RegExp Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 As a long time listener and fan of Stef's work I am a little taken aback by the R vs K theorizing, which seems to be quite a frequent topic in Stef's podcasts nowadays. My problem with it, that it seems like one can make almost any claims about who is R and who is K and it seems to me impossible to falsify in any way. For example, in one podcast Stef said that Hillary Clinton is very clearly in the R camp. But as much I dislike her, she does seem to be faithful to her husband and they also have only one child. Aren't those traits suggesting that she is K selected? I'm sure you can find some counter arguments, but my question boils down to this: Is the K vs R theory, as applied to human beings, falsifiable in any sense? If so, what would falsify it? If it's not falsifiable, then does it really make sense to commit time and resources to it? 4 1
Laforge Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 Sure i guess if you can find a broad selection of animals that:- have unlimited food sources- live in a highly predatory or disease stricken environment- but have complicated mating rituals- but still care greatly about a small number of offspringThen i think you've disproven the r vs K model. EDIT: Hillary is not a broad selection / group / race / voting base.
dsayers Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 in one podcast Stef said that Hillary Clinton is very clearly in the R camp. But as much I dislike her, she does seem to be faithful to her husband and they also have only one child. Aren't those traits suggesting that she is K selected? Humans are overarchingly K. However, neither r nor K is absolute, nor eternal. A person can demonstrate mostly r/K traits, yet also demonstrate other traits.
Wuzzums Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 If a person exhibits K traits it does not necessarily make them your friend. Just remember that K's are predatory species and if you're not part of their tribe then you're not food but the enemy.
thebeardslastcall Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 It's a descriptive terminology set. It's used within the context and with the baseline of humanity, when talking about people, who tend to be far more K than most animals due to biological constraints. Do you wish to challenge the validity of the descriptions and the traits they are displaying or suggesting or to challenge what can be deduced from those traits, behaviors, or suggestions? If someone is being falsely described you can falsify that by pointing out the error. If a deduction is invalid you can also falsify that by showing the logical flaws in their deduction. Politicians are thieves and liars. Thieves love it when others work hard and provide them with more to steal while also creating an environment where they can more easily get away with stealing. Hypocrites don't practice what they preach. So you can say someone talks like and promotes one behavior ®, while living another way (K), and you haven't disproven the theory, but have just shown that someone is a hypocrite. Someone also may be playing the game handed to them while promoting changes to the game to help fix the situation if they don't like how they have to play to survive. Also of note with the R/K theory is the unrealistic or unstable behaviors in practicing one while effectively in the other environment type, which is unstable and crashes the system. Rabbits behaving like rabbits and Wolves behaving like wolves can create a stable situation. But if they act against their environment and roles it becomes unstable and they may face extinction or excess turmoil. Humans are taking on both of these roles, which creates a sort of inner species warfare, but it's got the extra element that the 'grass' the R humans feed on isn't some massive and free resource, but is produced by the K humans. It's the odd situation of a reversal of direction of predation. This reversal and dishonesty is what makes it unstable and what makes it so ugly and immoral. Imagine if the foxes were making the grass and needed the grass to eat and didn't eat the rabbits. This is the corollary situation, where the grass isn't unlimited, but is made, limited, and needed by the foxes, and the rabbits have lost their predator, but they're acting like none of those things are true. They're eating their seed crop, other's seed crop, and pretending it doesn't matter. They're acting like rabbits when they aren't. That's the main point of the R/K comparison I think, to point out that people are acting like an R species when they're a K species.
Mister Mister Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 r vs. K is a standard of biology. i think you mean, is it's application to human affairs falsifiable? it's a great question, maybe you should call into the show with this question. 1
Matthew Ed Moran Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 r vs. K is a standard of biology. i think you mean, is it's application to human affairs falsifiable? it's a great question, maybe you should call into the show with this question. +1 I think this would be a great call-in
Will Torbald Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 r vs. K is a standard of biology. i think you mean, is it's application to human affairs falsifiable? it's a great question, maybe you should call into the show with this question. I don't see how it couldn't be applicable to humans without the implication of human beings not being biological entities. What's actually in question is the correlation of r/K behaviors against liberals/conservatives. That's the actual interesting bit, because those are two dichotomies that could have causation or deep correlation with underlying causes.
WasatchMan Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 Is calling an elephant a mammal falsifiable? Yes, if it falls out of the criteria of what makes a mammal a mammal. Same would go for r/K as a means for classifying an identifiable behavior trait.
Alan C. Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 Hillary isn't faithful. The Clintons are a power couple. There is evidence suggesting infidelity by both of them.
Crallask Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 Hillary isn't faithful. The Clintons are a power couple. There is evidence suggesting infidelity by both of them. I can't help but imagine the most gruesome girlxgirl scene in my head now whyyy
AncapFTW Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 I can't help but imagine the most gruesome girlxgirl scene in my head now whyyy So He wasn't the only one that Monica was interested in?
Recommended Posts