Dumping r/K and Revising Views on the Elves

I have decided to reevaluate my views on the application r/K selection theory to humans as done by Rushton and the Anonymous Conservative (whom I will refer to as AC). The blogger RaceRealist made a fairly good case that Rushton’s application (and by extension AC’s) of r/K selection theory to humans is based on false premises.

Race Realist responded to me in the following comment:

Thanks for being objective. That’s rare to find nowadays.
I’ve spent years researching Rushton’s theory and thinking about how it applies to humans. Then I thought ‘Why only read what I agree with here when I don’t do that for other things?’ Then I found Judith Anderson’s ecology critique and then I went back to read the Graves paper that I just handwaved away.
Rushton’s misapplication of r/K theory was based on Pianka’s (1970) r/K continuum. That’s wrong. Describing behaviors as ‘r’ or ‘K’ is stupid. r and K describe agents of selection. Endemic disease is an agent of K while cold winters are an agent of r—which Rushton completely reversed! He literally arbitrarily put r-selection to Africans and K to Eurasians because it ‘fit with the data’. True—it did.
However where he went wrong was 1) treating human races as local populations (he’d need to look at one population in one ecosystem and compare it to another in a different one. These populations can be on the same continent (Africa) or two different ones (say, Africa and Northern Europe). 2) to apply the theory based on behaviors in modern environments makes no sense. Organisms MUST be studied in the environment that the selection was hypothesized to have occurred. Not doing so means it’s fine to disregard what he says about r/K selection in application to humans. Even omitting the racial comparisons doesn’t save it. 3) Evolutionary biologists and ecologists don’t even use the theory anymore.
I’ve brought this up to PumpkinPerson and he won’t take to it. I’ve explained to him that Rushton reversed r and K for humans (if it were applicable to us) and he still spews Rushton’s garbage. I know that it’s tough to change your beliefs and then the backfire effect occurs (which occurs when you’re presented with new information then do anything you can to find information to back what you originally thought after presented with said new information). That’s one cognitive bias I’ve learned to nip in the bud recently. I’ve also found it much easier to change my view by reading new information myself.
Now I’m at the bookstore every week in the biology section buying new books (I did this anyway) that are the opposite of what I believe to see what I think after. Constantly reevaluating your views is the logical—and intellectually honest—thing to do.
So anyone who pushes this theory is pushing a wrong theory, and applying it to other aspects of our lives also makes no sense. Behaviors are not ‘r’ or ‘K’. Behaviors are responses to the selective agent—whether it is r or K. People like Anonymous Conservative, Stephan Molyneaux and the other guys you brought up then—by proxy—push a wrong theory. Read the papers provided and follow the references to read more in depth about how to apply it—and why it’s not in use anymore.
This, then, leaves use with one troubling conclusion: anything based off of Rushton’s r/K selection theory is wrong by proxy. Rushton didn’t understand evolution and life history theory (r/K selection). I saw one critique of Rushton’s theory saying that ‘only a bad person would push a theory like this’. That’s a flawed retort. Ad hominem attacks in scholarly discussion do not work. Theories like Rushton’s must be deconstructed to show how and why they are wrong, lest other people believe something that is horribly flawed and incorrect.
I’ll most definitely be showing others how and why Rushton is wrong as well. Rushton was wrong about a ton from penis size to testosterone. This is just the nail in the coffin.
Rushton didn’t even reply to Graves or Anderson in print, take that for what you will.

… so now you know the gist of the problem I suppose.

Personally speaking, some of AC’s views have rubbed me the wrong way, largely because of his sometimes neoconservative bent. This is not to say he does not have more praiseworthy and transcendent ideas, he does, but this still does not overshadow larger problems: that r/K selection was not applied in the way it theoretically should have been, and that the theory itself is discredited: see RaceRealist’s recent blog post for details.

I previously wrote a post on Tolkien’s Elves and r/K selection theory, in which I described Tolkien’s elves as a K-selected ideal in a universal sense. I now reject this idea. However, as I mentioned in my earlier post, the elves have managed to follow an evolutionary strategy which gives them high fitness in their usual habitats. Thier phenotypes are also characteristically Northern European. So I still think of the elf as a biological ideal, but not in a universal sense of being “the measure of all things”. Rather the elves are a particular aristocratic ideal of the Germanic and to a certain degree Insular Celtic peoples who first conceived of them in their mythologies (and yes, just as some elves have dark hair, a minority of Germanic people such as King Halfdan the Black did/do as well).

From a Jungian perspective, the elf is an archetype which is part of the collective unconscious of Northwestern Europeans. It is, in my view, what would normally direct them (or perhaps I should say us given that I am a NW Euro) on a eugenic evolutionary path. This can be completed through selection for biological fitness in one’s environment and through endogamy within a biologically related clade or “subrace” (while excluding 1st – 3rd cousin marriages). The result is a eugenic biological transcendence from the parent race, and species, to form a new aristocratic clade.

As an end note, the current demographic pressures on the NW European gene pool may act as the refining fire from which a new aristocratic clade will emerge. Remember: it is always darkest before the dawn and what does not kill us will only make us stronger.

See Also:

Interesting article on ethnocentrism:

https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/05/16/ethnic-genetic-interests-and-group-selection-does-exist-a-reply-to-jayman-2/

 

Advertisements

Open thread: r/K selection and politics

There has apparently been weak communication between the faction of the Right which considers r/K selection to be influential in politics and the faction (usually HBD folks like Evolutionistx and RaceRealist) who have either not expressed such views or rejected them.

Whichever side is correct, it seems apparent that patrifocal societies (Confucian, Indo-European, Abrahamic) are more right-wing/Authoritarian and more matrifocal ones (modern Sweden, many modern Germanic speaking countries) are more Left-wing/Totalitarian. Politics may ultimately depend on if women are trying to appease men (right-wing), or men trying to appease women (left-wing).

Still, r/K selection theory should be discussed so that the truth might be deduced on this matter.

Argue at will! (even if this is an old post by the time you come across it).

[if no one argues here, then argue somewhere else so that the reactosphere can reach a consensus on this issue]

A Reevaluation of r/K Selection and the Political Triangle.

Update 6/21/17: The theory behind this article may be is probably incorrect, further discussion may take place in the future to deduce root causes of the Right-Left political divide.

Continue reading “A Reevaluation of r/K Selection and the Political Triangle.”

Taking a Break

 

Thranduil by kagalin

Because of heavy school work, I plan to lower my posting frequency for the next few months. Keep in mind if you choose to browse older posts of mine that they are likely to be more and more ‘immature’ the farther back you go, that doesn’t mean that they don’t contain any valid information, but they are likely to seem a bit odd to newer members of my audience.

In the mean time, I will now provide a link to a philosophy channel on Youtube since some individuals have asked me, as well as Curt Doolittle, where to start on studying philosophy or various philosophers. The name of the channel: Rules of the Mind. There is also a traditional Catholic MGTOWist named Mark who has done some very thorough videos especially on Nietzsche you can click this link to go to his Youtube channel. (I haven’t been incorporating Nietzsche into my posts with the intent of annoying Christians; if Mark has learned something from Nietzsche, I think Nietzsche is of some worth to Christians).

Now since someone commented on my previous post bringing up the fact that male members of K-selected species are masculinized, and that this conflicts with the somewhat androgynous appearance of the elves (who have many K-selected traits), I will now show visual examples of the masculinity which male elves possess in spite of their beardlessness and long hair.

Feanor and his followers

Thranduil and Elrond:

The Noldor and Vanyar

There is a perverse tendency among some members of the right to equate ugliness and stupidity with masculinity. One of the reasons I began this blog in the first place was to counter this tendency.

The archetypal duality between the aesthetically harmonious, refined, intelligent man, and the extremely strong, bearded (I’m not saying beards are necessarily ugly), unintelligent one is actually quite old and can be seen in the Norse deities of Baldur and Thor, as well as in Greek myth in the conflicting characters of Apollo (beardless, intellectual) and Heracles (bearded, strong, unrefined). Because male elves visually tend to embody the former archetype more than the latter (in their behavior they often embody both), there is a tendency to see them as effeminate; I don’t exactly see them this way; they are just a different type of masculine than many are accustomed to.

In the United States, these two conflicting male archetypes were brought over, respectively, by the refined Cavaliers to the Virginia Tidewater, and the rough backcountry Scotch-Irish to Appalachia. This has, of course, led to vastly different cultural trajectories for these two areas of the South. Having grown up in the area of the US where the Cavaliers settled, I suppose that I was influenced by their ideas about aesthetics and masculinity, and you will find this reflected throughout my blog.

 

 

Tolkien’s Elves and r/K Selection Theory

Update 10/15/17: This is an erroneous article: it uses a disfavored theory of r/K selection, and falsely conflates the Dionysian Overman with an Apollonian spiritual disposition. I have kept the article because of the useful discussion in the comments regarding r/K selection theory. 

Continue reading “Tolkien’s Elves and r/K Selection Theory”

Regarding the Traditional Family

I may have displeased some social conservatives with my lack of enthusiasm for talking about family values in previous posts. And to be fair, placing these values before all else is a mistake of religious dogmatists. Nevertheless, the traditional family is clearly an asset because it minimises the wasteful use of resources towards purely vain hedonistic ends. It is by means of the traditional family that an aristocracy is established, and it is by means of the traditional family that it is preserved through efficient reproduction and childrearing, and its power is not diminished through wasteful polyamorous spending. This is ultimately why certain leftists dislike the traditional (monogamous, heterosexual) family. To them it represents power, and because the position of the left is essentially derived from slave morality, a morality centered around demonizing the powerful and all their attributes, it should not come as a surprise that much of the left hates, or rather fears, the traditional family, and may even go so far as to call it “oppressive”.

The slave has an unfavourable eye for the virtues of the powerful; he has a skepticism and distrust, a REFINEMENT of distrust of everything “good” that is there honoured–he would fain persuade himself that the very happiness there is not genuine. … Slave-morality is essentially the morality of utility. Here is the seat of the origin of the famous antithesis “good” and “evil”:–power and dangerousness are assumed to reside in the evil, a certain dreadfulness, subtlety, and strength, which do not admit of being despised. According to slave-morality, therefore, the “evil” man arouses fear; according to master-morality, it is precisely the “good” man who arouses fear and seeks to arouse it, while the bad man is regarded as the despicable being. –Fredrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil Chapter IX, paragraph 260 (emphasis mine)

It is ultimately the Will to Power, the intuitive genetic self-interest, as Butch Leghorn calls it, of the left, which is driving the left against the traditional family, and it is ultimately the Will to Power of the right which is driving us to keep it intact, and further, to promote it as an ideal, contrary to a life of consisting of endless masturbation, pornography viewing, and one-night stands. Now it should be obvious why a certain *ahem* small section of our society promotes such a libertine lifestyle. Yes,  I think you know who I am speaking of. If I told you outright who they were the SPLC would try to ruin my life. The traditional family is in their way. It limits their power. It makes us more difficult to exploit financially and otherwise, and it makes us more likely to organise a long-lasting opposition to their power. Therefore, their Will to Power encourages them to destroy the traditional family.

Now, it is said that monogamous reproduction is a characteristic of a K, rather than an r evolutionary reproductive strategy (The Anonymous Conservative), and this is ultimately the biological basis for these opposing Wills to Power. It is the master versus the slave, in Nietzschean terms, that respectively corresponds to the K versus the r in biological terms.