There is an interesting post here on Evolutionary Psychology and mating strategies in humans. I want to thank somebody, but I don’t want to get them a tax audit. You know who you are, and I am appreciative.
It offers more support for the concept of K-strategists and r-strategists in our populations, and the reversal of sexual dimorphism this r-strategy produces. For those new to the blog, we maintain that there is signifigant scientific evidence (here and here and here) that if you accidentally overexpress the Liberal ideology, those angry manjawed feminists who crave feminine Liberal girly-boys as partners become raging Lesbians who sexually desire actual women, while effete Liberal men who love angry masculine tankgirls eventually turn into gay guys who look like Gavin Newsom and are attracted to actual men.
Some interesting points from the article:
“Individuals with unrestricted sociosexual orientations tend to be more extraverted, more aggressive, more disinhibited, and more likely to lack control than restricted individuals, who typically score higher on social closeness and well-being. (Wright, 1999)… A study found a negative relation between sociosexuality and agreeableness in both sexes, confirming that more unrestricted individuals tend to be more difficult to interact with and less trustworthy. Probst (1999)”
The r-strategy in humans is selfish, because when resources are free, you don’t need a group to survive. You just try to out-consume and out-reproduce everyone else. If you are K, you will be much more inclined to be agreeable, and work with a team towards a common goal, because with that team, you will kick-ass. If you are an r, everyone is there to be screwed.
More:
(sexually) “Unrestricted men:
1.Lack warmth/capacity for close relationships
2.Are undependable/irresponsible
3.Lack productivity
4.Do not feel guilty about personal matters
5.Are distrustful of other people
6.Claim to be physically attractive
7.Are not ethically consistent
8.Display narcissism and psychopathy(sexually) “Unrestricted women:
1.Enjoy sensuous experiences
2.Have unconventional thoughts
3.Constantly compare themselves to others
4.Claim to be physically attractive
5.Regard themselves as interesting/attention-grabbing
6.Are not concerned with philosophical matters
7.Adopt different and varied roles
8.Are not conservative
9.Are not moralistic
10.Are not ethically consistent(Reise and Wright, 1996)”
Again, a selfish, consuming reproductive strategy, unconcerned with the good of the group.
Finally:
“Women who had more lifetime partners (25-200) claimed to have greater interest in casual sex and scored higher on three dimensions of masculinity (compared to women with less than 10 partners):
1.recalling having been more masculine during childhood
2.considering themselves more masculine as adults
3.being rated (by interviewers) as more physically and behaviorally masculine.”
Homosexuality is just an accidental over-expression of the Liberal ideologue’s r-strategy, where manly females are designed to provision and protect offspring alone, while feminine men are designed to impregnate and run away. Women become so masculinized, and men become so feminized in the r-strategy, that it just takes a slight over-expression to turn a Liberal man’s desire for a manly Amazonian Liberal woman into a lust for Anthony Weiner, and a Liberal woman’s preference for a nice effete Liberal beta-boy into a man-jawed crush on Anne Heche.
It kills me to think that science will eventually have to teach this someday. I am getting really impatient for the day when every young aspiring Liberal will have to sit through this in the introduction of their Political Science courses. “Yes, Johnny, you are a rabbit person, and if you are not careful, you’ll end up leaving your wife to spend a romantic weekend with Elton John – and you won’t get to be the man in that relationship, either.”
As an addendum, there is a not-so-interesting article here. The gist of it is, somebody showed cooperation appears to be a Darwinian advantage – and that is it. What kills me is that these people do this for a living, every day, yet none factor in something as important as resource availability into their analysis (or their little simulation games). Does cooperation offer different levels of advantage, if resources are copiously available, or if they are not sufficient for everyone to survive, and groups of people are killing each other? Might an r or K-selecting environment change this? Might selfishness be an advantage, if there are so many resources that there is no competition?
Hey I’m new here. Interesting stuff.
New here, but what I pick up here and in the referenced article is that r-strategists mate/reproduce for “quantity” vs “quality”?
If that’s the case than what is our society desiring and having less and less kids per capita?
The r-strategy is about producing quantity over quality, but when you look at humans you see two instincts which produce the effect – mate as much as possible, and spend as little time rearing each child as possible so as to be able to get back to mating. That limited desire to rear, the high desire to mate, and the presence of contraception combine to produce a sexually driven culture which p-refers repeated mating to having kids.