r or K strategy?
Archimedes Posted July 8, 2015 Author Posted July 8, 2015 Immigration and welfare are machinations of the state, not biological characteristics of our species. Is voting r or K strategy? Immegration and welfare exist, because people vote for it. There are also people who like to work for those government programs. So yeah, thoese people display strong r-behavior. Anyway, I went through your link and here's what I've found: It is not surprising that many organisms cannot be categorized neatly into this r vs. K scheme. Many organisms adopt an intermediate strategy or even adopt different strategies depending on local conditions at any given time. In fact, an organism capable of alternating between an r-strategy and a K-strategy might well be the best-fit organism over all because its adaptability permits survival under a broader range of conditions. And if you go through the traits listed in that article than two r-traits also apply to humans: strong sex drive and small size at birth.
Snafui Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 Were human beings to look around their environment and see limitations, even when there is abundance, they will lean more toward K, e.g. industrialized societies where people are independent of state aid. Manipulation by the state is when we see r strategies because of a perceived gross abundance, e.g. having more kids because your stipend increases. Note: Abundance does not promote r strategy alone, from what I can gather, but rather a perceived gross, or endless abundance does--those that cannot see an end to the resources. So, what is the primary source of creating r strategies? Crisis, i.e. abuse, crime, stress--which the state fosters from. To this point the state has actually gone so far as to make crime from everyday acts to support their own power (selling lemonade!) The power gained is then used to create more r susceptible people to further support on the state. When there is a so-called safety net, some parents will treat their children poorly because they know they will not be held responsible for the damage--again the state wins. At some point a ceiling is reached, the r strategy party is over, and the society collapses. (J.D.'s link above has a graph about this.) As to where monogamy fits in? Monogamy is a preferred strategy for stability. In the absence of this (e.g. disease, death, others), I see the extended family as the real safety net people should have, but thanks to the state this has almost been eradicated by social programs. This lack of familial support just adds to the stress on people making monogamy less likely. The state is a parasite that has interfered with this dynamic to a point that it is killing itself--again.
MMX2010 Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 Humans cannot be both r and K at the same time. It's a contradiction. How many times do I have to say, "r/K is a non-binary scale best applied to groups of individuals, rather than a binary scale best applied to one person" before you all accept this? Is the human species smart and stupid at the same time? (Of course it is.) Is that a contradiction? (Of course not.) So can the human species be r-selected and K-selected at the same time? (Yes!) Is that a contradiction? (No!) To alleviate the confusion, you have to acknowledge that Stefan was using the r/K strategy theory as an analogy to illustrate the problems of the welfare state. Yes. But I've a much deeper understanding of human sexual dynamics than Stefan does, and I disagree with his usage of r/K to lambast the welfare state. Yes, the welfare state is bad; no, the abolition of the welfare state WILL NOT automatically lead to a monogamous paradise. Instead, the majority of men will still be unfit to satisfy a woman's hypergamy - (and I know this, because in this current system men have never possessed more freedom, more knowledge, more time, and therefore more opportunity to satisfy a woman's hypergamy - but the majority of men resist the knowledge required to do so). Women won't "settle" for crappy men in the new system; they'll become career-focused women instead. Their career-focus, coupled with their bitterness at being along, will produce the need for scapegoats (which will always be male), which will give rise to the welfare state all over again. The welfare state doesn't exist because women are tyrannical. It exists because men are lazy and entitled. I wasn't emotional, until you crossed my boundaries. Having "boundaries" over what happened doesn't display the strong, independence-of-will that a K-selected individual possesses. It reflects the overwhelming need for maximum emotional comfort and the quick-escalation of minor quibbles into full-blown conflicts that a weak r-selected individual possesses. Assuming that your arguments are correct, despite your knowing that you haven't been studying r/K for very long. (One month, tops.), compared to men like The Anonymous Conservative who has been studying this for years is emblematic of the r-selected need to be seen as "an intelligent person" despite having not putting in the required effort to be well-informed about r/K. You aren't K-selected competitive. You are r-selected competitive. And I can make a host of predictions about your body type, your childhood history, your adolescent history, your relationships with the opposite sex, and how you spend your time. Naturally, making such predictions is a scientific endeavor - but you've already disqualified that as being "immature" - (r-selected individuals always poison the well with emotional language) - without realizing that your very emotionality over trivial events makes me predict that you'll lie about my predictions about you.
Archimedes Posted July 8, 2015 Author Posted July 8, 2015 Having boundaries about not letting others determine what you think is sign of self-worth. It has nothing to do with emotions, but with the protection of the self. If I cared about maximum emotional comfort, I wouldn't have called you out and went along with it. But go on, continue play the forum psychic and convince yourself how you have it all figured out based on reading some of my posts. @ J.D. Stembal There's a post currently in mod hell in which I reply to your last post. I hope it get's released soon.
J. D. Stembal Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 How many times do I have to say, "r/K is a non-binary scale best applied to groups of individuals, rather than a binary scale best applied to one person" before you all accept this? r actually stands for the rate of reproduction, and K stands for the carrying capacity of an ecosystem for a species. As I have pointed out numerous times in a couple threads, we have a unique ability to fashion the environment to suit our preferences. The rate of growth in the human population dropped in 1962 from 2.2% to 1.1% in 2009. We've leveled off like a K-strategist would, and we were never in danger of proliferating at a geometric rate, like an r-strategist. Is the human species smart and stupid at the same time? (Of course it is.) Is that a contradiction? (Of course not.) So can the human species be r-selected and K-selected at the same time? (Yes!) Is that a contradiction? (No!) This argument does not follow. Our species is actually very intelligent, hence the talking and typing we love to do. There are certain species that can play switcheroo with mating strategies. Humans are not one of them. It still takes roughly 40 weeks to gestate a human no matter our environment. It takes at least a decade, usually two for females and male to reach full fecundity, and we can reproduce for decades longer still. Again, this is not the trait of an r-strategist. Yes. But I've a much deeper understanding of human sexual dynamics than Stefan does, and I disagree with his usage of r/K to lambast the welfare state. Yes, the welfare state is bad; no, the abolition of the welfare state WILL NOT automatically lead to a monogamous paradise. Instead, the majority of men will still be unfit to satisfy a woman's hypergamy - (and I know this, because in this current system men have never possessed more freedom, more knowledge, more time, and therefore more opportunity to satisfy a woman's hypergamy - but the majority of men resist the knowledge required to do so). Women won't "settle" for crappy men in the new system; they'll become career-focused women instead. Their career-focus, coupled with their bitterness at being along, will produce the need for scapegoats (which will always be male), which will give rise to the welfare state all over again. The welfare state doesn't exist because women are tyrannical. It exists because men are lazy and entitled. Will you explain how the demise of the welfare state and subsequent rebirth, as you claim, has to do with laziness and entitlement in men?
MMX2010 Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 r actually stands for the rate of reproduction, and K stands for the carrying capacity of an ecosystem for a species. As I have pointed out numerous times in a couple threads, we have a unique ability to fashion the environment to suit our preferences. The rate of growth in the human population dropped in 1962 from 2.2% to 1.1% in 2009. We've leveled off like a K-strategist would, and we were never in danger of proliferating at a geometric rate, like an r-strategist. This argument does not follow. Our species is actually very intelligent, hence the talking and typing we love to do. There are certain species that can play switcheroo with mating strategies. Humans are not one of them. It still takes roughly 40 weeks to gestate a human no matter our environment. It takes at least a decade, usually two for females and male to reach full fecundity, and we can reproduce for decades longer still. Again, this is not the trait of an r-strategist. Well I finally understand what the real problem is. The real problem is that I've said, multiple times, that "r/K is not a binary scale; it's a sliding scale best applied to groups of human beings." - but your highlighted language above only discusses human beings as if they were a part of one group. To understand r/K, you must separate human beings into small groups and then make aesthetic judgments as to which group of humans is best. (And, yes, you have to define for yourself what the word "best" means!) Alan Chapman tried to get you to do that with this post - https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/44515-youtube-the-truth-about-gene-wars-rk-selection-theory/page-2#entry407471 - about his experiences living in Southern California, but you never emotionally connected to what he was saying and you never made an aesthetic judgment over which society is better: (1) The old one that Alan Chapman describes or (2) the new one that Alan Chapman describes. Will you explain how the demise of the welfare state and subsequent rebirth, as you claim, has to do with laziness and entitlement in men? It doesn't. However, I've predicted that Stefan will argue that the state is bad because it encourages r-selected reproduction in a way that bankrupts us all. And I've predicted many MGTOWs will agree with this argument and declare, "Women are naturally tyrannical, because they always use the state to secure resources from men!" I'm telling you that the MGTOW argument isn't true. Women will not always use the state to secure resources from men, but they will do so whenever men collectively stop striving to satisfy women's hypergamy. In other words, the welfare state doesn't exist because women want it; it exists because men are lazy. If men were less lazy, women wouldn't seek the power of the state to secure resources, they'd secure the charmed attention of men.
MMX2010 Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 Having boundaries about not letting others determine what you think is sign of self-worth. No, it isn't. Having boundaries over trivial incidents indicates a strong desire to be viewed favorably by a crowd of individuals, which is the surest sign of lack of self-worth. A man of self-worth can walk away from internet-squabbles, because they've nothing to do with his own worth, whereas a man without self-worth must secure all forms of admiration, all the time. Isn't it a false dichotomy to say "either you want modern society or you want to be a prehistoric hunter-gatherer"? No, it's not a false-dichotomy to say, "either you want modern society or you want to be a prehistoric hunter-gatherer". Societies which are comprised of heavily r-selected individuals have all the pros and cons of hunter-gatherer societies, while societies which are comprised of heavily K-selected individuals have all the pros and cons of modern societies. What if I prefer the bronze age, or the Renascence? What if someone wants an altered version of the modern society? Either state which societies you prefer, state why, and indicate your plan to get there. Or don't mention alternative societies at all. Passive-aggressively asking, "What if I prefer the bronze age or the Renaissance?" doesn't add to this discussion. You're also assuming that "civilization" means the modern form, as if you couldn't have modern tech and standard of living without monogamy. I'd love to hear how you came to that conclusion logically. You cannot have modern technology and modern standards of living without: (1) inculcating a strong desire in children to compete with each other, (2) inculcating in men to avoid sexual contact and/or unwanted pregnancies in their teens and twenties, (3) inculcating in women a strong sense of self-blaming shame over having sex with a man and being immediately dumped, and (4) inculcating in all citizens a sense of pride over their technological accomplishments. Without these four things, the majority of people twiddle away their youths on either: (1) actual sexual activity - that doesn't lead to stable family units or (2) pining away in self-doubt because they're not engaging in that form of sexual activity.
Alan C. Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 The rate of growth in the human population dropped in 1962 from 2.2% to 1.1% in 2009. We've leveled off like a K-strategist would, and we were never in danger of proliferating at a geometric rate, like an r-strategist. It's important to understand the reasons why population growth becomes stymied. While it's something we might expect to see from 'K' as people pursue quality over quantity, we can't simply conclude that it's because of 'K.' During certain periods of famine in China and Russia, there were precipitous drops in population due to mass starvation. It wasn't the result of 'K.' 1
Matt D Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 No! In polyamorous societies, the majority of people are lazy, because r-selected societies eschew competition. Which of these would a child rather have: (1) five "father figures" and five "mother figures" all of whom are slothful, or (2) Stefan as a father and Christina as a mother? Stefan is Stefan chiefly because of his K-selected competitiveness and welfare queens are welfare queens because of their relative lack of K-selected competitiveness. The desire to defeat other people in competition is what makes a person r-selected or K-selected. And most people in modern society are r-selected due to their unwillingness to directly face competitors in win/lose interactions, preferring instead to "out-compete" other individuals through indirect gossip and outright slander. Twitter wars and outrage culture are for fat, lazy, non-competitive people - and their ubiquity tells you all you need to know about modern America's character and toughness. An r-selected society is one comprised of r-selected individuals: (whiny, self-centered, arrogant, entitled, lazy, constantly over-rating both their personal skills and ability to control others, status seeking rather than accomplishment driven), while a K-selected society is comprised of K-selected individuals: (ruthlessly competitive but honest, physically fit, willing to fight, hard-working, resourceful, intelligent, and accomplishment-seeking over status-seeking). I don't think you're listening to what I said. I never advocated a society which is one giant polyamorous orgy in which no one competes with each other... that would be disgusting. But if marriage is a team, then why can't there be more than two people on that team? All members of the team would be competing with 99.9999% of the population, but within the team there'd be cooperation. In the free market you generally cooperate with a majority of people and only compete directly with a few. I haven't heard a convincing argument for why marriage and child-rearing is fundamentally different than the free market in that you have to compete with everyone in order to achieve success. If you're an entrepreneur who wants to take on more than one client, how often does your existing client say, "No, I have to be your only client otherwise we can't work together." We would say that client is either very rich or psychotic. Look, personally I still favor monogamy because of instinct. But if I don't know the philosophy behind why I favor it then it's nothing more than prejudice!
MMX2010 Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 I don't think you're listening to what I said. I never advocated a society which is one giant polyamorous orgy in which no one competes with each other... that would be disgusting. But if marriage is a team, then why can't there be more than two people on that team? For the same reason that you cannot replace a superstar 60-goal scorer with three forwards who scored 20 goals each last year. People with heavily r-selected personalities are inherently lazy and entitled, so five-of-them-added-together DO NOT equal one highly successful individual with K-selected personalities. Furthermore, among the polyamorous scene, the men are (by and large) not physically attractive, not well-versed in Pick-Up Artistry, and are between 22 and 29 (ages where their Sexual Market Value, as men, is comparably low). The women are (naturally) dissatisfied with these men but don't want to dump them - (because the traits that make them un-sexy make them good prospective fathers and providers later on in life) - and use the "I'm polyamorous!" argument to keep those men around. In the free market you generally cooperate with a majority of people and only compete directly with a few. In the dating market, as a man, you compete with: (1) Every boyfriend / lover that your woman has ever had, (2) Every fantasy relationship she can develop - (whether involving men, women, or men-and-women simultaneously), and (3) Every fantasy-of-you that she can develop - (for example, you-with-bigger-muscles, you-with-more-empathy, you-with-more-money). Your emotional perception of what women want and how they feel when looking for boyfriends and lovers is way, way, way off.
st434u Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 If you want to raise kids that act like wild apes, then yes, polygamy is the way to go, and tribal unions are the best. If you want kids that are well adapted to a civilized, peaceful society based on mutual respect and private property, then you need family unions, and monogamy. The "natural" mating behavior for humans is that of beasts, that is, polygamy and tribal unions. The "natural" socioeconomic status of humans is that of primitive hunter-gatherers. The "natural" economic status of humans is tribal communism. The "natural" state of humans is war, coercion, murder, theft, rape and torture. Marriage, monogamy, family unions and private property are not natural, they are social constructs. And they are what's necessary to maintain peace and civilization.
Archimedes Posted July 9, 2015 Author Posted July 9, 2015 No, it isn't. Having boundaries over trivial incidents indicates a strong desire to be viewed favorably by a crowd of individuals, which is the surest sign of lack of self-worth. A man of self-worth can walk away from internet-squabbles, because they've nothing to do with his own worth, whereas a man without self-worth must secure all forms of admiration, all the time. But I didn't think about other people in this thread when I told you that you can't speak for me. So you are wrong again about your internet predictions. The reason for why I told you that you can't speak for me is simple: In a discussion people make their arguments based on reason and logic. They don't try to invade the boundaries of other people by telling them how they think and what they prefer. I wanted to steer the discussion back to the topic. You went on with your armchair psychoanalysis of me, so what discussion we had is propably lost anway.
MMX2010 Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 The reason for why I told you that you can't speak for me is simple: In a discussion people make their arguments based on reason and logic. They don't try to invade the boundaries of other people by telling them how they think and what they prefer. That's only true if the topic itself is purely logical, such as the trajectory of a projectile. Topics such as parenting and monogamy inevitably involve sexuality, which is inevitably personal, and are always best understood on personal grounds. (For example, once I know that a man doesn't exercise AND opposes Pick-Up Artistry, I know exactly what he is and why he opposes Pick-Up Artistry.) Have you noticed that your every argument involves, "Either A or B" propositions, and that my responses always involve "A, B, C, and D" propositions? Vox Day and The Anonymous Conservative have very much helped me identify this line-of-thinking and make excellent predictions of people who think along those lines. Vox Day calls it Black/White thinking, and he classifies everyone who routinely uses it as Gamma individuals. You can check out alphagameplan.BlogSpot.com to determine what Gammas are, but be warned, Vox has nothing nice to say about them.
Archimedes Posted July 9, 2015 Author Posted July 9, 2015 It's funny how you acccuse me of black and white thinking but you yourself claim that you can determine the sexual behavior of people based on their posting style. I opened this thread because I read an interesting book about promiscuity in hunter gatherer tribes, and asked myself if raising kids in those tribes is better than monogamy. I posted the facts about that book and added reasons for why childcare within a tribe may be better than monogamy. Does that mean I want promiscuity? No! How could you make this assumption or even talk like this is a fact? I prefer monogamy, simply because it is the better strategy for raising kids in our current environment, but at the same time I can acknowlege that in a different environment, a promiscuous mating behavior may be preferable. I'm interested about examples of my supposedly black and white thinking. I think you are too caught up in alpha/beta/gamma thinking patterns and try to put everyone around in those three categories, which leads you to see things in people that aren't there. Especially, since humans can't be classified by alpha/beta/gamma labels. We don't have the characteristcs of such a species. And believe me, I've been applying PUA principles for a long time in my life, only to realize that most of their teachings are missguided or inaccurate. I think PUA may be a good tool for social retards , but once you get some experience, you see that many of their principles just apply in certain situations with certain people. 1
J. D. Stembal Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 It's important to understand the reasons why population growth becomes stymied. While it's something we might expect to see from 'K' as people pursue quality over quantity, we can't simply conclude that it's because of 'K.' During certain periods of famine in China and Russia, there were precipitous drops in population due to mass starvation. It wasn't the result of 'K.' Are you familiar with the Haber-Bosch process? Humans (Germans) figured out a way to increase the carrying capacity of the planet by converting fossil fuels (energy) into fertilizers. http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Equilibria/Case_Studies/Haber_Process Semi-dwarf wheat strains, the first genetically modified organism, was the next scientific marvel that turned starvation into surplus in the 1960s. We have steadfastly resisted hitting the K threshold like a typical animal species, but we don't reproduce like r-strategists as our environment is not hostile, we have no predators, and we do not have the capability of reproducing at a geometric rate. Humans are in a population bubble created by fiat currency and abetted by the H-B process and the high yield strains of crops developed by scientists. I don't think we've seen what mass starvation looks like yet.
MMX2010 Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 It's funny how you acccuse me of black and white thinking but you yourself claim that you can determine the sexual behavior of people based on their posting style. If you could cut-and-paste exactly where I claimed that, I'd appreciate it.
AncapFTW Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 If you want to raise kids that act like wild apes, then yes, polygamy is the way to go, and tribal unions are the best. If you want kids that are well adapted to a civilized, peaceful society based on mutual respect and private property, then you need family unions, and monogamy. The "natural" mating behavior for humans is that of beasts, that is, polygamy and tribal unions. The "natural" socioeconomic status of humans is that of primitive hunter-gatherers. The "natural" economic status of humans is tribal communism. The "natural" state of humans is war, coercion, murder, theft, rape and torture. Marriage, monogamy, family unions and private property are not natural, they are social constructs. And they are what's necessary to maintain peace and civilization. Can you please explain why monogamy is necessary for any of those societal traits? How is mutual respect and private property not possible outside of monogamy? It seems to me that a society in which children are raised by more people, instead of just two who essentially own them until they get older, would have more mutual respect and a greater understanding of private property.
Archimedes Posted July 9, 2015 Author Posted July 9, 2015 Sure, if you cut and paste instances of my supposed black and white thinking, as I asked you first about it.
MMX2010 Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 Sure, if you cut and paste instances of my supposed black and white thinking, as I asked you first about it. Here's what would've happened if you cut-and-pasted where I (supposedly) commented on your preferred sexual behaviors. My quotation that you cut-and-pasted would not have directly commented on your sexual behaviors. So the only way you could accuse me of commenting on your sexual behaviors is by inferring what I meant. Inferring what I meant, and saying that I meant X and no other possible thing is Black and White thinking. ------------------- Furthermore, you're equally emotionally annoyed by the phrase "Black and White thinking" as you're annoyed by the notion of commenting on someone's sexual behavior. (And I know that you're bothered by the phrase "Black and White thinking", because you're trying to made a trade, "You show me Black and White thinking and then I'll cut-and-paste examples where you're commenting on my sexual behaviors.") Most people, and all normal people, do not get at all bothered when someone suggests they're using Black and White thinking - but they may (or may not) get bothered when someone comments on their sexual behaviors. Gammas always get annoyed by things that don't at all bother non-Gammas. 1 1
Archimedes Posted July 9, 2015 Author Posted July 9, 2015 There's a bit where you talk about sexuality based on r-selected behavior, but I'm not going back and find it, unless you provide instances of black and white thinking. See, I asked you first, so why should I do something that you ask me of, if you refuse to do the same in the first place? It has never been a trade, I just reminded you that I asked you first to back up your accusation. Funny how you are able to correctly see how inferrying and then saying that this means X and no other thing is black and white thinking (which I never did, btw. You just assume I will do it in the future), but at the same time you think you are able to determine whether somebody is r- or K-selected based on their posting style, and then make assumption about all their character traits based on that. I'm annoyed by a guy who keeps insisting that I have certain character traits, even though I have showed him several times that I don't. I'm annoyed by a discussion style which is based on making assumptions about the other person, instead of interacting with him. And that is not the sign of a weak male. Stef does the same thing in his call in shows. Is he a low-status male as well? 1
MMX2010 Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 It seems to me that a society in which children are raised by more people, instead of just two who essentially own them until they get older, would have more mutual respect and a greater understanding of private property. A society in which more people are raised by more people isn't necessarily non-monogamous. Just imagine a monogamous society with groups of extended families living in close proximity.
MMX2010 Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 There's a bit where you talk about sexuality based on r-selected behavior, but I'm not going back and find it, unless you provide instances of black and white thinking. Gotcha. You know what's amusing, though? When I talk about sexuality based on r-selected behavior, I'm talking about large swaths of the human population. And when Stefan talks about r-selected and K-selected behavior, he, too, is discussing large swaths of the human population. So when you say, "It's funny how you acccuse me of black and white thinking but you yourself claim that you can determine the sexual behavior of people based on their posting style.", you're not even referencing which posters I was (supposedly) discussing. And worse for you, when I search/find "poster", that word doesn't appear in any of my posts to this point. And when I search/find "member", that word doesn't appear in any of my posts to this point, either. And I know I've never referred to any poster by name. So why should I respond to your accusation, if you can't even formulate it properly? Who, besides you, is offended by my assertion that I can determine the sexual behavior of people based on their posting style? but at the same time you think you are able to determine whether somebody is r- or K-selected based on their posting style, and then make assumption about all their character traits based on that. I am quite able to do that. And I'm quite able to do that in real life, as well. You are bothered by that, but guess what? I don't care. I didn't learn this skill to please you, to provide you with empathy, nor to cater to your expectations. I learned this skill to please myself, carve a better life for myself, and to lend this skill to those who can appreciate it. As a member of the Best FDR NYC Meet-Up Group, I routinely pass along my knowledge in this area to the delight of the crowd. One of the members is a film student graduate, and he can describe a movie that I haven't seen - and I will rapidly interrupt him with predictions about how he's dressed, how she's dressed, how he carries himself, how she carriers himself, what age they met, and most importantly how the plot will develop. I will then make inferences about the character of the person most responsible for the movie, (whether writer, producer, or director). I am dead on roughly 75% of the time, which is quite impressive when you consider the depth of my predictions. So ask me if I'm going to change my behavior, which routinely helps five close friends whom I see every week, to appease you. Ask.
Archimedes Posted July 9, 2015 Author Posted July 9, 2015 Gotcha. You know what's amusing, though? When I talk about sexuality based on r-selected behavior, I'm talking about large swaths of the human population. And when Stefan talks about r-selected and K-selected behavior, he, too, is discussing large swaths of the human population. So when you say, "It's funny how you acccuse me of black and white thinking but you yourself claim that you can determine the sexual behavior of people based on their posting style.", you're not even referencing which posters I was (supposedly) discussing. And worse for you, when I search/find "poster", that word doesn't appear in any of my posts to this point. And when I search/find "member", that word doesn't appear in any of my posts to this point, either. And I know I've never referred to any poster by name. So why should I respond to your accusation, if you can't even formulate it properly? Who, besides you, is offended by my assertion that I can determine the sexual behavior of people based on their posting style? You claimed I am a black and white thinking guy, I asked you for evidence. You didn't provide any. When you asked me to provide evidence for my accusation, I told you that I'm going to do it, if you provide evidence for my supposed black and white thinking. So again, why should I give you evidence for an accusation, if you refuse to do the same in the first place? Besides my accusation is accurate enough and I can back it up by evidence. You'll see if you post some instances of my supposed black and white thinking. And I'm talking actual instanes, not speculating about how I might react, like you tried before. I am quite able to do that. And I'm quite able to do that in real life, as well. You are bothered by that, but guess what? I don't care. I didn't learn this skill to please you, to provide you with empathy, nor to cater to your expectations. I learned this skill to please myself, carve a better life for myself, and to lend this skill to those who can appreciate it. As a member of the Best FDR NYC Meet-Up Group, I routinely pass along my knowledge in this area to the delight of the crowd. One of the members is a film student graduate, and he can describe a movie that I haven't seen - and I will rapidly interrupt him with predictions about how he's dressed, how she's dressed, how he carries himself, how she carriers himself, what age they met, and most importantly how the plot will develop. I will then make inferences about the character of the person most responsible for the movie, (whether writer, producer, or director). I am dead on roughly 75% of the time, which is quite impressive when you consider the depth of my predictions. So ask me if I'm going to change my behavior, which routinely helps five close friends whom I see every week, to appease you. Ask. I understand that you care about those things for yourself and are quite knowlegable about r/K-theory, but that's not what bothers me. As I've said several times, it bothers me that you try to frame your discussion partner into a certain sets of characteristics in order to make an argument, instead of responding to what they say. That's not a discussion, that's talking to an imaginary person in your head. It doesn't matter if you use your knowledge about r/K-theory or something else to do this. When you pushing a certain value onto other people, anyone with his own value set will refuse it. Sure, you don't have to appease anyone, just as I don't have to discuss things with somebody, who's using dishonest discussion styles. I will respond to your evidence about my supposed black and white thinking, as I've promised, but that's about it.
st434u Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 Can you please explain why monogamy is necessary for any of those societal traits? How is mutual respect and private property not possible outside of monogamy? It seems to me that a society in which children are raised by more people, instead of just two who essentially own them until they get older, would have more mutual respect and a greater understanding of private property. When you have a monogamous relationship and a family unit, the children share their genes with all of their caretakers and siblings. And the parents can spend all of their resources in raising their own children, which of course all share half of their own genes. The siblings can contribute to the raising of other children which share at least 25% of their own genes. Because of this, private property can be maintained, because each family cares for and sustains their own. What other people do or fail to do is not of much importance, as long as they don't directly interfere with the ability of your family to prosper. In a tribal union setting where children are cared for by all the tribe members, resources must be shared, and selfish behavior must be restricted. That is, you need everybody to produce and contribute to everybody else's wellbeing and not take too much for themselves and their own. In this situation, if someone is producing more and not contributing enough, it directly harms you, your children and your tribe. So they must be dealt with by force. The ideal economic system for tribal unions is communism. Furthermore, under a family union setting, neighboring families become trading partners. But under a tribal union setting, neighboring tribes become enemies. So boys need to be raised to become fierce warriors loyal to their tribes when they grow up. They need to be willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of the tribe. Likewise, girls need to be raised to become cold hearted mothers, so that they are willing to sacrifice their own children for the good of the tribe, if necessary. The best way to achieve these is not through mutual respect, but through child abuse. In either case the children are owned, the question is whether it's better for them to be owned by their parents, who have a biological drive to sacrifice themselves for their children's wellbeing, or whether they should be raised by the whole tribe, which has a biological drive to sacrifice the children for the good of the tribe.
PatrickC Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 I'll be honest Archimedes and you can reject my comment here if you like of course. But you made a very well reasoned argument earlier why you should dismiss MMX's assertions of you. Don't let his snake oil imbed. 1 1
MMX2010 Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 You claimed I am a black and white thinking guy, I asked you for evidence. No, I claimed that you use Black and White thinking. There's a very subtle difference between the two. The first statement, "You're a Black and White thinking guy." is a personal attack against your entire mode-of-thinking and/or your entire personality. But the second statement, "You use Black and White thinking." is an impersonal attack against a specific thing (or two), (or three) things you did. People who create the first statement out of thin air, when the person (me) actually said the second statement are Gammas. Their constant habit of doing this turns every thread in which they participate in into a "woe is me" focus on their own negative emotional state. Non-Gammas don't have this problem, because they don't twist what people said into personal attacks. Unfortunately, most people aren't well-versed in pointing out when a Gamma does what a Gamma does, so Gammas are allowed to persist that way for months, even years, never improving themselves. I understand that you care about those things for yourself and are quite knowlegable about r/K-theory, but that's not what bothers me. As I've said several times, it bothers me that you try to frame your discussion partner into a certain sets of characteristics in order to make an argument, instead of responding to what they say. That's not a discussion, that's talking to an imaginary person in your head. It doesn't matter if you use your knowledge about r/K-theory or something else to do this. When you pushing a certain value onto other people, anyone with his own value set will refuse it. First off, the "but" is amusing, because you're placing your own subjective emotional reactions ahead of the fact that I'm exceptionally more knowledgeable about r/K than you (or anyone else) is. That is precisely what Gammas do, needing every discussion to make them feel emotionally uplifted - or else they cannot focus on the knowledge-aspect of the discussion. Secondly, the green argument is simply not true. Gammas will refuse it and make a big emotional stink about it. Deltas will get annoyed by it and either instantly adopt it or instantly reject it, but they'll keep their rejection absolutely silent. Betas will calmly and open-mindedly ask for evidence without lacing their questions with personal attacks. Alphas and Sigmas will either instantly accept it (if the argument is accurate) or amusingly scoff (if the argument is inaccurate). 1 1
Recommended Posts