r/K selection

[QwertyDavid]

As I was listening to the gene wars podcasts one thing kept going trough my head. "The alpha male athlete" who is 1) Competitive & takes responsibility (K selection) but 2) has a super high sex drive and is polygamic. Where does he fall in the r/K theory?

[QwertyDavid]

People who got their life together but also have a super high sex drive, what are they?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

First is Alpha R, the second is Alpha K. Basically the difference between Genghis Khan and Charles Martel.

[RichardY]

r

Wider Range in Intelligence.
Strong in group preference. Genocidally so.
Breed over and then to carrying capacity.
Less Conscientious usually. 
Spray and Pray.

r Country: Not really sure, but maybe an African one or former Yugoslavia and Venuzuala. 

K

Usually physically stronger. Tend to be Taller.
Tend to be smarter overall.
Risk adverse, Less Entreprenurial.
Slower maturation.
Tend to be more conscientious. Though not always, thinking of perhaps China or the Native Americans... maybe.
Tend to be more competitive. Again though, not always, off shoot of conscientiousness(more K) and agreeableness(More r) perhaps.
Breed to carrying capacity of environment, or under capacity.
Weak Ingroup preference or even Outgroup preference!
Greater sexual dimorphism. Men more masculine, Women more femmine.
One Shot One Kill.

K Country: Norway, maybe Iceland might be more K.

-------

@QwertyDavid

1) What sort of athlete? American Football is going to usually be more r imo. Makes me think of the beginning of the movie Idiocracy. On the otherhand, if they're taking a calculated risk for a scholarship, might be a bit different.

2) Polygamy is definitely more r.

3) Lawyers maybe.

[Boss]

18 hours ago, QwertyDavid said:

People who got their life together but also have a super high sex drive, what are they?

What do you mean by "got their life together"?

Like for me, I think someone who "got their life together" would want to pay it forward and start a family.

Also not sure what having a "super high sex drive" is trying to imply. Pretty sure any male with healthy levels of testosterone can feel like they have a high sex drive 

[QwertyDavid]

What I mean is this:

You have super competitive athletes (more K) who are having a lot of sex with different people (more r)

And testosterone has K and r effects, it makes you more competitive, physically stronger and increases sex drive

[ticketyboo]

On 4/15/2018 at 9:27 PM, RichardY said:

r

Strong in group preference. Genocidally so.
Breed over and then to carrying capacity.
 

 

Group selection and in-group preference is K.

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

Quote

As time goes on, and K-selection continues, forming into competitive groups will often emerge as a strategy to acquire resources. This will add add loyalty to in-group to the suite of K-type psychological characteristics.

Living at the carrying capacity of the environment is K.

r selection is anti-competitive or non-competitive in an environment where resources are largely free and unlimited. Think of a bunch of rabbits in a field of grass with a high mortality rate due to predation. There will always be more than enough grass for those rabbits as long as the hawks and foxes keep their population down. Rabbits do not fight back against predators and they do not compete against each other for food.

 

 

[QwertyDavid]

Would the "best" for society be like this:

Mostly K, laws are more K focussed (freedom, small government). But r people are there too but in minority

[Will 001]

On 4/15/2018 at 8:35 AM, QwertyDavid said:

As I was listening to the gene wars podcasts one thing kept going trough my head. "The alpha male athlete" who is 1) Competitive & takes responsibility (K selection) but 2) has a super high sex drive and is polygamic. Where does he fall in the r/K theory?

Monogamy is K because it allows two parents, which increases offspring quality. In the age of birth control, it is possible to be polygamous but still K in that regard. However, if he's having kids with lots of different women, I'd argue he's r, because he will produce lower quality, r-selected children of single mothers. The point of K selected competition is to find a high quality K selected mate. If he's having kids with lots of women, he's not doing that, because high quality K women would not allow that. Depending on how promiscuous and risky his behavior is, he could be r, K, or not fit well in either category. IMHO. r/K selection is a bit confusing. I don't fully understand it myself yet. I'd recommend Anonymous Conservative's book on the topic.

Edited April 23, 2018 by Will 001
clarification

[RichardY]

1 hour ago, ticketyboo said:

Group selection and in-group preference is K.

I disagree with in group preference due to genetic factors. Group selection only so far as bonds of trust can be formed between two people, not so much the drug induced connection between mother and child.

1 hour ago, ticketyboo said:

Living at the carrying capacity of the environment is K.

I'd say they live below carrying capacity, in anticaption of changes in environmental conditions. Such as changes in temperature leading to poor crop yields. Or waiting to maturity of seed as with the Red Squirel vs the Grey Squirel eatting sooner, by deferral of the red squirel allowing an increase in future potential carrying capacity, rather then living at carrying capacity as you suggested.

Where as r live at carrying capacity which are then checked by lack of resources or changes in the environment. Even though rabbits will not usally deplete vegatation due to predation, unless we are talking Australia(myxomatosis...) where there will not always be enough grass, or island rabbit colonies

1 hour ago, ticketyboo said:

r selection is anti-competitive or non-competitive in an environment where resources are largely free and unlimited. Think of a bunch of rabbits in a field of grass with a high mortality rate due to predation. There will always be more than enough grass for those rabbits as long as the hawks and foxes keep their population down. Rabbits do not fight back against predators and they do not compete against each other for food.

Is anti-competitive. Which is why in group preference is important. I mean that in the base biological sense and not through any social bonds of trust that may develop. I'm thinking of more southern european countries(Italy) or the middle east, where motherfu*ker is possibly not an insult.

[Will 001]

@RichardY Anonymous Conservative's seminal book states that in group preference is K. You might be confused because White people currently have weak in-group preference. According to the book, some human populations are innately more r, and some more K. However, they also adapt to their immediate environment. Right now, White people are not very K.

[RichardY]

4 minutes ago, Will 001 said:

@RichardY Anonymous Conservative's seminal book states that in group preference is K. You might be confused because White people currently have weak in-group preference. According to the book, some human populations are innately more r, and some more K. However, they also adapt to their immediate environment. Right now, White people are not very K.

How do you know you're not confused? The conservatives are typically losing, so why are you taking some annoymous ones advice?

What is a K-Selected country then, to give an example?

[Will 001]

@RichardY I know I'm not confused because it's the seminal book on r/K selection in politics. 

Edited April 23, 2018 by Will 001
clarification

[RichardY]

 

5 minutes ago, Will 001 said:

@RichardY I know I'm not confused because it's the seminal book on r/K selection in politics. 

So, because you say so? Conservatives are losing so how does it make it "seminal"? The second defintion of seminal may be more appropriate.

I mean I guess Japan could be considered K. But their history is kind of messed up with rapid technological development.

[Will 001]

@RichardY

Here you go: http://anonymousconservative.com

This is the person who published the theory of r/K selection in politics. You wouldn't even be talking about it if not for his work. 

[Will 001]

@RichardY

It's as if we're talking about evolution you're saying "Who is this Darwin guy?" I don't know how else to explain it. 

[RichardY]

@Will 001 At least Darwin had the balls to publish his name, kind of hard to talk about someone when you don't know their name. There was actually a scientist before Darwin that developed an evolutionary theory, but was not acknowledged, heard it from listening to "A history of Western Philosophy".

Conservative psychology in the populace – since the wolves are the only psychology which is capable of weathering the storm produced by the rabbit

Must be some viscious rabbits, as the rabbits seem to be emasculating the wolves.

[RichardY]

Cashing in with word salad. Oh look at "me" these are the conservative pundits that have said things about r/K now buy my book. SAVE AMERICA!!!!

[Will 001]

@RichardY

LOL

[RichardY]

I think Gremlins would be a better analogy for r rather than rabbits. Still only analogies though.........

[Will 001]

@RichardY

Look where Stefan got his information from! I suppose he's a hack too.

http://www.fdrurl.com/anonymous-conservative

From the description box on this podcast.

 

Edited April 23, 2018 by Will 001
clarification

[RichardY]

On 23/04/2018 at 9:29 AM, Will 001 said:

@RichardY

Look where Stefan got his information from! I suppose he's a hack too.

If YOU, say so.

Given that wolves cover a large area and rabbits stick to warrens. I can't see why rabbits being territorial, with other rabbits, should not have a high in group preference. Where as wolves or say horses that cover a large area should not have a low in group preference to avoid inbreeding. 

Makes me think of the video Tommy Robinson did with Stefan mentioning middle class households in Britain generally not giving a shit. The diversity of accents in Britain was/is pretty vast.

Conservative people may like to think they have high in group preference, look at all we have done, our history etc, charity starts at home etc, but largely they are BS-ing themselves. Contrast that with the left "the teamplayers". 

Life goes on. A man becomes preeminent, he's expected to have enthusiasms. Enthusiasms... Enthusiasms... What are mine? What draws my admiration? What is that which gives me joy? [grabs a baseball bat] Baseball! A man stands alone at the plate. This is the time for what? For individual achievement. There he stands alone. But in the field, what? Part of a team. Teamwork.... Looks, throws, catches, hustles - part of one big team. Bats himself the live-long day, Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, and so on. If his team don't field... what is he? You follow me? No one! Sunny day, the stands are full of fans. What does he have to say? "I'm goin' out there for myself. But... I get nowhere unless the team wins." [Beats his henchman to death with his bat]

The Untouchables.

Go Team...

[barn]

(bungee-ing in quick, brainy stuff )

There's an overabundance of papers trying to convince you the nonexistence of 'g' heritability/deciding factor, nevertheless I found (so far) quite a few, arguing for the higher chance that it's tied to the mother's armament.

And no, environmental influence, affluence for that matter... nope, not really.

If you are more (seriously) interested, have a look here.

post script : If I was (efficient) mother nature...

Edited April 24, 2018 by barn
I would also decide proof of concept by large sample feasibility, i.e. - whatever works. Aaaand we might want to understand epigenetics even more...

[Will 001]

@RichardY

You should read the book. I'm bored with arguing with you.

[RichardY]

@Will 001 Pft, What argument only mindless assertions.

High in group preference is K. WHY? Because it says so.