Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.
View Active Topics View Your Posts Latest 100 Topics FAQ Topics Mobile Friendly Theme
Discuss personal development, self-improvement and psychology.
15 posts • Page 1 of 1
He does a fascinating series on these two different evolutionary strategies and their relevance to human behavior. Essentially traditionalists are K-selected whereas modern degenerates are r-selected. You should watch the entire series, but you could cheat and just watch the third part.
Check out our Dating Sites and International Romance Tours!
Special Offer! FREE 6 Month Membership on ForeignWomen.com! Sign up here.
Find Your Foreign Sweetheart Now! Try our international Dating Sites and Overseas Romance Tours!
One of the problems with Molyneux's analysis is that it can be used to justify the status quo.
He implies that the high-virtue, high-intelligence people are the ones who become financially successful. I must have a dead-end job in my mid twenties because I lack k-selected traits like intelligence and a belief in "personal responsibility." People on the dole must be low-quality r-selected scavengers. If only they had been born with better genes and worked harder, then they would be wealthy.
The high quality, k-selected types are the ones getting ahead, right?
Yeah, what you have got to realize is that this logic only applies in K-selected societies. In r-selected societies where productive people are simply robbed or marginalized for the benefit of scum or that are f***ed for other reasons, then this would not be what you would expect. But the point is that K-selected people want a situation where the best are rewarded and are confident of their ability to be in that group.
If true to the extent that Molyneux claims, the theory would explain why human societies turn to shit whenever a surplus of resources is generated or even when society becomes too complex for the efforts of most individuals to have a meaningful effect on their circumstances. Under these r-selected conditions, it is not just that K-selected virtues (intelligence, morality, empathy, creativity etc.) become unnecessary and atrophy. They actually come to be seen as genetically inferior, since they convey the downsides of reduced breeding and increased personal risk with none of the usual upside in a scarcity situation of efficiently obtaining and using scarce resources. It is therefore difficult to see how the human race can ever keep its collective pants up. High functioning people are needed to overcome scarcity, but can only really thrive in a situation of ongoing scarcity.
Do you think it would be possible to maintain civilization if the way resources were allocated was changed? Cancelling benefits given to single mothers, while cruel, would help tip the balance in favor of couples who procreate responsibly. Altering divorce laws to make it much harder for women to clean men out in the event of a divorce would also lead to increased stability.
Actually, maybe the problem really is that humans can only handle a certain level of social complexity, and when that level of complexity is exceeded, it's harder for people to make contributions they feel are meaningful. I think it's pretty clear that most people do best living in small groups where everyone knows everyone else, and everyone has a place in the community. The emphasis on individuals in the West probably causes lots of stress and alienation.
A shift back to communal/extended family living arrangements is probably best. Hopefully, 3D printers, solar panels and other forms of tech will allow for a decentralization of manufacturing and energy production, allowing communities to become independent (to varying degrees) of a central resource extraction/production base.
But maybe that's just a pipe dream.
Theoretically creating a situation of artificial scarcity and then requiring people to behave in ways amenable to a scarcity-based society to get access to resources (which we do to some extent now with unemployed men) would work, but for various political and apparently epigenetic reasons it doesn't seem to happen in practice.
Yes, and even when making a worthwhile contribution in the current situation, a person is usually easily replaceable, which seems to be functionally equivalent to being worthless.
That may be the only hope; where there is abundance but it is an abundance that depends on talented men doing useful stuff within their own small sphere of influence. Only then will the non-dirtbag K-selected genes be considered of value again.
Not true, religion is another way to support K-selection. What actually matters isn't survival, but rather staying in the gene pool. A person can be removed from a gene pool through death or simply by leaving the group. If a religious group encourages marriage in the group and encourages K-people to stay in the group and r-people to leave, then one has K-selection without depending on death for the selection. And this is why religion works and racism doesn't, because a race cannot support K-selection.
The r's have won the war in America.
The losers take your prize
Just go the SE Asia or Latin America and enjoy if you are not a loser. If you care about family. If you are anything that resembles a K just go overseas and be happy.
I am currently living abroad, but I think there is a lot to be said for attempting to establish small, functional communities in one's own country. In addition, the same pressures that made America what it is are operating on other countries. America is just ahead of the curve. It may be only a matter of time before almost all colorful local cultures are replaced by a monolithic evil global culture. In some of the places I have visited, you can see that that transition is already underway.
If many different men could have a go at establishing tight-knit communities in their area, the k selected people might have a future worthy of their children.
I am sorry to inform you that it is a losing battle to create a K-community in the U S of Gay.
The state (US government) is Feminist and Gynocentric. Women here have the authority to falsely claim abuse and take your freedom away. The Feminist Dominated Media also has too much over the minds of women here.
The Islamic Communities have had some success in creating a k-community. Yet still in a short time even the Islamic communities begin to act r.
The r's have won. The shit for genetics have won the war.
My advice is go abroad and be happy. Let the worthless shits claim their prize. Your happiness is the best protest.
The other thing is whether it is possible to maintain a K-selected community when K behavior is actively disadvantageous. In particular, are not females likely to become r-selected and defect? It is likely only the hardwired K-selected men who founded the community that would see any value in it after a while.
See value? Reasoning is irrelevant, 99% of humanity is incapable of it. The point is to correctly tap in to human instinct.
In any K-society, there is a huge opportunity for r-parasites. So all K-societies must have a mechanism to eliminate these r-parasites. The Old Testament has a simple solution, death for r-behavior (adultery). But driving them out of the group works just as well. In fact a K-religion within an r-country is in some ways optimal because those who prefer r-behavior will simply leave the group on their own and just join the mainstream culture of that country.
Most women raised in a K-culture will tend to be very supportive of it. This is just basic female instinct of absorbing their tribal values.
This is very true.
If you look at various American sects and close-knit religious communities, the only people breaking out tend to be those exposed to modern media, television series and pop culture a lot. Young horny men, and young girls who become infatuated with a different lifestyle, a lifestyle that's such an alien concept to them they become obsessed with it. Once they are married off, have a few children, these urges almost always die down if they ever were present to begin with.
I've seen blogs where women would break ties with their own children, when said children would leave the community or religion. That's how strict these people are. Extremism isn't really bound to one gender, and often it can be the women who have the greatest influence in shaping a young conservative man's mind. A young conservative man who later goes on to run a household and raise a family of his own.
The ones who escape are almost always young and unmarried. So in your K-culture, marriage would ideally take place at a very young age. It would have to, for it to work. Wait too long and people's natural urges get the better of them. The fact that modern society looks down on those who marry young, and praises those who wait a long time before marriage as being "wise and responsible", is probably a major contributor to its downfall. A couple who are in their late twenties to early thirties by the time they get married have been on their own for too long, and seen too much of the world to still have the type of values their parents raised them with... thus the community's influence over them lessens. They "break free". And, in your selection criteria, are lost.
Could you please elucidate what you mean by "epigenetic reasons." I know a little bit about epigenetics, but could you describe what epigenetic factors might play a role in this situation?