BaconForAllah Posted September 27, 2015 Posted September 27, 2015 He had an affair and a child from it. Her pictures are available. If someone can sell me on him trading up to her from Maria, I'm all ears/eyes. Otherwise, why did he do it? What from all of this r/k theory, biological cues, etc. can we use to understand his affair?
Crallask Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 I really think it might just be as basic as she was an easy lay. No seriously, this would put him in the R camp (spray and pray) and he could afford the risk. Was it trading up? Eeehh, I think quantity has its own quality for R type men due to more genetically linked chaps trouncing about the world.
LancierDombre Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 We've gotten a bit too gung ho in viewing everything through the lens of r/K selection. I actually read the book that Stef is drawing from just before he came out with the gene wars series. If I recall, one of the points that is made early on is that r/K is more of a group and ideological description than something that you can cleanly classify individuals with. Conservatives pursue policies that advantage K-selection, liberals pursue policies that advantage r-selection, but an individual in either camp will probably exhibit a mix of both types of behavior depending on biological characteristics, socialization, and the specifics of the situation they find themselves it. In other words, the "average" conservative is K-selected in the same way that the "average" human has one testicle and one ovary. This is because it is in one's genetic self-interest to be flexible. (i.e. "It is not the strongest or the smartest that survive, but the most adaptable" - Paraphrasing of Charles Darwin) From a purely biological perspective, it makes sense for a K-selected male to inseminate females other than his 'wife' provided that the costs are relatively low. Of course, humans make decisions for reasons other than a naïve interpretation of genetic self-interest but none the less, the impulse will exist. A rich and powerful man may potentially profit genetically from infidelity, especially if his wife is not going to be bearing him any additional children for whatever reason. The key to setting up a K-selected society is to make the potential costs of dabbling in r-selected behavior prohibitively expensive. I don't know that much about Arnold's specific situation but I would bet that "the prisoner's dilemma" from game theory is a much more illuminating framework for analyzing Arnold's infedelity than r/K selection theory. I'm of course open to counterarguments on this though. 3
mahayana Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 Schwarzenegger was known for overtly making inappropriate sexual advances towards females on movie sets. I don't know why someone from a position of influence and power would jeopardize his reputation other than as a result of some uncontrollable sexual addiction.
adamNJ Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 If someone can sell me on him trading up to her from Maria, I'm all ears/eyes. You got it all wrong women trade up, men on the other hand: masturbate while parachuting, spray and pray, cast a wide net, spread their selfish gene.
BaconForAllah Posted September 29, 2015 Author Posted September 29, 2015 Men do all that but also trade up. I don't think either Jolie or Aniston are attractive (just a couple of ironing boards that couldn't hold a candle to any sampling of women at a mall but fit the safe skinny white boring profile media sells), but Pitt certainly traded up to at least a more attractive woman and one who likely shares many more values with him and is far more accomplished in her personal life (again at least from his view). Aniston collects her $20M/year from Friends passive income and is probably detached from reality outside of her gated home perimeter while Pitt is helping with housing in Louisiana, Jolie is doing her UN work and adopting poor kids etc.
kerou Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 We've gotten a bit too gung ho in viewing everything through the lens of r/K selection. This. It's so strange to hear the terms r/k thrown around in broad sweeping generalizations to the point where it almost becomes genetic determinism. It deletes a lot of the responsibility of people's triumphs and failures to just being r/k selected behavior. It's an interesting theory and has a lot of applications--but I think the application of the Aristotelian mean is in order here. Stef and FDR have gone way off the deep end with these r/k accusations. You can hear this in the call in shows when Stef will call someone 'R' as a demeaning insult or chalk their poor decision making to being 'R'. This view also seems to be the reason why FDR has turned more nationalistic/conservative over the past months. It's a disturbing trend that I hope I am just making up. This isn't to discredit any of the research and finding in the Gene wars series, as it is fantastic and useful information with the application of epigenetics. But I agree that this whole dichotomy has been taken way too far. 1
shirgall Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Yeah, in a sense the R versus K behavior is a theme and not an attribute. Arnold is obsessed with power and the trappings of power. He has humvees, and a tank, and cigars, and giant muscles, and... affairs. If anything this is an orthogonal vector to the R/K continuum.
LancierDombre Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 You can hear this in the call in shows when Stef will call someone 'R' as a demeaning insult or chalk their poor decision making to being 'R'. This view also seems to be the reason why FDR has turned more nationalistic/conservative over the past months. It's a disturbing trend that I hope I am just making up. Stef, like myself and most other people I think, has a tendency to want to play with a new "toy" as much as we can when we first get it. I think we will eventually see the prevalence of r/K selection talk taper down a bit as its novelty wears off. I think that's part of what makes the show so interesting, that he's willing to play around with new ideas and test their limits. It's also why he's so easy to quote mine too but that's another story. ;-) Hm... I've been meaning to try calling into the show for some time now but I haven't been able to think of a topic. Perhaps it would be worth challenging Stef on the over use of r/K selection theory. I expect that Stef will start being a bit more moderate on this within a few months anyway but perhaps if I or someone else were to call in to challenge the over use of r/K it would hasten that process along.
Recommended Posts