Trump doesn't want immigrants from s***hole countries

[Greoric]

Okay it seems pretty out there to attribute r-selected to liberals but whatever .....now how does any of this relate to Trumps comments ?

It's informative of your predisposition on the issue. That is, conflict avoidance, and not recognizing in-group preference or condemning the in-group preferences you observe (i.e. white-nationalists). Notice the common denominator among you and other self identified liberals. None of you recognize the problem with mixing cultures that have very different value sets than what this country was established as in a Western and Northern European origin. Its just not even in your headspace that can potentiate a problem, thus yours and other's willingness to proclaim "come one. Come all." The assumption is an r-selected one.

Now, don't confuse me though. The dichotomy of the tendencies are a valuable counter-balance to one another.... just not in a representative governance presiding over 330 million people.

 

[Greoric]

Sounds like you followed Molyneux from ancap to "race realism". "r-selected tendencies" and applying r-K selection to political positions is pure pseudoscientific guff.
You don't get both r and K selection operating within the same population group. The fact that conservative voters have more children should point out how forced this use of r-K selection theory is.
Not to mention this post is self-contradictory with the number of times you've argued that Nazis were leftists...

If anything Molyneux would get this from me. He's a fucking youtuber, without any formal biology education.

In any event, conservative children have higher parental investment too, and if you read my posts throughly, the caveat isn't that liberals aren't dominated by r-selected traits. We're a predominant K-selected species. It's just that r-selected tendencies percolate more among some individuals versus others, which is an informative predisposition for someone's politics.

 

[Ruprecht]

If anything Molyneux would get this from me. He's a fucking youtuber, without any formal biology education.

In any event, conservative children have higher parental investment too, and if you read my posts throughly, the caveat isn't that liberals aren't dominated by r-selected traits. We're a predominant K-selected species. It's just that r-selected tendencies percolate among some individuals versus others.

Well if you have some sort of formal biology education it isn't serving you well. The whole idea that "r-selected tendencies percolate among some individuals" is an abuse of the theory. Like applying "magnetism" to arthritis therapy and justifying "homeopathy" with vaccination. It's an explanatory heuristic which is applied to populations, not individuals.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that this abuse of the theory is currently running rampant amongst bloggers and youtubers amongst the fringe right...

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

It's informative of your predisposition on the issue. That is, conflict avoidance, and not recognizing in-group preference or condemning the in-group preferences you observe (i.e. white-nationalists). Notice the common denominator among you and other self identified liberals. None of you recognize the problem with mixing cultures that have very different value sets than what this country was established as in a Western and Northern European origin. Its just not even in your headspace that can potentiate a problem, thus yours and other's willingness to proclaim "come one. Come all." The assumption is an r-selected one.

Now, don't confuse me though. The dichotomy of the tendencies are a valuable counter-balance to one another.... just not in a representative governance presiding over 330 million people.

Could have saved a lot of time and just told us you're a white nationalist .

Btw my wife is Asian and my son is half Asian, were mixing just fine thanks.

 

[aitkenmike]

Lol what is with you guys and throwing around "r-selected" all of the sudden , what crackpot site are you getting this from ?

very interesting

Not an argument

 

[Greoric]

Well if you have some sort of formal biology education it isn't serving you well. The whole idea that "r-selected tendencies percolate among some individuals" is an abuse of the theory. Like applying "magnetism" to arthritis therapy and justifying "homeopathy" with vaccination. It's an explanatory heuristic which is applied to populations, not individuals.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that this abuse of the theory is currently running rampant amongst bloggers and youtubers amongst the fringe right...

What kind of education do you have to arbitrate whether I know biology?

Anyway, right, its a useful way to describe an otherwise very complicated topic. Would you agree that someone's genetics predisposes them towards certain psychological traits? Or are you going to take the stance that your psychology is only a product of your immediate environment?

To address your an-cap versus race realism comment, I'm certainly still an an-cap. In a vacuum, I would love nothing more than having associations aligned around ideaological underpinnings. That is, I would much rather have a Thomas Sowell in my community than a @HomerThompson. But as it turns out in the US the lines are being drawn along racial division, whether I like it or not.

And at some point, its hard not to notice at libertarian conventions, for instance, despite talking ad nauseum and exclusively about the state and ending the fed or whatever about monetary policy.... the room is effectively all white men. That's a clue that race matters, with regard to more than someone's skin color.

 

[aitkenmike]

Its pretty foundational biology that describes differing strategies organisms use to survive in differing environmental conditions with varying resource abundance.

... and is being completely misused by people with a limited understanding of the concept to try and give artificial credence to their political views. I.e. they aren't just right philosophically, they are right because science. Really, it's something someone r-selected would do.

 

[Greoric]

Could have saved a lot of time and just told us you're a white nationalist .

Btw my wife is Asian and my son is half Asian, were mixing just fine thanks.

Well I'm an anarchist, so its hard for me to be a nationalist if I don't believe in having a government.

What you're not appreciating is that this isn't an issue of individuals. It's an issue of populations, and countries that have adopted multiculturalism are plagued by civil strife.

 

[Greoric]

... and is being completely misused by people with a limited understanding of the concept to try and give artificial credence to their political views. I.e. they aren't just right philosophically, they are right because science. Really, it's something someone r-selected would do.

Well it doesn't give credence to either political view. Its not informative about what's the "correct position". Its just informative about their psychological predisposition for certain political beliefs... that is unless you're to take the stance that only your immediate environment (and not genetics) is informative about your psychology.

 

[Viva]

Sounds like you followed Molyneux from ancap to "race realism". "r-selected tendencies" and applying r-K selection to political positions is pure pseudoscientific guff.
You don't get both r and K selection operating within the same population group. The fact that conservative voters have more children should point out how forced this use of r-K selection theory is.
Not to mention this post is self-contradictory with the number of times you've argued that Nazis were leftists...

Is it pseudoscience if statistics back up his claims? There is strong evidence that points towards differing political predispositions based on ones racial identity. Whether it be something influenced through biology or social influence is up for debate, but to scoff at his claims under the guise that it's "pseudoscience" is not a very compelling argument.

 

[Ruprecht]

What kind of education do you have to arbitrate whether I know biology?

I'm not making any reference to your appeal to authority, I'm commenting on what you said specifically in regards to r/K selection theory.
Never mind that even as a heuristic it's proven to be pretty useless (no agreed upon list of what r or K selected traits would be, and with multiple tests on K selection producing more typical "r traits"), it's application to individual political positions is simply nonsensical.
Also I'm commenting on the likelyhood of you coming up with this topic independent of the current widespread misuse of the theory in exactly the same manner by all manner of fringe right-wingers (ie Molyneux and "Anonymous Conservative") .

 

[aitkenmike]

R/K selection is as useful for describing an individual as an online pop-psychology test, or a facebook 'which regular guest star friends character are you?' quiz.

I don't understand why you seem to be throwing it out there every second thread you post in at the moment, other than it is the current theory de-jour in some area of the web that you frequent.

Edit: @Greoric - should have been a quote. Tagging you so i'm not talking behind your back so to speak.

 

[Ruprecht]

Is it pseudoscience if statistics back up his claims? There is strong evidence that points towards differing political predispositions based on ones racial identity. Whether it be something influenced through biology or social influence is up for debate, but to scoff at his claims under the guise that it's "pseudoscience" is not a very compelling argument.

It's pseudoscience when the claims made don't even match the actual theory, and yes actual experimentation with r-K selection of traits showed it to be an almost useless heuristic.

 

[Limbo Pete]

R/K selection is as useful for describing an individual as an online pop-psychology test, or a facebook 'which regular guest star friends character are you?' quiz.

I don't understand why you seem to be throwing it out there every second thread you post in at the moment, other than it is the current theory de-jour in some area of the web that you frequent.

Edit: @Greoric - should have been a quote. Tagging you so i'm not talking behind your back so to speak.

Edited in quotes don't give notifications bruh. Need a whole new post.

 

[Greoric]

I'm not making any reference to your appeal to authority, I'm commenting on what you said specifically in regards to r/K selection theory.
Never mind that even as a heuristic it's proven to be pretty useless (no agreed upon list of what r or K selected traits would be, and with multiple tests on K selection producing more typical "r traits"), it's application to individual political positions is simply nonsensical.
Also I'm commenting on the likelyhood of you coming up with this topic independent of the current widespread misuse of the theory in exactly the same manner by all manner of fringe right-wingers (ie Molyneux and "Anonymous Conservative") .

Yeah, nothing's really agreed upon in science, dude. That's its strength. Hell, evolutionary psychology wasn't taken seriously until a decade or so ago, despite its establishment with nomological networks of data.

In any event, there's a pretty straight line between the ecological environments with regard to resource abundance and why certain psychologies are predisposed into political positions. i.e. gun control, immigration, etc. Whether you want to be precise by abandoning a label or a heurisitic, misses the point.

 

[Viva]

It's pseudoscience when the claims made don't even match the actual theory, and yes actual experimentation with r-K selection of traits showed it to be an almost useless heuristic.

So you are denying that there are observable differences between specific races political preference? This has nothing to do the theory of r-K selection, but is mostly a noticeable trend that seems to be a constant over the past century.

And you have come to this conclusion how? Rushton's findings seem to suggest otherwise.

http://philipperushton.net/wp-conte...izmann-rushton-canadian-psychology-1-1991.pdf

 

[Liquid Smoke]

Wow! Over 1700 posts about a bad word. We really are a bunch of snowflakes.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Well I'm an anarchist, so its hard for me to be a nationalist if I don't believe in having a government.

What you're not appreciating is that this isn't an issue of individuals. It's an issue of populations, and countries that have adopted multiculturalism are plagued by civil strife.

Google national anarchism

 

[HomerThompson]

What kind of education do you have to arbitrate whether I know biology?

Anyway, right, its a useful way to describe an otherwise very complicated topic. Would you agree that someone's genetics predisposes them towards certain psychological traits? Or are you going to take the stance that your psychology is only a product of your immediate environment?

To address your an-cap versus race realism comment, I'm certainly still an an-cap. In a vacuum, I would love nothing more than having associations aligned around ideaological underpinnings. That is, I would much rather have a Thomas Sowell in my community than a @HomerThompson. But as it turns out in the US the lines are being drawn along racial division, whether I like it or not.

And at some point, its hard not to notice at libertarian conventions, for instance, despite talking ad nauseum and exclusively about the state and ending the fed or whatever about monetary policy.... the room is effectively all white men. That's a clue that race matters, with regard to more than someone's skin color.

 

[aitkenmike]

Edited in quotes don't give notifications bruh. Need a whole new post.

Well that sucks. Ah well, I tried.