Microaggression Butt-Hurt

[dannno]

It's an interesting theory, but where's the evidence?

It's not a theory, it's a model and it is correct because it works from a logical standpoint.

Some people are genetically programmed to be more 'r' or 'K' from birth - but environment can potentially switch people over to have tendencies from the other strategy. It's not all or nothing or even guaranteed, it just works when looking at studies of larger populations.

It is correct because r types tend to have more r tendencies and are more likely to experience r conditions. K types tend to have more K tendencies and are more likely to have experienced K conditions. r types perpetuate r conditions, K types tend to perpetuate K conditions (with some minor exceptions I will explain in my next post - but they are tricked into it and it fits within the K strategy). I cannot see any arguments against that, since the opposite has already proven to be true.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm out of reps for Tod Evans, but hopefully he reads this, maybe somebody else can rep him and get him back here - it's a pretty thorough explanation of an outstanding model that Stefan and some others have been working out and expanding on lately.

Stefan has gone on for hours and hours and hours on this stuff. It's very interesting. You can literally peel apart political ideologies - conservative vs. liberal - and explain why r's tend to be liberal and K's tend to be conservative, issue after issue. For example, abortion - K's value their young much more than r's. Gun control - r's don't like competition and they know that if K's (John Wayne) can arm themselves then they (Woody Allen) will more likely be a target for criminals whether he arms himself or not - so r's prefer that NOBODY has guns so everybody has more equal standing in becoming a target for criminality and such.

I feel sorry for people who can't listen to Stefan - I don't agree with him on everything but he is one of the best critical thinkers out there these days.

I don't see any evidence that this far-strung theory of genetics is actually true. My background would suggest my family is r-selected, according to this theory. I was raised in a rural area after my dad fled the IRS and my mom had six kids, the first one from a different father. My youngest sister just had her second child at 20 years old. My parents divorced when I was 21 and we are all very conservative, so I don't understand exactly what he means when he says r-selected people are liberal because of their genetic inferiority. I come from a family of breeders and we have been athletes and went to college and do hard work and we are all very conservative, except for my youngest sister, who seems to be an anomaly in her breeding habits. I tend to think this whole theory was just made up out of thin air and accepted because it helps make sense of the world for people who share Stefan's views.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

It's not a theory, it's a model and it is correct because it works from a logical standpoint.

No, it is a theory. It is a proposed explanation for the way the world works. It's not enough to just make up a genetic model and then logix your way through all the data and say it's correct because it makes sense. It may indeed make sense according to your perception, but that doesn't mean it's true.

Models are never actually "correct", anyway. They're just consistent. Consistent with what is the question. In this case, you don't have any data, so there's no way to tell if your model is consistent with reality.

 

[dannno]

r types perpetuate r conditions, K types tend to perpetuate K conditions (with some minor exceptions I will explain in my next post - but they are tricked into it and it fits within the K strategy).

K types care a lot about their young and their 'tribe' or group or community. r types don't care as much about their tribe or group or community... When antelope get chased by a lion, they all run because they know that they don't have to be faster than the lion, they just have to be faster than the slowest antelope. If they cared that much about their fellow antelope - AKA - if antelopes were K and could communicate a K strategy to each other, when a lion attacked 100 antelope, they would have the females, young, old and sick run one direction while about 30 strong males would lead an attack on the lion and kill it. But they are r's so they don't do that. Now, that doesn't mean r types don't care about their community or tribe at all, it's just a tendency - they care LESS than K's.

Since K's care so much, they sometimes get tricked into supporting things like the welfare state because they truly care about the poor. But r's support the welfare state for more selfish reasons, so they can perpetuate the r strategy, they don't actually care about their neighbor that much. Look at all of the violence perpetuated in r neighborhoods against other rs.

Again, it's not all black and white, not everybody fits into a pure r or K strategy. It is just about tendencies.

I actually like r types more in many ways. They are more exciting to be around, they are more creative, they like to do things like go to music festivals and party. But Ks provide an important counterbalance to society to help spur wealth creation, savings, investment and generally living for tomorrow instead of just living for today.

 

[dannno]

No, it is a theory. It is a proposed explanation for the way the world works. It's not enough to just make up a genetic model and then logix your way through all the data and say it's correct because it makes sense. It may indeed make sense according to your perception, but that doesn't mean it's true.

Models are never actually "correct", anyway. They're just consistent. Consistent with what is the question. In this case, you don't have any data, so there's no way to tell if your model is consistent with reality.

That's exactly what I said - there is a ton of data to prove the model is consistent. If you're interested, Stefan Molyneux has probably talked about it for upwards of 10-15 hours or more on various podcasts and provides all sorts of supporting data.

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

What do you mean, "you people"???

STOP THE HATE!!!

Oh you all know who you are... The NSA is listening and putting it all in your files. When I write them and ask for all the proof I know my servants will give me tons of information to use for prosecution!

 

[PaulConventionWV]

That's exactly what I said - there is a ton of data to prove the model is consistent. If you're interested, Stefan Molyneux has probably talked about it for upwards of 10-15 hours or more on various podcasts and provides all sorts of supporting data.

I'm waiting for you to provide me with the evidence. I'm not going to listen to that guy for 10-15 hours.

Besides, before you were saying, "it's correct because it works from a logical standpoint."

Let's forget the question of what that even means. Now all of a sudden you're admitting you need data?

Note that you explicitly stated the model was "correct", not "consistent" like you should have, according to your very next post.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

It's an interesting theory, but where's the evidence?

Well, one of the things I stated was that the absence of a father causes earlier puberty in daughters. This is the kind of thing that can be measured.

And it has been.

Mutiple times.

And quite conclusively, in my own humble assessment.

Lee, JM et al. Pediatrics, Volume 119, No 3, 624-30. 2004

Bogaert AF. Age at puberty and father absence in a national probability sample. J Adolesc. 2005

Quinlan RJ. Father absence, parental care, and female reproductive development. Evol Hum Behav. 2003

Tither JM, Ellis BJ. Impact of fathers on daughters’ age at menarche: a genetically- and environmentally-controlled sibling study. Dev Psychol. 2008

Maestripieri, D., Roney, J. R., DeBias, N., Durante, K. M. and Spaepen, G. M. Father absence, menarche and interest in infants among adolescent girls. Developmental Science, 7: 560–566. 2004

So, there you have some evidence for that one specific claim I made. (If you feel differently, feel free to present evidence supporting a contrary hypothesis). Do you have any other specific claims you are particularly interested in, that you'd like to see evidence for?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Well, one of the things I stated was that the absence of a father causes earlier puberty in daughters. This is the kind of thing that can be measured.

And it has been.

Mutiple times.

And quite conclusively, in my own humble assessment.

Lee, JM et al. Pediatrics, Volume 119, No 3, 624-30. 2004

Bogaert AF. Age at puberty and father absence in a national probability sample. J Adolesc. 2005

Quinlan RJ. Father absence, parental care, and female reproductive development. Evol Hum Behav. 2003

Tither JM, Ellis BJ. Impact of fathers on daughters’ age at menarche: a genetically- and environmentally-controlled sibling study. Dev Psychol. 2008

Maestripieri, D., Roney, J. R., DeBias, N., Durante, K. M. and Spaepen, G. M. Father absence, menarche and interest in infants among adolescent girls. Developmental Science, 7: 560–566. 2004

So, there you have some evidence for that one specific claim I made. (If you feel differently, feel free to present evidence supporting a contrary hypothesis). Do you have any other specific claims you are particularly interested in, that you'd like to see evidence for?

I believe you on that claim, but the overarching explanatory power of this theory remains questionable. The age of puberty in girls really doesn't help explain how people can be split into k- and r-selected groups according to their genetic traits and/or political beliefs.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

The only way to stop prejudice.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

My background would suggest my family is r-selected, according to this theory.

No, no, no, you're already going off the rails with that one statement (in my opinion). This is not genetic, it is epigenetic. Your family isn't r -- no one's is! This is not genetic, otherwise it would take hundreds or thousands of years to change. And it manifestly does not -- it can massively shift in one or two generations (as, P.S.: it has in the last two in the US!). Or even within the same generation, as has been shown with the older daughter / younger daughter research I mentioned earlier. No, it is not genetic, it is a complex confluence between environment and genes, which we call epigenetic. It looks the same as genetic, but it's actually totally different.

I was raised in a rural area after my dad fled the IRS and my mom had six kids, the first one from a different father. My youngest sister just had her second child at 20 years old. My parents divorced when I was 21 and we are all very conservative, so I don't understand exactly what he means when he says r-selected people are liberal because of their genetic inferiority. I come from a family of breeders and we have been athletes and went to college and do hard work and we are all very conservative, except for my youngest sister, who seems to be an anomaly in her breeding habits. I tend to think this whole theory was just made up out of thin air and accepted because it helps make sense of the world for people who share Stefan's views.

Well, it may be one of those things that you're not going to believe in unless you have an open mind; code for: want to believe it. At least kind of. As in, maybe someone you respect is explaining the idea, or there's social pressure to believe it, or you find it fascinating and exciting. It's kind of like many complex ideas in that way. You can't believe them unless you have at least a little bit of that interest or wanting to believe, because if you don't you will not be able to come to really understand them. You have to have the motivation first, to put in the metal effort to understand the idea. For instance, no one would believe in Einstein's complete repertoire of relativity theorems unless they had that spark of already believing it or wanting to believe it (or for some other reason being motivated enough to deeply study it). It's just too dense and difficult! This is not nearly as complicated as that, but it's still something that does require some mental imagination. Perhaps the Austrian Business Cycle Theory would be another example.

Anyway, in your paragraph above you have pretty thoroughly misunderstood it. It's not about "breeders" or "non-breeders," it's a highly complex confluence of factors. Mormons are breeders, but they are not generally rs.

For what it's worth, Stefan was raised in a highly r-selected environment -- he was brought up by a single mom, on welfare, in government housing.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I believe you on that claim, but the overarching explanatory power of this theory remains questionable. The age of puberty in girls really doesn't help explain how people can be split into k- and r-selected groups according to their genetic traits and/or political beliefs.

There's no splitting. It's more for, as dannno said, "when looking at studies of larger populations." That's where it's most useful, as far as I can tell. And there it does have some pretty powerful explanatory power. Again, in my opinion.

 

[angelatc]

Not even close yet.

This is just the opening act.

At what point do we get to start fighting back?

 

[dannno]

I believe you on that claim, but the overarching explanatory power of this theory remains questionable. The age of puberty in girls really doesn't help explain how people can be split into k- and r-selected groups according to their genetic traits and/or political beliefs.

Part of the problem is that we have explained how the model works and you still have no comprehension of it and have said a lot of things that directly contradict what we have said.

For example, it isn't straight forward or black and white for each person or species. It works across large populations. So your particular family history may be interesting to look at, but to show the model is consistent we look at large populations. This is because there may be aspects at play you are unaware of, and genetic predispositions that you cannot really measure.

Epigenetics is an important aspect - which means for example that you can change from K to r, then back to K over a life time. You can be born a K, grow up in an r environment, become an r, but then later in life move back toward K.

I'm not an r or a K, I have very strong r AND K.. incidentally, my parents had both tendencies but I have gotten the impression from my older siblings that they were more r when I was born - but after I was born within a year or two they became very strongly K. Due to my strong tendencies for both r and K, when a girl who I am hitting on asks if I'm "just trying to hookup" I always get very confused. She's basically asking if you're an r.. but I'm an r and a K - I would hook up with her, if she ditched on me it wouldn't be a big deal - but I'm also honest and straightforward - if I like her I would continue seeing her and highly consider a monogamous relationship. Everybody is different. But it's very clear that the model is consistent with the data over large populations.

 

[Origanalist]

At what point do we get to start fighting back?

When we choose to do so.

 

[dannno]

I don't see any evidence that this far-strung theory of genetics is actually true. My background would suggest my family is r-selected, according to this theory. I was raised in a rural area after my dad fled the IRS and my mom had six kids, the first one from a different father. My youngest sister just had her second child at 20 years old. My parents divorced when I was 21 and we are all very conservative, so I don't understand exactly what he means when he says r-selected people are liberal because of their genetic inferiority. I come from a family of breeders and we have been athletes and went to college and do hard work and we are all very conservative, except for my youngest sister, who seems to be an anomaly in her breeding habits. I tend to think this whole theory was just made up out of thin air and accepted because it helps make sense of the world for people who share Stefan's views.

You strike me as a K-leaner - your sister strikes me as an r-leaner. Your family was conservative, but had a lot of strife so this makes some sense. Since your parents divorced when you were 21, and your sister is 20 with multiple kids this would tell me that her r traits likely kicked up a notch some time before, during or after the divorce if not sooner.

People in war-torn areas tend to be r - they need to reproduce as fast as possible. Absence of a father, strife in the family or community can all be factors that turn people toward r. But there is no rule that a particular person has to be r or K, or even tend in that direction - but you can see it when you begin looking at larger populations. Your K traits could be an anomoly, or you could have gotten them from the fact that you were raised in a conservative household and the strife your family experienced was not enough for your genes to lean too much in the r direction.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

No, no, no, you're already going off the rails with that one statement (in my opinion). This is not genetic, it is epigenetic. Your family isn't r -- no one's is! This is not genetic, otherwise it would take hundreds or thousands of years to change. And it manifestly does not -- it can massively shift in one or two generations (as, P.S.: it has in the last two in the US!). Or even within the same generation, as has been shown with the older daughter / younger daughter research I mentioned earlier. No, it is not genetic, it is a complex confluence between environment and genes, which we call epigenetic. It looks the same as genetic, but it's actually totally different.

Well, it may be one of those things that you're not going to believe in unless you have an open mind; code for: want to believe it. At least kind of. As in, maybe someone you respect is explaining the idea, or there's social pressure to believe it, or you find it fascinating and exciting. It's kind of like many complex ideas in that way. You can't believe them unless you have at least a little bit of that interest or wanting to believe, because if you don't you will not be able to come to really understand them. You have to have the motivation first, to put in the metal effort to understand the idea. For instance, no one would believe in Einstein's complete repertoire of relativity theorems unless they had that spark of already believing it or wanting to believe it (or for some other reason being motivated enough to deeply study it). It's just too dense and difficult! This is not nearly as complicated as that, but it's still something that does require some mental imagination. Perhaps the Austrian Business Cycle Theory would be another example.

That can be said about anything. Which is why the above paragraph came off as eerily cultish. I wish I could say I was surprised, considering I've always gotten that impression from Molyneux.

Anyway, in your paragraph above you have pretty thoroughly misunderstood it. It's not about "breeders" or "non-breeders," it's a highly complex confluence of factors. Mormons are breeders, but they are not generally rs.

For what it's worth, Stefan was raised in a highly r-selected environment -- he was brought up by a single mom, on welfare, in government housing.

I understand, but it's really only confirming my suspicion that this is just a Molyneux framework invented to make sense of the world by attaching labels to things according to their outward appearance. It really has no scientific or factual basis.

 

[dannno]

My favorite is when people claim the facts don't support something when they haven't even looked at the facts.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Part of the problem is that we have explained how the model works and you still have no comprehension of it and have said a lot of things that directly contradict what we have said.

For example, it isn't straight forward or black and white for each person or species. It works across large populations. So your particular family history may be interesting to look at, but to show the model is consistent we look at large populations. This is because there may be aspects at play you are unaware of, and genetic predispositions that you cannot really measure.

Epigenetics is an important aspect - which means for example that you can change from K to r, then back to K over a life time. You can be born a K, grow up in an r environment, become an r, but then later in life move back toward K.

This confirms my suspicion that this theory isn't really fact-based. It's just a set of generalizations made to make sense of the world according to a Molyneux-ian point of view.

I'm not an r or a K, I have very strong r AND K.. incidentally, my parents had both tendencies but I have gotten the impression from my older siblings that they were more r when I was born - but after I was born within a year or two they became very strongly K. Due to my strong tendencies for both r and K, when a girl who I am hitting on asks if I'm "just trying to hookup" I always get very confused. She's basically asking if you're an r.. but I'm an r and a K - I would hook up with her, if she ditched on me it wouldn't be a big deal - but I'm also honest and straightforward - if I like her I would continue seeing her and highly consider a monogamous relationship. Everybody is different. But it's very clear that the model is consistent with the data over large populations.

It sounds more like an alpha vs. beta thing explained in Molyneux-ian terms. In any case, the fact that the terms are so loose makes the labels r and k sort of meaningless.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

My favorite is when people claim the facts don't support something when they haven't even looked at the facts.

I never claimed that. I just claimed your theory doesn't appear to be fact-based, and you have yet to provide any.

Larger populations or not, you need SOME data in order to make the claim that these labels have any meaning.