Posted on 08/26/2012 9:06:54 AM PDT by AnonymousConservative
This post requires an understanding of r/K Selection Theory in Evolutionary Biology, and it's relation to our political ideologies. For a quick rundown of this, please see our main page here.
In a previous post we posited that homosexuality may be an extreme form of the reversal in sex specific behaviors which is seen in r-selected populations, where females become more “masculine,” so as to better protect and provision the young they raise alone, while males become more effete, so as to avoid the conflict which is dangerous and disadvantageous under conditions of r-selection.
In that post, we examined the similarities in the neurobiological correlates of gays and Liberals. We then postulated that in gays, the changes which occur in the amygdala as one goes from a K-selected neurobiological structuring to an r-selected neurobiological structuring accidentally go too far, and begin affecting sexual preferences, accidentally turning a merely effete Barack Obama into a full-on Little Richard.
If this was the case, one would expect to see the long form DRD4 polymorphisms, which are one genetic foundation of a Liberal predisposition, to also be associated with homosexual behavior. Of most interest would be the 7r allele of the DRD4 gene, which has been associated with a neurobiology predisposed to Liberalism. Enter the research on the DRD4 7r long form gene:
“About half of the subjects with the long gene had ever had a male sexual partner...” (among self-identified male heterosexuals)
(See: Hamer, D. (2002). Genetics of sexual behavior. In J. Benjamin, R. P. Ebstein, R. H. Belmaker (Eds.), Molecular genetics and the human personality (pp. 257–272). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing. p266.)
Yes, you read that right. Half of the male DRD4 7r carriers who claimed to be heterosexual, in the sample Hamer used, had engaged in sexual relations with another man.
So long form DRD4 polymorphisms, such as the one associated with Liberalism are associated with infidelity, promiscuity, and homosexuality. The brain structures associated with Liberalism are eerily similar to those associated with homosexuality, and as the researcher in this article discusses, even research into the reversal of sex-specific behaviors and sexual dimorphism matches as well.
Interestingly, Hamer concluded the DRD4 7r allele was mainly about promoting “novelty” in sexual behavior, and not homosexuality, per se. He maintained that he felt DRD4-7r-mediated homosexuality was merely an outgrowth of the individual's drive to find a novel form of sexual partner. This is interesting, as it further supports our contention that Liberalism is an r-strategy.
K-selection is marked by an environment where resources are insufficient, and someone will have to go without. Here, individuals are very discriminating regarding mate fitness. The fitter one's mate, the fitter one's offspring, and the more likely such offspring are to succeed in the fierce competition for the extremely limited resources which are available. This is why on finding the fittest mate possible, the K-selected individual will monopolize that mate's fitness through monogamy, seeking to prevent others from benefiting from mixing their genes with this high level of fitness, to produce offspring. Those within a K-selective environment who do not focus solely on producing fitness in offspring see their offspring starve, and their genes culled from the population. Obviously all of these K-selected urges manifest clearly in the Conservative psychology, which favors careful mate selection and monogamy, and which is focused on giving children every opportunity through high-investment rearing.
By contrast, the excess of resources which marks the r-selective environment eliminates the need for offspring to compete for resources to survive. As a result, every offspring, no matter how unfit, will be able to survive and reproduce, since resources are everywhere. In the r-selective environment, since offspring need not be fit, individuals will focus on producing more offspring, instead of fitter offspring, in an attempt to out-reproduce peers.
To this end, the r-selected organism will seize every mating opportunity, no matter how unfit the mate. Since mate fitness is unimportant, extremely r-selected individuals will not bother with monogamy or mate guarding, instead following a strategy of mating as often as possible. This will result in individuals investing as little as possible in each offspring, through low-investment rearing strategies such as single parenting.
Here, what a researcher would term sexual novelty seeking among those who carry the Liberal gene is really the absence of sexual discrimination, combined with a drive to mate with any mate, regardless of fitness, or even suitability to reproduction (when accidentally over-expressed). Under the Extreme r-Hypothesis of Homosexuality, when carried to an accidental extreme, the r-selected psychology will produce a male individual willing to mate with anything - even another male individual.
Notice also, we maintain the r-strategy of Liberalism is produced by the diminished amygdala development which Kanai et al. identified. In Kluver Bucy syndrome, amygdala dysfunction produces an individual which is prone to mating with inappropriate partners and objects. Such a grossly indiscriminate mating strategy is only favorable under conditions of r-selection.
In summary, here we see a gene which reduces the individual's ability to perform a fitness discrimination in a prospective mate, while simultaneously programming them to follow an aggressively promiscuous mating strategy. That this gene is the only gene presently associated with the Liberal political ideology only strengthens the case for Liberalism as an r-selected reproductive strategy, as identified in r/K Selection Theory in Evolutionary Biology. That homosexuality correlates with all of this would offer an interesting case that homosexuality may, in fact, arise from a periodic accidental over-expression of Liberal neurobiology. In such a case, males become inordinately effeminate, and the neurological reversal of sex specific behaviors and urges so commonly seen in r-selected individuals bleeds over into mate selection criteria. That homosexuals tend to support Liberalism overwhelmingly, and that Liberals tend to support homosexuals overwhelmingly only further cements their linkage.
Again, I would urge Liberals to quash those feelings of homophobia which would lead them to denigrate Gay America by trying to deny the scientific correlates between between gays and Liberals (as if gays were somehow unfit to be associated with the modern Liberal). To Liberals, I say you should embrace your homosexual brethren (and honestly acknowledge your own bi-curious urges). Having honestly examined ourselves, then we can all move forward, together, towards a better understanding of political ideology and it's biological purposes.
Absent an understanding of how r/K Selection Theory in Evolutionary Biology has produced our modern political ideologies, we are all fighting blindly in a battle we do not understand. With an understanding of r/K Selection Theory, we see not only the purposes behind each ideological position, but we see how Conservatism embodies all that is good, by our species' K-selected mores and virtues.
just find a cure already
A question. You use the term "abundance." Have you defined it as resource certainty? I'm asking because your r-strategy model fits best with the baby-daddy welfare culture. If "abundance" matched up with total resources, you'd think that affluent liberals would be having lots of kids and affluent/powerful liberal males would further father kids from a string of mistresses. From what I've seen, though, affluent liberal males tend to have one or kids; many have none.
That disconnect between affluence and offspring could be chalked up to liberal Malthusianism, but that ZPG stuff could be a rationalization of feelings of uncertainty: the fear that the good times will run out.
While I'm on the subject, have you noticed that the greatest fertility rates in the K end of the spectrum are found in Christian cultures that aren't all that affluent? Familes like the Duggans, for example.
Also, the r-and-K seem to be mixed. There are lots of upper-middle-class liberals who seriously think that kids aren't worth having unless the parents can afford an expensive home in a quality-school district, Ivy League college, a large budget for extracurricular activites like riding lessons, etc. In terms of resource deployment, that "pre-Ivy" track is consistent with your K-strategy - namely, deploying a lot of resources on one single kid and deciding that, in the absence of such resources, there's no point in having a kid. As I noted, many professional-class liberals follow that strategy.
Have you worked socio-economic class standards into your model?
Interestingly, there may be a cure. John Jost exposed people to various stimuli, and found fearful stimuli triggered ideological shifts towards Conservatism across all measures of ideology. So if I exposed you to a fear of bankruptcy and inability to support yourself, you would be less likely to support generous welfare – but you would also become more Socially Conservative, and favor marriage and family issues more.
Likewise, during the Depression, there was an emphasis on paternal investment, ie family values.
What it looks like is we are programmed. When things get harsher and more competitive, we develop to go more K, and become more Conservative, as a sort of Darwinian strategy adapting us to more competitive environments. It may have something to do with fearful stimuli triggering the amygdala, and developing it, and that development translating into K-type behaviors across the board. So fearful stimuli are like exercise for the amydgala, developing it, and actually creating the larger amygdala volumes seen by Kanai on the MRI’s of Conservatives, in the study above.
Now, looking at all of it, I wonder if that is why 4 years of Carter made Reagan a possibility. It may also be why the easy economy of yesterday left kids expecting to get out of college with a masters in Womyn’s Rights, and just have a six figure salary waiting for them.
And I suspect after the global economic collapse that is coming, when people are having trouble feeding their families, they are going to be a whole lot less in favor of paying money to government, to buy free cellphones for bums. By contrast, even the bums, forced to fend for themselves, will probably statistically become more Conservative, and more driven to go out and do something productive. They will have to, and that will change them psychologically, as a group.
It’s ironic, but if the environment is too easy, we revert to the r-strategy, as a population, and society will become more Liberal. Since Liberalism destroys the society economically, and makes things less nice, it is self limiting. I expect we will be heading back, very K, in a relatively short period, and ironically, we will have the Liberals to thank.
“The horses are prettier and smell better...”
That is very true.
Marker worthy...
One hallmark of r-selection is diminished rearing drives. r-types don’t like kids as much, and it manifests in a lot of ways. Oddly enough one researcher tested Liberals and Conservatives and found females Liberals preferred the smell of coffee over newborn babies, while female conservatives preferred the smell of the babies. So it is probably a holistic thing. The other side of the coin is Elton John, who laments his child will be so horribly affected by not having a mother that he wants to get another kid who can commiserate with his current one about their horrible lives. Notice the female relatives of Homosexuals in the last post’s study had a diminished desire for kids, even as they had more offspring.
Now in a state of nature, without birth control, or abortion, or a knowledge of where babies came from, r-type drives produce a lot of mating, and fathers who aren’t driven to hang around to parent, and mothers who kick the kid out at the earliest moment for convenience, so they can begin on the next brood. That strategy maximizes r (the variable which represents reproductive rate in equations describing population dynamics), and doesn’t really have a downside. Your goal is to produce as many offspring as possible who go on to mate themselves. If resources are free, and there is no competition, the fact the kid was kicked out at twelve to fend for himself won’t be as deleterious as it would be if all the resources were taken by mature males, as they would be in K-selection.
So today, you have an r-type psychology, living in a world where having a baby is, for all intents and purposes, a conscious choice. Wealthy Liberals, who would probably score high on measures of conscientiousness, do what is necessary to avoid the child, and the costs inherent to it in our society. R-individuals who aren’t as conscientious don’t worry about anything but the moment, and they are the ones who end up with ten kids by ten different mommas.
I suspect in today’s world, the r-trait is going to adapt to the newer selection of easy birth control to be much less conscientious, maybe with a subset of individuals who really want kids, but don’t think too far ahead.
Of course, generous welfare is serving as an r-selective pressure, and it will favor the growth of a massive underclass of fast breeding individuals with low conscientiousness, as Charles Murray has been documenting.
On Liberals who hyper-invest, I see it as a confluence of variables. Notice, they don’t invest in a way which is personally costly to them. If they were poorer, I don’t think they would move to a more ramshackle house to have a kid. They tend to be mostly affluent, so the investing isn’t really personally costly to any measure of value to them.
Also the r-trait involves not wanting kids, so when you combine a hyper-affluent individual with one child, you are going to see a high level of investment, though I suspect it is superficial investment which isn’t personally costly, and which is more about competing with the Jones.
Personally, I see a woman who abandons her job to home-school as investing more highly (from a psychological perspective) in her offspring than a millionaire family who sends their offspring off to Andover, and only sees the child a few months a year.
But it’s worth noting, in nature, r and K are not clearly defined, with an ironclad line of demarcation between them either in individuals or species. Rather, you see it as you zoom out from the group, and statistics aggregate. At the individual level, it is possible for aspects of strategies to combine in an individual, and produce individuals who seem to follow hybrid strategies. Even many species, due to unique aspects of their environmental, can combine competitiveness with r-type mating strategies, or aversions to competition with K-type mating strategies. As you zoom out, they disappear, but they do exist. r/K is particularly noted as being density dependent.
Perhaps we need that mythical Martian biologist. If you apply the Darwinian standard of fitness, generally accepted in the scientific community, you get fitness rankings that are strikingly at odds with affluence ranks. Given that resource plentitude is s'posed to be translated into more offspring, it makes for a puzzle...
It looks like you're selecting the parts of the data that will support your creepy agenda, rather than looking at the whole picture.
It's tough to find a picture of Laura Bush not smiling, but here, she clearly doesn't carry that particular emotional indice.
Nor does Carla Bruni, though Michelle clearly has a whole different thing going on.
Yep, Horses are definitely better.
Sorry, Sorry, Sorry, Sorry, Sorry, Sorry, Sorry, Sorry, Sorry, Sorry, Sorry,
You’ve gotta read the post. I point out exactly how that exists as diminshed mate discrimination, and how that is exactly what you see combined with promiscuity in r-selection.
The number of sorries was about ten fold too low.
At least I didn’t post one of her ugly pictures...
Once an experimental or alternative lifestyle is scientifically proven to be biologically determined from birth, libtards who want them to be considered equal to traditional lifestyles will have an additional argument to use.Pedophilia and incest may be next.
I think it does explain a lot. It’s kind of funny to look at r/K in evolutionary biology, and see them say r-selected psychologies need free resources for everyone (to avoid any competitive selection for fitness), and this produces aversions to competition and fleeing from conflict, as well as promiscuity, single-parenting, and earlier age of sexual activity. On top of that, r-selection produces individuals with no loyalty to in-group (since they avoid all competition, even in groups), and it produces manly females and feminine males.
You couldn’t describe the average Liberal any better. Much of their psychology is just bunny-rabbit like.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.