Yesterday I rebutted a critique of r/K that repeatedly referenced the frontier. I pointed out that in the paradigm of r/K the frontier was neither r or K – it was the realm of the r/K breakdown, where diminished population density caused a breakdown in the rules of r/K. If r’s are liberals, and K’s are conservatives, the r/K breakdowns will be libertarians.
I have been thinking about that some more, and wanted to elaborate. The form of mankind you see is molded by what he is fighting. In r and K mankind is fighting man, because high population densities promote encounters with others humans, and thus make those humans the force who must be overcome. In r, like a rabbit, man is fighting to produce offspring faster and longer than other men. So he avoids conflict, and mates aggressively with everything to impregnate all the females before everyone else. In K, like a wolf, man is grouping up into packs and fighting to defeat other men, so his pack, and he by extension, can acquire resources and survive to reproduce fit offspring that can repeat the process themselves.
But when r/K breaks down because man is spread out thin (usually due to resource shortage), individuals do not encounter other humans. Man is fighting the environment as it tries to kill him back, and he is doing it alone. Urges to fight other humans reflexively or avoid conflict with them compulsively abate, as man shifts his focus to a mindset devoted to overcoming technical problems presented by an impersonal environment. This produces an individual focused on the world, who may be aggressive or may not, depending purely on circumstances and conditions rather than instincts and social drives.
I recognize this psychology because it is strong in me. Those who need the company of others, or feel strange alone, appear incredibly foreign to me. I don’t need to fight or compete, but can if I have to. I am focused on technical aspects of the world around me and this somewhat blinds me to the human, social aspects of the world. As a result, I could walk though beautiful woods myself, drinking in the world around me, and be the happiest guy alive absent human company. I also probably do not meld as easily within society because the rules other little robots seem to draw comfort from feel unusually constraining to me. Conformity with the drones who often seem on autopilot seems bizarre. I understand the allure of a government-less frontier where nobody is trying to fit me in society’s box.
I am also probably at a disadvantage under conditions of true K-selection, because a K-strategist who happened on me with his group might reflexively attack, while I am still assessing the situation. Where that unnecessary drive to violence might eventually get him killed unnecessarily in a frontier, in K-selection it would be a decisive advantage. The urges of r and K exist for a reason. They are the best adaptations to their environments.
I think you can see this difference too in our perceptions of the Frontier Outlaw. In our mind’s eye, we see an individual who either operated alone, or as part of a very small gang that was probably not the most stable of organizations. He was not a character with tons of pro-social urges for conformity, who was designed to fit into a large group and respect an established hierarchy of authority. He might do things outside the box, in ways most people would not think of, with the sole objective of overcoming an obstacle. He might seem inhuman to the more socially-prone.
If you traveled to a higher population density as in the cities however, you would find the most capable criminals were organized crime, often in the form of the early Mafia – a very different psychology which viewed conformity and hierarchy as vitally important, and which probably enjoyed the social aspects of the lifestyle. There, each individual was almost like a cog in a machine, designed to fit in and not make waves. Different environments, different psychologies.
K’s and r/K breakdowns can agree that it is best if others leave them alone, because each recognizes violence as a danger, and each has a drive to do as they wish. However, they will often have grossly different moral frameworks, since the moral framework of the K is designed to help them fit effortlessly into a group. The r/K breakdown’s idea of fitting into the group is having everyone else leave them alone.
That works if everyone else is miles away. But in the real world, when people are crowded around you, you will not be left alone. You will either live in a world ruled by r or ruled by K.
Spread r/K Theory, because the assholes will rarely leave you alone
[…] A Thought About The Frontier […]
This is the most interesting post I have read by you, and I’ve been following for some months now, if not a year.
Why are r’s so pro abortion when it is their offspring most likely to be aborted? If producing the most offspring is innate in them it seems at odds to be so pro abortion?
r’s are not programmed to produce the most children. They are programmed to have as much sex as possible, and not want to spend effort rearing the offspring. If there is no birth control, they get pregnant, have the kids, rear them minimally, and then move on to have more kids fast. Once birth control and abortion enters the picture, it allows them to satisfy both urges – lots of sex, and no rearing. That it effectively sterilizes them is purely coincidental.
And this is where everyone who wants to be K be they conservative or liberal. And so they look at the wiki page and see r has lots of kids and K doesn’t. Then they look at results and see that hey conservaitve have lots of kids and liberals done.
But they miss that animals don’t have access to birth control or abortions, which changes the reality. And that the brain chemicals are to get us to have children, but don’t really lock us into raising them. It is all about the drives and what would cause them.
Also missed by many is how the system is dynamic and changing as people change either going r or going K or developing a technology to change things.
Lastly, I will be honest and say I have reservations on r/K. Why? becasue initally it was to good of a fit – Any time I see that I get skeptical that the creator (and myself) are missing something. Later I could see areas that teh theory hadn’t been well thought out for – Frontier land being one of them. And I recognize that things like Newtonian physics works well for huamn scale, but small scale, very fast scales, very large scales, these require Einstienian adjustments or fixes.
Any theory, every theory is going to have that sort of need to look at ‘how does the general really work in the extreems’ especially the more random and less deterministic it gets…. And human or animal behavior is pretty random compared to billiard balls, or falling cannon balls.
One day I’m going to have to read the whole book.
Notice that as you travel from equator to pole, e.g. from Arabia to Greece to Poland to Sweden to the Inuits, people get more open and generous along the way. At Inuit population densities, everyone you ever meet is a fellow Inuit, and probably a close relative. So you’re happy to let a stranger sleep in your igloo, devour your seal meat, and roger your wife, and he’d do the same for you.
Snow people are the most empathic and least racist. Historically no other race lived within a thousand miles of their icy wasteland, so generosity was sure to be reciprocated.
Fascinating idea.
Thank you for expanding on your thoughts on “r/K breakdown” both here and in the previous article. You whetted my appetite for the subject during our conversation on the Stephen Hawking thread some weeks back.
It seems to me that you’re trying to add an unnecessary level of additional complexity to r/K analysis with “r/K breakdown.” A low population density/ high resources setting is essentially identical to the “Strive” phase in Calhoun’s mouse utopias – the functional early phase of r-selection. Conversely, a low population density/ low resources setting is the standard archetype for K-selection emergence, and needs no additional details added.
Now yes, there are people and animals that are more comfortable in social or isolated settings. That’s a basic measure of temperament – the introversion vs extroversion spectrum. Introversion vs extroversion shows up VERY early in infancy, and is displayed in all animals, human and lower. The way you describe yourself is prototypical for an introvert, which I am as well, by the way. But all four basic temperaments (and 16 subcategories) should be able to function equally well in either r or K selection regimes.
IOW, I think trying to separate out a distinct and singular “r/K breakdown” is a mistake. Instead, what should be done is to place a modifying “coefficient for temperament” in front of the mathematical “r/K function,” and then watch the function vary over time. At a mass scale level of analysis, the “temperament coefficient” would probably need to reflect generational temperaments, perhaps in a way parallel to the Strauss-Howe four generation model.
It is an interesting idea, since r/K breakdown is kind of like K without the social or personally competitive aspects.
Whether or not a “Grizzly Bear” needs to fight other “bears” in a low resources environment, it is still going to find a mate and invest as lavishly as possible in the rearing of the few young it births or sires. And if a threat shows up, the Grizzly Bear is going to gut that threat without a second thought. That is archetypical K behavior. Both whales and wolves are K selected – K isn’t always about running down prey with the pack. The gregariousness or insularity of an animal seems to be separate from whether or not it is r or K.
Actually Grizzlies single parent, and don’t pair bond, likely because it is tough enough to support 1800 lbs of one mama bear plus 200 lbs in cubs, without another 2000 lbs of dad off of berries and carrion, so that is kind of r. Granted the mother does invest, and protects the cubs from random males and that is kind of K. I feel like they fall between r/K, just as the research says it breaks down in reduced population density.
I suspect the gregariousness is in part determined by whether there are enough resources to support the group. If there are, a group will defeat a single animal. Wolves, in following herds with lots of food, can support the group. If they only had solitary mice, I suspect there would be no wolf packs.
I find it interesting I am kind of insular psychologically, and I am not as strictly judgmental emotionally over things like promiscuity, single parenting, homosexuality, even other stuff. I don’t like victimizers of the innocent, and it would probably be good to not let me catch you in my house stealing stuff, but everything else I feel like being kind of hands off and avoidant.
What specific research supports r/K breakdown? Those are papers I’d like to read.
I would have to say that the r/K breakdown is a core component of my psychology as well, and I am most strongly drawn to “just leave me the hell alone!” If anything, I am uncomfortable around dense groups of people and typically withdraw into my cave where I can provide quite happily for myself, thank you very much. I’m much more grizzly than wolf.
If I had to choose between r and K, I’d opt for K society despite not feeling a strong kinship with it. I think that K-selection is what drove excellence in humanity as a whole… but I don’t feel like I quite fit in with humanity myself.
Ditto, James. You’re not alone out there, even though I can testify that it feels like it at times, for sure.
You’re an introvert.
Look into the various temperament systems like the MBTI. You’re far from rare.
Oh, I’m well aware of introversion and MBTI. That’s really not what I was getting at.
This allows r/K to flesh out some very old ideas.
r = rabbit = chaos = nature = mother = dragon = power
Cares most about what you are.
K = wolf = order = culture = father = castle = wisdom
Cares most about what you put out.
Breakdown = bear = sight = individual = son = hero = courage
Cares most about what you take in.
Jordan Peterson is a good source.
Interesting…
I find this “r/k breakdown” conversation rather reassuring as it seems to encompass me. I’m an introvert most comfortable with solitude, and prefer to live and let live, yet would fight to the death to protect my children or other loved ones. I don’t feel the urge to belong to a group…in fact, they make me feel less secure because they are so unpredictable. If I am in a group, it is a very small intimate one. At the same time, I can recognize those groups that would hurt me, and resent them with a vengeance. I identify more with K, but to tell the truth, I can see a lot of r in me as well. I wouldn’t oppose r if they didn’t represent a very really threat to me and my family’s well-being.