Posted on 08/23/2012 9:23:59 AM PDT by AnonymousConservative
The funniest thing about the r/K divide within our species is how pervasive it is. Everywhere I look, I see aspects of it manifesting in our culture, our behavior, our history, and even our future.
Here is a free abstract from an interesting study examining the “balancing selection hypothesis” of homosexuality.
Let me rephrase this, so it makes more sense. There may be a gene which produces women who are more fertile, have more offspring, and want to deal with children less. At the same time it makes men more feminine (and more promiscuous, since that correlates with homosexuality). (There is other research which implicates multiple genes in homosexuality, as well as non-random X-chromosome inactivation in mothers. Although the genetic causes of homosexuality are probably many, it will not alter the overall conclusions of this blog post.)
Many r-selected species see the sex-specific behavioral tendencies and sexual dimorphism reverse from what is seen in K-selected species. In a K-selected species, males are responsible for provisioning and protection, and so they grow large, aggressive, courageous, and competitive. By contrast, females remain more feminine and conflict averse – they are designed to attract males with their femininity, and nurture children in security by removing them from the dangers which the male confronts for the family.
In many r-selected species, however, females must raise their offspring alone, so they become aggressive, competitive, and more “manly” (by K-selected standards), to provide for and protect their single parented offspring better. Obviously the best example in humans is the modern day man-jawed, flannel-wearing feminazi. Meanwhile in r-selection, the promiscuous males become more feminine (likely to help them avoid conflict with other males), more diminutive, more focused on superficial flash that is designed to attract mates quickly, and less competitive and courageous. They become more feminine, by our K-selected standards.
From the abstract of the study on homosexual genes:
“Our analysis showed that both mothers and maternal aunts of homosexual men show increased fecundity compared with corresponding maternal female relatives of heterosexual men. A two-step statistical analysis, which was based on t-tests and multiple logistic regression analysis, showed that mothers and maternal aunts of homosexual men (i) had fewer gynecological disorders; (ii) had fewer complicated pregnancies; (iii) had less interest in having children; (iv) placed less emphasis on romantic love within couples; (v) placed less importance on their social life; (vi) showed reduced family stability; (vii) were more extraverted; and (viii) had divorced or separated from their spouses more frequently.”
So not only does this gene make male carriers more feminine, it also makes females more fecund, and less likely to end up in a monogamous relationship. Such female carriers will exhibit less desire to rear children, be less romantically attached to their partner, be less likely to have a stable family, and be more likely to divorce or separate. Promiscuous, feminized males, and females with low rearing drive and an aversion to monogamy. Where have we seen that before?
I have always been struck by the feminine nature of the modern Liberal male, who we maintain is merely an individual within our species who exhibits an r-type reproductive strategy. Both Liberal men and women rely more on navigating social structures than on open conflict and competition to get ahead. Liberal men seek to be protected from competition by others through government, just as most women seek the protection of men. Liberal men prefer that others should provide for them (and the populace) through governmental largesse, while women seek out men who can provide for them. While the studies haven't been done for obvious reasons, I suspect one would find the average Liberal male is vastly inferior in physical combative ability compared to the average Conservative male. And then of course, there is always Gavin Newsom.
It is established that in Kluver-Bucy syndrome, the deficient function of the amygdala which characterizes the syndrome does produce hypersexuality, including compulsively mating with inappropriate partners and objects. Of course one facet of the Liberal brain is a diminished development of the amygdala. If amygdala structural variation underlies ideology and sexual behavior, is it possible that atypical amygdala development might be implicated in homosexuality in a similar way?
Yes, as a matter of fact it is. Homosexual men and women exhibit less neurological connectivity within the right amygdalae hemisphere than do heterosexual men when examined via PET scan, while Liberals exhibit relatively smaller right amygdala hemispheres than Conservatives, when examined via MRI. By contrast, the same studies show that Heterosexual men and Lesbians exhibit increased connectivity in the right hemisphere of the amygdala, while Conservatives exhibit increased volume in the right amygdala. (The right hemisphere of the amygdala is believed to deal with negative stimuli, such as threat and fear more, while the Left hemisphere is more involved in reward/pleasure, in addition to threat/fear. To paraphrase the title of a study which discusses this cognitive difference in ideologies, Conservative K-types confront the bad, while Liberal r-types roll with the good.)
A quote from the Homosexual brain structure study:
Homosexual subjects also showed sex-atypical amygdala connections. In (Homosexual Males), as in (Heterosexual Women), the connections were more widespread from the left amygdala; in (Homosexual Women) and (Heterosexual Males), on the other hand, from the right amygdala … The results cannot be primarily ascribed to learned effects, and they suggest a linkage to neurobiological entities.
Also noted in the study:
The choice to measure amygdala connectivity was based on several reports about sex differentiated amygdala lateralization in processing of emotional memories (with an activation of the right amygdala in men, and the left amygdala in women) (19, 20). (see the article for the references)
From an article on Discover Magazine's website, describing the paper, found here
“The researchers also looked at the amygdala, a part of the brain that’s associated with emotions, and found that straight women and gay men both have more connections between the amygdala and brain regions associated with anxiety and mood disorders. Meanwhile, the amygdala of lesbians and straight men had more connections to the region that controls fight or flight reactions”
Please think back to my blog series on debating tactics and the amygdala hijack, and see if the above paragraph might describe a mechanism by which Liberals might be more prone to anxiety and mood disruption during casual debate.
Here is a quote from Kanai's study of neurological correlates of political affiliation:
We found that … greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala. These results were replicated in an independent sample of additional participants. Our findings extend previous observations that political attitudes reflect differences in self-regulatory conflict monitoring … by showing that such attitudes are reflected in human brain structure.
Of course if r/K sex-specific behavioral tendencies held, K-type (feminine) women and Liberals would all be expected to exhibit the more conflict-averse/feminized model of behavior, while men and r-type women would be expected to exhibit a more aggressive, provisioner/protector model of behavior. Some have proposed that there are sex-specific variations in homosexual participation in sports (where homosexual men seem to avoid aggressive sports, while homosexual women appear to be over represented in such aggressive sports). Numerous studies also note that male homosexuals tend to exhibit much less aggression than male heterosexuals.
Is homosexuality just an extreme r-type development of the amygdala? Normally designed to affect aggression and embrace of conflict, it is occaisionally expressed so severely that it then bleeds over into sexual desires. Could Homosexuality actually be a case of mother nature overshooting the r-type Liberal mark, and shifting the neurological foundations of r/K sex-specific behaviors too far?
In moderate amounts, this r-trait just produces a cowardly and effete man, obsessed with superficial style/flash, who avoids aggression/competing, and as Heartiste pointed out here, exhibits exactly the type of less desirous/more aloof attitude r-type women crave in their short term relationships. In large amounts, it goes overboard and turns a Barack Obama into a Barney Frank, but the advantages of all the moderately-feminized male r-strategists outweighs the periodic genetic dead end. (The Heartiste post linked above was quite interesting for another study it cited showing that in twins with only one heterosexual sibling, that sibling was more promiscuous than average.)
Homosexuality could also be adaptive, since an r-type individual, trying to persist in a K-selective environment would be well served to defer competing for a mate until a more r-selective period began. By creating a male with diminished desire and desperation for a female mate, this would both diminish the r-type's drive towards mate competition in K-selective periods, and then increase female attraction as the female cohort became more r-minded during more r-selective periods. Of course if this hypothesis is correct, it would also explain why homosexuals tend to support Liberals more than Conservatives.
What will be interesting will be to see the Liberal's reaction to this hypothesis. Will they be aghast and deny the evidence, and thereby betray underlying negative feelings and perceptions, of a discriminatory nature, about homosexuals and homosexuality? Are Liberals so Homophobic that they will deny what the scientific evidence so clearly indicates? Or will they adopt a genuinely non-judgmental, tolerant position, embracing of their homosexual brethren, and the common evolutionary history and psychological inclinations they share?
Only time will tell.
It's becoming clear to me this is not irony at all, but simple life-cycle stuff. Like the blooming, then the dearth, of algae in a pond.
Are those same types pushing for gay marriage and for educating public school children about homosexuality as normal (not superior in any way)? If so, they are part and parcel, but from the other description of them it seems very strange.
Yes, they are. The world I’ve lived in is 60% homosexual and I’ve seen deep into it. Please don’t fall into the idiocy of thinking that all male homosexuals are limpwristed mincing sissies. There are a lot of “masculine” homosexuals, and, yes, they are on board with this gay marriage as normalization thing.
Likewise, not all lesbians are of the repulsive Rachel Maddow type. Some are actually quite easy on the eyes but they are still evil sinners that need to get right with God. When the Lord smote Sodom and Gomorrah, his Righteous Wrath of Divine Judgment fell on all of those guilty of the abomination of homosexuality, regardless of how they looked or their mannerisms.
And by the way, I was in a gay marriage for over 40 years. My late wife (God Bless her soul) and I enjoyed decades of true joy and genuine Christian happiness. The vile homosexuals have destroyed so much -- but they're NOT going to take the word "gay" from me. I want it restored to its true meaning!
OK; I will bow to your far greater experience. Thanks for clarifying and giving additional info.
Sounds to me like you wrote your book to have some fun at the faculty lounge. But way to go!
“Please don’t fall into the idiocy of thinking that all male homosexuals are limpwristed mincing sissies.”
That can be correct, and not invalidate the thesis, though. We are talking about one brain difference which interacts with a lot of other brain structures. Overall, research does support diminshed aggression among homosexuals, as I noted.
Now inividuals vary, so just like heteros will have Dick Marcinko killing people left and right like an angry Sasquatch with a machinegun on one side, and pacifist hippies on the other, so too will there be variation among homosexuals. But if you look at averages, you will find the mean level of aggression shifted signifgantly towards nonconfrontational, and I would assert we should look to this structural difference and teh “r-ification” of humans as the neurological and evolutionary contribution contributing to that.
With any luck, and some help from friends, nobody will ever know I did this.
But thanks for the encouraging words.
Some readers may object to this article’s implication that homosexuality is genetically determined, because they think a lot of it is learned. My take is that if the described research is correct, this article bolsters the general feeling that “queers ain’t right in the head.”
Very interesting, and I mostly agree, with one caveat. You get into tricky areas when you look at ability as relates to r/K. r’s are less openly competitive, but they are survivors, who will do anything, and engage in rule breaking to win. I suspect even the novelty seeking is a part of finding new ways to compete without openly competing. So they do have advantages.
They are also excellent at maneuvering through social hierarchies, so they will often rise, irrespective of success.
There is a great blog here, which I view as describing the epitome of amygdala dysfunction in management, which the author describes as SOB syndrome, based on a phrase common to all of them he knew.
http://mandynamerica.com/blog/memorable-sobs-in-inaction/
The big problem is r’s are conditioned early on in childhood to be pretenders, so you never know what you will get, or what you have.
But interesting analysis, and I agree on most all of it.
The article says “extraverted” — when it means “extroverted” when referring to mothers of homosexual men. I’m not sure extraverted is a word.
See spelling and definition here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/extroverted
I forgot to mention one, focused as I was on business in isolation. r's tend to thrive in areas where there's a slew of complex regulations which can be negotiated through like a complex social hierarchy. K's, I suspect, are more at home in an environment of simple laws that say what they mean and mean what they say.
Have you spent some time poking through libertarian theory and Austrian economics? One of their major themes is: economic competition, when viewed in the global sense, is another kind of social co-operation. They're also big on pointing out that a lot of business competition consists of finding niches with new products: in essence, competing for consumer dollars without competing directly.
But on the other hand, the Rothbardian segment insists that the current regulations on banks should be replaced by one simple law that's much tougher than the current set-up: 100% reserves on demand deposits. Anything more lenient, they consider to be encouragement of fraud. The 100%-reserv'ers consider this point to be non-negotiable.
To get back to regulations, the regulatory State provides a big advantage to r's because of how it grew. The legislators discovered a principle that computer programmers didn't discover until 1990 or so: the more user-friendly the application, the more back coding is needed to make it work properly. With respect to legislation, the "back coding" is a combination of implementary regulations and amendments that make the original law much more complex - like, most notoriously, the Internal Revenue Code.
Thank you for the correction - I always appreciate when somebody tries to help me sound smarter than I am (and I need the help).
Here, the word extraverted is actually in the text from the original source, where I think it is being used as a technical psychological term. I guess Carl Jung used it in that form to describe a quality of personality, and it stuck among specialists. You know you’re big when people start purposely misspelling stuff to be more like you.
Thanks again though. When you write, you find out just how difficult it is to be precise. Any help is much appreciated.
Yeah, there is a fine line between creativity in competiting, and avoiding competition.
One of the things which I think differentiates r-competing is a willignness to use K’s against other K’s, as proxies. Whether it is a Lib hiding behind the tax man, a gungrabber hiding behind a fed, or a hippie siding with the communists, each is seeking to use another K/warrior as a proxy to attack their real competition, without facing them directly. This breaking of rules we view as sacrosanct is why they are so vexing.
“One of their major themes is: economic competition, when viewed in the global sense, is another kind of social co-operation. “
It is what I think K-selection has always been. Taking allies to cooperate socially, but only in order to compete for limtied resources, and take them from others, who will have to do without. So it is cooperative, but only to be competitive. I believe that is why cooperation evolved. We had to cooperate to compete, or we would easily be killed by others who cooperated. The best cooperators were the ones who survived, by killing off everyone else.
Unfortuantely, I am almost certianly not as bright as you are in economics though, so I can’t contribute much to you there. But if you get the basics on the biology side, which you clearly do, I suspect you won’t need my help anyway.
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.