This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

15
16

ScienceThings we should acknowledge about r-K selection (self.TheRedPill)

mahlzeit が 投稿

TL;DR: Since reproduction is about our genes, and not the wellbeing of individuals, there are two distinct strategies for sexual reproduction in society that are hardwired into us. They are called r selection and K selection. Some people tend towards r selection (having more offspring, investing less in them), while others tend towards K selection (which means having fewer offspring, investing more in offspring). In times of limited resources K selection thrives (less offspring, better prepared). K selection basically means less, but stronger individuals, while r selection means more, but weaker individuals.

K selected individuals also are more likely to follow a codex of rules and submit to a hierarchy. As a former r individual this behavior seems pretty dumb to r individuals, since r individuals tend to do whatever they can get away with. K individuals need to understand that r individuals actually have a point there, if they ever want to stand a chance in this fight. Morals and scruples are fine, but they can only extend to other K individuals, never to r individuals, since they do not extend those courtesies towards you.

Body: First you should watch this video. I have summarized what he said in the TL;DR, but you should still watch the video. It's 40 mins, but it's well worth the time.

One thing that struck me while watching this video, and this is also the reason why I'm writing this comment, is that while he is spot on with his analysis, there's a certain weakness in his conclusions that you can only appreciate when you come from the left. Let me explain.

A K selected society (which is based on a moral codex and restrict the individual's social freedom for the betterment of society at large) is inherently better than an r selected society (which has an "anything goes" attitude and thus in the end is worse for everybody, see "The tragedy of the commons" problem in economics). This is great. But: both strategies are equally functional for society, or one would otherwise have been obviously bred out in the billions of years life exists on this planet.

Yes, it would be better for the individual to live in a K selected society, and yes, K selection is in my opinion the more worthy goal to aspire to. But K people need to get over this fact and start accepting that r is a valid strategy. It's another tough pill to swallow, but it needs to be done. Reality doesn't care about morals.

What do I mean by this? As long as K people are playing by the book and having a strong sense of honor and duty, they will lose against r people. Having a moral code is stupid, unless you are dealing with other K people. R people don't care, they laugh at your old-fashioned values, and they have every right to do so. While you still try to figure out what the honorable thing to do is, the r people have stolen your wallet, because they don't care. Their strength is numbers and disposability, not being a good person. Unless you, as a K individual, learn to understand when to utilize your in-built r program, you have an Achilles heel that is easy to exploit for them.

Lessons learned: It's important to learn to differentiate between people who follow r and K selection strategies in life. Morals (K type thinking) are fine, as long as you deal with K type individuals. As soon as you deal with r type individuals you need to understand that the only rules are the rules of nature, and you can win this fight easily, since you're the stronger individual anyway. Your only weakness is your tendency to play by the book, when r types don't. It is no shame to be immoral towards an immoral individual, it is only a shame to be immoral towards a moral individual.

全 20 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]ClimbingTehLadder 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That is the longest TL;DR I have ever seen. Anyways interesting post.

[–][deleted] 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Extremely interesting post, but you seem hesitant to take your logic to its fullest conclusion.

If you were to follow your logic a little farther, this post would deal with social class.

"One things sure and nothing's surer... The rich get richer and the poor get... Children."

The obvious next step in your reasoning is to realize that rich people tend to be k-selective and poor people tend to be r-selective.

I can understand why you don't make this connection because it makes the post far more controversial.

Yet it's undoubtedly true, and it's supported by data: rich people have less children than poor people and they invest more in each child.

your conclusion is deeply flawed. first off, the "tendency to play by the book" is a HUGE WEAKNESS, not a minor one (remember david and goliath?) Also, leave the moralizing and shaming out of the conclusion because it doesn't belong here.

this post is really about rich vs poor. it's not about r-selection vs k-selection, it's about rich-people-sexual-strategy vs poor-people-sexual-strategy. These strategies did not arise from biology, they arose from economic circumstance.

Being r-selective or k-selective has nothing to do with your genes and everything to do with the economic circumstances you were born into. this is obvious because people often switch between r&k strategies as they change between social classes.

Anyway, interesting post, but it's fundamentally flawed because you're pretending that these r&k strategies are somehow encoded into our genes when in fact they are not. we have all evolvedbthe ability to play both strategies, and the primary thing that determines which strategy wr choose is the economic circumstances we are born into.

Your moralizing is thus invalid because when you see things this way, the world is amoral. there are no "moral individuals", only people who have enough money to afford the pretense of morality. there are no " immoral individuals", only people who don't have enough money to afford the pretense of morality.

The "morality" you speak of is nothing more than a luxury that only economic power can buy. "Altruism" is just away to signal that you have surplus resources, there's nothing moral about it.

The "morality" you speak of is really just a series of status-signals that poor people never had the time or money to learn.

This post is profoundly incorrect, and its view of the world is profoundly myopic. You made some interesting points but you need to see the bigger picture.

[–]mahlzeit[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hey, I just had those ideas, so I'm not too worried if they're a bit off right now. That's why I posted this, to find out more.

Anyway, I don't think it's rooted in genetics. As I said, I come from r-type thinking myself. Come to think of it I was raised pretty K, then switched to r in my youth and am now switching back to K, so I completely agree that it's not genetic. I even think a person can apply r strategies in one area and K in another. Those are just strategies. I also agree everything here is amoral, don't worry. If I came across as moralizing, it wasn't my intent, I used those words because my audience with this post is mainly people who think of themselves as moral and thus having a blind eye towards r-type thinking.

Anyway, I hadn't thought about class in this context. That's very interesting, and pretty obvious now that you mention it.

[–]Endorsed ContributorMattyAnon 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

r and K refer to parental investment.

You're expanding this to uncooperative (r) vs cooperative (K) societies, which is a bit of a stretch although I see the parallels.

Here's another thought for you: in order that cooperative societies work, they need to punish and reward individuals for cooperating or not. Without this, non-cooperative people prevail.

[–]T0000009 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

But: both strategies are equally functional for society, or one would otherwise have been obviously bred out in the billions of years life exists on this planet.

FALSE: The reason (R) still even exists as a mating strategy is because the more altruistic (K) system is always propping it up with welfare, aid packages, defense, medicine, and all the rest until the (R) group consumes everything around it and moves into the (K) controlled territories.

Rwanda, Uganda, Ecuador, Iraq, Somalia, and the rest of the third world (R) nations are rife with disease, poverty, societal decay, and starvation yet WHO is keeping them all alive??

Those (R) nations lack everything required to have a functioning society, so all the advanced (K) nations of the first world spend billions every year developing tech, and medicine, and science to improve the global society while the (R) nations fuck like rabbits and migrate to the very same (K) nations they want obliterated.

America is 250 years old... Yet we send billions to the third world in aid, when they had literally a thousand years head start on us?? What about Iraq... Iran, Somalia, Uganda, or any other hell hole you want to list. WHO have they been fighting, protecting, supporting, defending, and what advances have they offered the world in those thousands of years?? NOTHING is the reality weather you like it or not.

(R) nations are still around, only because (K) nations are to merciful and waste effort trying to teach them that their strategy is historically and genetically an abysmal failure.

[–]321LTD123 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

R nations, like those toppled by the Arab Spring, were ruled by BigMen. BigMen and the pyramid of people below them had a monopoly on violence in their territories and kept relative peace for their own benefit, or the benefit of their dynasties.

When Feminists and cultural marxists like Hillary Clinton and Obama got a hold of American firepower, they decided these R societies needed K values and would magically become K societies because "people are inherently good" This is why Khadafi and others warned the UN that they were "Holding back waves of migrants." With the Big men of the Levant and North Africa gone, R people stayed R people, the K-conversion pipe dream dissipated like a puff of smoke.

In this way, you can accurately state that Obama and Hillary Clinton are responsible for the current violence in the middle east, tensions with Russia over Syria, and the basic destruction of Europe's future. Obama, Hillary and Merkel's solipsism has literally ruined a billion lives.

Edit: Forgot to state feminists hate BigMen, but that's kind of obvious.

[–]T0000009 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Obama and Hillary Clinton are responsible for the current violence in the middle east

Hardly.... it goes back much farther, many decades actually. This was a very long term strategy which could not be implemented in such a short time frame. Read up on Cloward-Piven, the cuban missile crisis, and many other points which were used to set the plan in motion.

[–][deleted] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

But K people need to get over this fact and start accepting that r is a valid strategy. It's another tough pill to swallow, but it needs to be done. Reality doesn't care about morals.

It's a valid strategy as long as you don't want civilization. If you want a functioning civilization massive amounts of r selected people are a tumor that is going to be the downfall of said civilization.

[–]RedPill_FightClub 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, K people need to learn much sooner in life that most R's are scum. And then treat them as such.

[–]Endorsed ContributorNeoreactionSafe 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

 

As long as Child Support Laws (and Divorce Rape) exist we will be in an "r selection" world.

To recapture "K selection" you need to return to natural masculine and feminine polarity that exists because of perceived scarcity.

Feminine polarity rises when resources are scarce or when the laws make ownership a masculine issue.

Marriages in the 1800's had a 95% success rate during "K selection" conditions because women got nothing in a divorce and could not own property.

Conditions define reality.

...until conditions change we are stuck with things as they are.

 

[–]stawek 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

For every society there's a ratio of r:K that is stable.

r are better the more K there are around them and vice versa.

As such you cannot declare one of them better han others. What we are witnessing right now is shift from poor K society to rich r society, with abundance of r betas and K alphas running wild.

Give it some time and the number of r Chads will be so high that they will cockblock each other by trying to fuck everything that moves while a K beta will be able to get away with a single woman. The time is measured in societal evolutionary scale, so probably not next week :)

[–]RedPill_FightClub 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

As a K individual, I had to learn this lesson the hard way, and I was burned one too many times, expecting bottom feeders and trough dwellers of society to function as I. Today, I clearly see why the wealthy do not mingle with the poor, etc etc. Now I make an active choice to deal with R individuals as the cattle that they are, indiscriminately.

[–]Doctor_Mayhem 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Another thing people need to grasp, is that our genetics are not exactly a set destiny. While in most cases, they can shape them, but they are not completely in control. The best way to think of genes, at least in terms of r and K, and how people can indeed switch their breeding strategy, is in terms of switches.

Human beings carry both tendencies and can switch according to conditions, just as people can change their political positions. In times of prosperity and social decay, you find men like those in TRP pursuing an r strategy. However, when things come to collapse, many will switch to a K strategy. The signs are already here with how MMA and physical fitness are growing more popular.

[–]tb87670 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

K selection basically means less, but stronger individuals, while r selection means more, but weaker individuals.

Doesn't work out that way in real life. There are plenty of r raised individuals that overcame shitty upbringing in the last generation of my family, most of the many kids of that time made it to middle class and beyond. There are also lots of individuals raised in a K system that end up unable to compete as adults and I see this a lot anymore, sometimes people with many advantages end up the most useless and helpless out of school.

Another side effect of K upbringing: The 'freeter' and herbivore male phenomena in Japan is happening in the US at a larger rate than I even think guys here at TRP will admit. Here in the US what I refer to as Herbivore males are actually in the middle of the Japanese 'freeter' and herbivore male. I see these guys all the time anymore. Hell in the 70's one of my parent's had a cousin that was the straight up definition of a 'freeter' in his parent's basement. I've known several modern western equivalents and while all of them are frustrated about not getting laid or going anywhere in life none of them are worried or making attempts to lose their virginity or to at least give anything a try. I think the combination of culture making it hard actually being a man mixed with how shitty women act and then combined with a K-style upbringing is going to cause a huge problem for more and more men each year that goes by.

[–]Entropy-7 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I don't really think it has anything to do with honour or morals. In any event, Ks usually have an innate advantage because they tend to be smarter.

[–]mahlzeit[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes, Ks have an advantage, but there's a danger I see in having a moral code inhibit your usage of those advantages. What good is a tool if you don't use it? That's what the rs understand that the Ks do not. They use everything, screw personal morals or not. I'm sure not every K person thinks this way. But I see a lot of people here - especially people coming from the conservative side - being effectively hindered by this.

Have you seen that documentary about the US officer in Afghanistan talking about abuse of little boys by police chiefs and so on? You could see the conflict in his eyes - here's a good guy, a K individual if I ever saw one, a shining example of what a military officer should be. And he's confronted with a wicked evil, and his hands are tied. So he did nothing, because he played by his book, and his book didn't contain any solutions for dealing with this injustice.

That's exactly what I'm thinking about. Playing by the book is fine as long as you play against people who also play by the book. If they don't, you lose.

[–]NameOfAction 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Youre defining win pretty narrowly. Who has won here? The Afgans who have been invaded 1000 times in 1000 years and are consequently still in the middle ages, or the West (USA, UK, EU) who have colinized the world? And they didnt do it thru "moral" means. K societies have done very immoral things on a scale that r societies dont have the resources to do ie the holocost.

Now you could say the holocost happened because K individuals were too K to stand up and say no. But r societies also have this problem. R people disnt stand up against camir rogue or the cultural revolution. I guess I think youre just oversimplifing too much.