Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘r/K strategies’

White Sharia Will Make You Dumb

Friday, August 18th, 2017

Out there on the internet, which daily more resembles an asylum designed to keep the patients occupied instead of an actual public space, there is talk of “white sharia,” or the idea that we need strict rules to keep women in line because of the rampant promiscuity, dishonesty and exploitation of men that has occurred in the decades since the 1960s.

This thinking encounters a fundamental problem: it is based in the liberal idea that people are equal, and therefore that we can treat them as categories when in fact there are gradations. For example, women come from different caste groups, and higher caste women do not behave in the ways described by the white sharia advocates, for the most part. Part of this is simply because they have better options, and so are more likely to have advanced education, careers, then exit those and have a full home life raising kids in a family with a successful man.

On the other hand, a woman whose future will be as a sex object in the clubs until she hits her thirties and has to fall back on being a barista, Facebook consultant, paralegal or other relatively menial task. She may achieve a family, but she will find it hard to attract a top-notch man because men inherently recognize market-style values, and estimate the value of a woman by the cross-section of her abilities, beauty, intelligence, and chastity. A woman who behaves like a prostitute will be treated as having lesser value.

There are variations along the way. Most women are in the middle, and men prioritize different attributes. Some men seek intelligence above all else, especially if they feel that the next generation can climb in status if it is more capable, and others are looking more toward character as a way of preserving what they have. None of this matters excessively because most men both seek out women of similar characteristics to themselves, and find it difficult to acquire a woman from higher innate biological ranking, although some gain temporary breeding rights by dint of their wealth, power or celebrity. And yet, nothing is more common than the beautiful wife of a toadish powerful man having trysts with the pool man, who is both more authentic than her husband and closer to her own ethical level. The best women marry for nothing less than an enduring love, which is formed of friendship, itself formed from mutual admiration and complementary abilities, those in turn forming the root of cooperation.

White Sharia seeks to fix all women at once, as if they were equally in error and could be improved to an equal level, when even a small amount of observation shows us this is not true. In a class of thirty girls, five will be headed toward academic stardom, five will be headed toward extreme promiscuity, prostitution and drug use, and everyone else will be in the middle. The young women that you see sleeping around are generally those without other options. Not particularly intelligent, beautiful, moral or with any particular talents, they become “hypergamous” or offer themselves around freely, perhaps acting out a commandment from nature to capture enough genetic material to reproduce despite being unable to attract a husband. Eventually they attract men of a similar level, and have most of their children by that union. However, they are usually always open to offers from something more promising, following the natural urge to breed up as high as they can. This parallels the r/K strategy divide: those with higher ability are more sexually selective, meaning that they invest more in the choice or quality rather than quantity, much like they will have fewer (2-7) offspring and attempt to raise them well. Women who are wealthy are more inclined to hire nannies and tutors to make this process easier, so that they can share their attention among the children, giving them the guidance they need while someone else does the basic instruction.

In this process, we see the same principle that underlies natural selection: sorting. Women sort themselves by their innate characteristics, themselves a product of genetics and reflecting caste and class origins, and the ones who are top-notch rise to the top and demand a top man. This man not be a rich man, only one who will take care of them and has some kind of purpose and joy in life. These are the true alphas, and some of them are plumbers and some are artists; a woman will choose the best she can within her caste, generally. The purpose is the important point. An alpha is one who approaches life and makes from it something that uses his characteristics and talents to their best utility, instead of just schlepping through reacting to whatever comes his way and acting opportunistically. At the low end, the addicts of drugs, prostitutes, opportunistic criminals and irresponsible people find each other and live horrible little lives because they have little loyalty, mainly because neither party is particularly committed to the other. These are your actual betas, and wherever dysfunction and purposelessness are found, these are the people perpetrating them. They tend to have more sex, but end with less to show for it, generally because they are less intelligent, as is shown in their choice of a less fruitful path through life. Sorting separates these groups and matches like to like, so that smart women end up with smart men, and everyone else fitting into their gradient.

The r/K pattern extends to frequency and onset of intercourse as well:

Last December I passed a paper along to Razib showing that high-school age adolescents with higher IQs and extremely low IQs were less likely to have had first intercourse than those with average to below average intelligence. (i.e. for males with IQs under 70, 63.3% were still virgins, for those with IQs between 70-90 only 50.2% were virgin, 58.6% were virgins with IQs between 90-110, and 70.3% with IQs over 110 were virgins)

In fact, a more detailed study from 2000 is devoted strictly to this topic, and finds the same thing: Smart Teens Don’t Have Sex (or Kiss Much Either).

The team looked at 1000s of representative teens grades 7-12 in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health and The Biosocial Factors in Adolescent Development datasets, both of which include an IQ test, and include detailed sexual experience questions ranging from hand-holding to intercourse. As with the other study there was a curvilinear relationship: students with IQs above 100 and below 70 were significantly less likely to have had intercourse than those in between. Also like the other study, they found teens with IQs ranging from 75 to 90 had the lowest probability of virginity (the authors note this is also the same IQ range where propensity towards crime peaks).

This means that among the higher castes, there is no need for White Sharia, but that implementing it could hide the defects of lower caste women, and allow them marry up despite lacking the genetics for such a function. Letting some women be sluts is essential to separating the dysfunctional from the functional, much in the same way that natural selection rewards the capable and slowly squeezes the incapable out of the population. We know that some highly visible female behavior is bad, but for the most part, this is reflection of the caste of these women and therefore, their intelligence and moral character. Only with equality have they been able to participate in the rest of society. The solution naturally is to enhance, not degrade as White Sharia proposes to do, the distinction between higher and lower women. This means that those who are naturally somewhat attentive to reality will see what the better women do and emulate it, while the lower-grade varieties will do exactly as they are genetically programmed to do, which means that in a society without socialism and other genetic effects, they wander out of the gene pool by having fewer and less-stable offspring. Modern society has reversed this process both on a social level and on a biological level, resulting in a corresponding drop in average IQ over the past two centuries:

We do not have a standard deviation (measure of scatter) for the Victorian data – so we need to compare (looking at men) a (mean) average modern reaction time of 250 milliseconds (SD 47) with a (median) average Victorian RT of 183.

This implies that average (and being conservative in my interpretation) Victorian reaction times were more than one standard deviation faster than modern RTs; or, that the average Victorian would be placed comfortably in the top 15 percent of the modern population – probably higher.

If we assume that reaction time is a valid measure of general intelligence, in other words that RT has a linear correlation with g – then this would mean that the average Victorian Englishman had a modern IQ of greater than 115.

The biological component of this is lower infant mortality, i.e. more infants surviving:

Through most of evolutionary history, most babies and children (probably a large majority of them) especially those with the worst genetic damage – have died before reproducing. Thus mutation load is filtered by differential child mortality rates with each generation…But since 1800, starting in England then incrementally spreading across the whole world with no exceptions, child mortality rates have got lower, and lower; the mutation filtering effect has got less and less complete – and the mutation load has got greater with each generation.

This shows us the essential role that sorting plays in our post-technological human existence: since more infants survive, it is important to avoid any further subsidies for the dysfunctional. The problem with White Sharia is that it creates such a subsidy. A woman can, by obeying the simple rules that are enforced upon her, not reveal her inner broken character, which will cause her bad genes to proliferate. This means that White Sharia is a form of lessening the quality of white people.

It has been observed in the past that if you love a group, you will be hard on it so that the best only are allowed to become the next generation. Farmers do this with plants and animals, killing off the scrawny or dumb, and leaving only the strongest, so that over time their crop improves at the level of seed, and whatever animals they are breeding resemble the best of previous generations, removing the characteristics they did not want. This is how, without genetic engineering, European farmers converted ordinary plants and wild animals into rich crops and livestock.

To do this with humans, our societies must raise their standards and create a hierarchy so that the best are an example for the rest, and those who fall short of standards are driven out or at least put in circumstances where they cannot breed much if at all. This idea clashes with egalitarianism, which is the idea that all people “should” be equal, and is directly opposed to natural selection and other ways of filtering out the broken and promoting the good. Proles hate the thought that there will be standards which they can fail to uphold. They prefer instead to have rules and laws which are negative standards, so that they can pay a trivial penalty for their violations if they get caught, but they will never be exiled or otherwise stopped from pursuing life in society because they fall short of a positive standard to which everyone is held, with the idea that those who excel at it will rise and others will be demoted. The prole likes the idea of demonizing a few behaviors, methods or procedures and to make everything else legitimate, where the right way to have society evolve is to make every behavior fit within a set of principles that always produce the best results, knowing that most people will not understand the “why” behind those standards.

White Sharia is a meme. It is something for the football stadium mentality of mass politics. This way, the groundlings can shout in support of the rules that will make it harder for them to be caught failing to uphold the values of society, and throw fruit at a scapegoat which they blame for their problems instead of realizing that our behavior, hidden from sorting by equality, is the root of the problem. The more we try to externalize the blame and then control it through rules, the more we include people among us who really need to go elsewhere, like the third world which has traditionally absorbed our castoffs.

If Western Civilization has a future, it is likely it will involve an event every year with the people who have just reached age 17. This will be called The Sorting. The premise of this event comes from the knowledge that in every generation, the lowest 20% are in need of removal. In a class of thirty girls, there will be six who are promiscuous, idiotic, sociopathic, or insane. These will be sent away, with the same done to the boys. The reason they will be identified is that, unlike under White Sharia, their behaviors will be allowed to manifest and then will be judged. This is what the proles fear: someone will take a look at them, peer into their motivations and their soul, and realize what echoing emptiness is within, then remove them from our civilization. Maybe we will drown those who are Sorted to be bad in the swamps, like the ancient Celts, or take the humane path and drop them on the shores of some primitive third-world nation. Either way, the problem will be solved: we will steadily be removing defective genetic combinations, and in their place, promoting those who are stronger. This cannot be done through tests, but by looking for behaviors. People who deserve to stay are those who may have made some mistakes, but also have done some good. Those who have only mistakes, and no attempt to do something unselfish or that contributes to the community, are the ones who are somehow broken and inward-focused instead of aware of their environment. A fieldmouse that behaves this way gets eaten by eagles quickly, and as a result there are few fieldmice who are that oblivious.

Adding to the above criticisms, we should realize that part of our K-strategy existence involves nurturing the good as well as removing the bad. Women are meant to be treated with respect and generosity, not as chattel slaves. They may have a psychological outlook that is between man and child, as historical accounts suggest was once the normal assumption, but they need to be given a role in which they can excel and honored for what they do well. Punishing all women for the acts of our prole women removes the sense of grace and transcendental beauty that can be found by understanding the sexes as complementary forms of intelligence and behavior that make, together, a family that represents both masculine and feminine principles for a complete whole. In addition, it furthers the errors of feminism, which make the sexes oppositional and therefore destroy any chance of sane and non-manipulative family life. Looking at it this way, the Leftist origins of White Sharia are revealed, and we know we need no further exploration of that path.

Utilitarianism Is A Repugnant Conclusion

Wednesday, July 12th, 2017

Utilitarianism forms the basis of our current society, which is that we do whatever achieves the greatest happiness for the greatest number as they judge it and report. This runs into collision with an ethical argument first put forth in 1984 by Derek Parfit which became (deservedly) known as the repugnant conclusion.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains the failure of utilitarianism in terms of population:

In Derek Parfit’s original formulation the Repugnant Conclusion is stated as follows: “For any possible population of at least ten billion people, all with a very high quality of life, there must be some much larger imaginable population whose existence, if other things are equal, would be better even though its members have lives that are barely worth living” (Parfit 1984). The Repugnant Conclusion highlights a problem in an area of ethics which has become known as population ethics. The last three decades have witnessed an increasing philosophical interest in questions such as “Is it possible to make the world a better place by creating additional happy people?” and “Is there a moral obligation to have children?”

We might view population as the metaphor, and the real question as, “which is better, excellence for a few or mediocrity for many?” In other words, are we aiming for quality or quantity, and if so, are we willing to sacrifice quantity for quality. The idea of utilitarianism is itself entirely quantitative, so we can see where this leads for the utilitarian idea

Parfit’s first and fatal error in attacking this question was to go full-metal Jeremy Bentham. In the proud tradition of scientific socialism, Bentham attempts to put a value metric on happiness. Parfit compounds this wrong further by partaking of the math-nerd version of Spirit Cooking. He uses the Benthamic concept of measuring happiness at the highest population number where H >= 0 for the individual person.

It gets to his choice of ethical systems. Parfit executes a moral decision-making model by using utilitarian ethics: do the greatest good for the greatest number and you will be less wrong. This misses the point entirely. No matter how sophisticated you make it, no matter how many silver-dollar words you describe it with, utilitarian ethics define morality on a basis of what makes the individual person “happy.” Therein lies the rub.

What makes an individual happy depends heavily on what sort individual you’re talking about. In world full of individuals like Trick Daddy, this reduces the epitome of morality to what fills a man’s stomach and stimulates his sex organs.

When I approach this problem, I’m thinking deontologically. As Omar put in on an episode of The Wire, “A man’s gotta have a code.” Rather than cribbing Jeremy Bentham, I would use Isaac Asimov’s methodology instead. Getting the toolbox out and tinkering with Psychohistory from The Foundation series, I came up with a different standard by which we can optimize human population.

Asimov worked as a chemist before his sci-fi blew up and he could earn a living writing articles for Playboy instead. A lynchpin concept in the study of physical chemistry involves a mathematical application of probability theory called statistical mechanics. Statistical mechanics estimates physical (or chemical) behaviors of a substance based upon a distribution of characteristics of individual molecules, atoms or particles contained in the substance. Asimov modified this intellectual framework to plant the theoretical axiom that a historian could start predicting the future history of a civilization based upon characteristics of that entity’s human population.

This leads me not to work towards an optimal population size at all. You don’t reproduce to fill up a cubicle farm. You also don’t cut people off of God’s psychopathic rugby football club just because you run out of jumpers. It’s not the size of the population in question that determines the good. It is the quality. Are these people intelligent? Are they industrious? Do they love their God and love their neighbor? Do they produce or do they mooch? Do they contribute or do they steal? Are they shiny, happy people? Who gives a rat’s rear-end unless they can honestly provide the correct answers to the first five questions?

So how many people do I order the good people to go forth and breed? He doesn’t. The correct question involves how good of a job can you do at g-loading them for war against powers and principalities and then how effectively and diligently are you working at optimizing that potential. Half of being good at mathematics is to know when to stop estimating based on knowledge you cannot yet possess. Sometimes Old-Fashioned Kentucky Windage gets you closer to hitting the target than obsessing over dialing that sight on your weapon with a nail.

So let’s talk reproductive strategy, not numbers. You’ve got two choices: r-strategy or K-strategy. So if you want to flood the zone, and hope that one or two them don’t wind up as casualties, you, like the rabbit or salmonella, choose r-strategy:

Those organisms described as r-strategists typically live in unstable, unpredictable environments. Here the ability to reproduce rapidly (exponentially) is important. Such organisms have high fecundity (glossary) and relatively little investment in any one progeny individual, they are typically weak and subject to predation and the vicissitudes of their environment. The “strategic intent” is to flood the habitat with progeny so that, regardless of predation or mortality, at least some of the progeny will survive to reproduce.

If you want your children to run with the big dogs and not once have to back down from life’s pissed-off grizzly… then breed fewer, breed better, breed K-strategy:

K-strategists, on the other hand occupy more stable environments. They are larger in size and have longer life expectancies. They are stronger or are better protected and generally are more energy efficient. They produce, during their life spans, fewer progeny, but place a greater investment in each. Their reproductive strategy is to grow slowly, live close to the carrying capacity of their habitat and produce a few progeny each with a high probability of survival.

Thus the repugnant conclusion ultimately pollutes the environment rather than solving the problem of how best to populate it. Earth’s K is not purely a function of how many? Ask “How abusive?”, “How needy?”, “How resilient?” and “How anti-fragile?” Essentially, reproduction should be informed more by the Deep Ecology of Arne Naess and not the shallow, mathematically sloppy socialism of Jeremy Bentham. That to me is a conclusion that is far less likely to make the man of intelligence and honor toss his cookies.

Leftism is Reality Denial

Thursday, February 2nd, 2017

Very few people make it through the thought required to analyze Leftism to its roots. On the surface, we all know what it is: an outlook of supposed compassion which supports feminism, diversity, social welfare programs and gay rights.

Underneath the surface, Leftism reveals itself as fundamentally an ideology, or a notion that human preferences for how the world “should” be are more important than how the world functions. This was formalized in The Enlightenment™ as the idea of seeing the world through human reason as expressed in the individual.

Ideology does not compromise. It functions as a binary: the ideology is the new proposed idea, to which people either assent or dissent. Dissent means the idea will not come to pass, so in a passive-aggressive way, is seen as an attack and attempt to kill the idea. Thus the idea and its adherents feel comfortable in engaging in pre-emptive self defense by targeting those who disagree.

This gives the ideology virulence. It has an inherent “my way or the highway” approach to it, and those who dissent face outright hostility, which cows most into accepting it. This allows it to style itself as normal, and present dissenters as aberrant and to call them names like Nazi, fascist, racist, homophobe, sexist, classist and ableist which connote a failure to conform to social standards.

Historically, Leftism arose during the French Revolution and consisted of a single idea. Egalitarianism, or the notion that all people are equal in basic ability, converted utilitarian thinking into a political morality. This appealed to a fundamental weakness in humanity, the Dunning-Kruger (or r/K) derived tendency toward hubris, or assuming that oneself is more important than the way the world works.

Leftism is egalitarianism through ideology, not practical methods. For example, a king who wanted his people to be equal might try rewarding the good so that they bred out the rest, and established equality through extremely similar genetics and ability. He might separate them by ability into regions so that in each region, all people were roughly of the same abilities.

Ideology however provides a double benefit: public virtue signaling conceals private intent to exploit. Egalitarianism is the voice of the salesman, promising Utopia but laying claim to profit, with no concern for how well the consumer will fare. For this reason, ideology makes people feel intelligent and powerful for having manipulated the world to reflect their own intent and desires.

As such, Leftism replaces identity because it is an identity. To be Leftist is to identify with the strong-looking people who are taking over society, those who can be bold and controversial, and to benefit from social popularity and the career, sexual and in-group benefits it provides.

History tells us that Leftism took over and everyone who did not follow — both explicit dissenters and those who were simply not convinced and remained neutral — was thrust into the Right, which made it from the beginning both a compromise with Leftism, and a “big tent” mixed bag of non-Leftist ideas. This weakened it by creating indecision, infighting and other confusion.

The Right has finally discovered its core through the Alt Right: realism. We base our actions on what is, as seen through history, and not what we want to believe is true, starting with the illusion of equality. Recognizing that people are different and exist in a hierarchy of ability and moral goodness is massively taboo because it is anti-social in appearance.

Social thinking dominates when ideology appears because what people want to think is true becomes more important than what is real. The Right is anti-social because we recognize that the most common human tendency is self-delusion and that this is amplified in groups. The Christians call this “original sin,” but it is more Darwinian: without self-discipline, we are monkeys, and only some of us have that self-discipline.

We cannot have self-discipline without realism. We need something to discipline ourselves to that is not “of us,” like the various airy principles and navel-gazing emotional gestures that are so common in humanity. Instead, we must point ourselves toward the world, learn it and come to appreciate its wisdom, and use that to expand our minds.

This in turn leads us to a realization about Leftism. As a pathology, Leftism consists of the denial of the need for us to understand the world, and advances the counter-argument of “humanism,” or the idea that people are more important than reality. Even though that leads to disaster every time, it remains the most popular argument created by humans, and realism is the only bulwark against it.

Beware of nations with lots of attractive men

Monday, February 16th, 2009

It’s a cliche. Go to that sunny southern nation, where there’s lots of studs, and have a rockin’ vacation. But in biological terms, what does a surplus of attractive males mean?

So physical attractiveness, while a universally positive quality, contributes even more to women’s reproductive success than to men’s. The generalized Trivers-Willard hypothesis would therefore predict that physically attractive parents should have more daughters than sons. Once again, this indeed appears to be the case. Young Americans who are rated “very attractive” have roughly a 44% chance of having a son for their first child (and thus a 56% chance of having a daughter). In contrast, everyone else has roughly a 52% chance of having a son (and thus a 48% chance of having a daughter) for their first child. Being “very attractive” increases the odds of having a daughter by 36% or decreases the odds of having a son by 26%!

If physical attractiveness is heritable, such that beautiful parents beget beautiful children (and less attractive parents beget similarly less attractive children), and if beautiful parents are more likely to have daughters than others, then it logically follows that, over time, generation after generation, women will become more attractive on average than men. Once again, studies confirm this implication of the generalized Trivers-Willard hypothesis. The average level of physical attractiveness among women is significantly higher than the average level of physical attractiveness among men, both in Japan and the United States. Women are more beautiful than men on average because beautiful parents have significantly more daughters than less beautiful parents.

…In fact, as I explain in a previous series of posts, physically attractive men may not make desirable long-term mates, precisely because other women seek them out for their short-term mating and thus attractive men are less committed to their long-term mates.

Psychology Today

Connect the dots:

If there is a surplus of attractive women, the society is operating on the principle of long-term commitment from parents, which leads to K-strategies instead of r-strategies in reproduction.

However, if there’s a surplus of attractive men, women have already given up on K-strategies — the idea of having a stable family unit and heavy parental investment. Now it’s ejaculate and dash, and hope some of the abundance of offspring survive, albeit in much greater poverty.

That in turn leads to decline into banana republic status.

So if you land in someplace with lots of attractive men… run in fear. It’s a dying society.

Reproductive health of populations: K/r strategies

Monday, February 16th, 2009

How does a population increase its power? By increasing the intelligence, strength and health of its members.

r strategy: breed chaotically, frequently, and invest little in offspring;
K strategy: breed deliberately, with partners for life, and invest a lot in the offspring.

Sluts are r strategists, e.g. nonstrategists. Breed like an r, end up producing dumb, narcissistic, reckless children — a path to the third world.

Traditional values (home in first world nations!) emphasize not only K strategies, but finding a transcendent reason to see and amplify beauty in it. We call that love.

AMERIKA

In evolutionary terms, what is progressive in social terms is the exact opposite, and what is considered not progressive, is:

The r-strategy is characterized by a high rate of propagation. It occurs especially with species specialized on colonizing new habitats with variable conditions or with species with strongly fluctuating population sizes. The K-strategy, in contrast, describes a regulated, density-dependent propagation in view of the capacity limit of the habitat K. It occurs in species living in stable habitats, where a high rate of propagation is of no advantage. It is regarded as more progressive than the r-strategy in an evolutionary sense. In nature, all conceivable transitions between these two extremes occur. A given species will therefore mainly adopt one strategy, even though shares of the other strategy cannot be overlooked. Sometimes, extern circumstances like unpredicted changes of the living conditions trigger a change from one strategy to the other.

BUH

In other words, K-strategies recognize the carrying capacity and are designed to maximize it.

r-strategies recognize only how much food there is today and attempt to saturate the population so that some survive.

Humanity’s lack of a K-strategy, across the board, is what is responsible for ecocide through overpopulation, as well as class war.

When it is applied, on a personal or social level, results improve:

A genetic risk factor that increases the likelihood that youth will engage in substance use can be neutralized by high levels of involved and supportive parenting, according to a new University of Georgia study.

The study, published in the February issue of the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, is the first to examine a group of youth over time to see how a genetic risk factor interacts with a child’s environment to influence behavior.

“We found that involved and supportive parenting can completely override the effects of a genetic risk for substance abuse,” says study co-author Gene Brody, Regents Professor in the UGA College of Family and Consumer Sciences. “It’s a very encouraging finding that shows the power of parenting.”

Science Daily

Survival of the fittest does not mean whoever wins the fight wins. That’s too easy.

It means whoever survives, no matter how many fights, and raises a family who are in turn balanced, inclined to survive, and wise, wins.

This is why all rising populations use K-strategies, and all declining ones apply r-strategies.

sluts

Are you third world or first world, in bed?

Thursday, November 27th, 2008

Quantity and quality are opposites when it comes to making choices. You can either choose to have a whole lot of something, or a smaller amount but with greater depth, resilience, durability, precision and intelligence. This metaphor extends even to our biological imperative to reproduce.

In humans, this manifests in two different reproductive strategies, or approaches to having children. One can either have a bunch of kids and invest a small amount in each, or have fewer children and devote more time and energy to raising each one. This leads to a split in sexual and reproductive behavior, as described in New Scientist:

She found that men who were judged to be more “masculine” and women who were considered more “attractive”, were likely to be seen as more inclined towards casual sex – and to actually be so (Evolution and Human Behavior, vol 29, p 211).

…It also raises the more fundamental question of why individuals have such widely varying attitudes to sex in the first place. The answer is not simply that beautiful people have more opportunity.

…They found that certain attitudes and behaviours co-vary – people who tend to have more sexual partners are also likely to engage in sex at an earlier point in a relationship, are more likely to have more than one sexual partner at a time, and tend to be involved in relationships characterised by less investment, commitment, love and dependency.

The same split in behavior seen in sexual activity extends to reproductive activity itself. Those who are less promiscuous also tend to be more committed to high investment per offspring, which causes them to spend more energy on partner choice and investment of social capital, or learning from the parents about life, into the offspring, as LRA recounts:

Most recently, an “environmental” r-K theory has been espoused (see Figure 4). Belsky, Steinberg, and Draper (1991, p. 647) succinctly described two diverging pathways: One is characterized, in childhood, by a stressful rearing environment and the development of insecure attachments to parents and subsequent behavior problems; in adolescence, by early pubertal development and precocious sexuality; and in adulthood, by unstable pair bonds and limited investment in child rearing; the other is characterized by a stable and secure childhood and longer lasting marital bonds in adulthood.

  • r strategy: breed chaotically, frequently, and invest little in offspring;
  • K strategy: breed deliberately, with partners for life, and invest a lot in the offspring.

Sluts are innately r strategists, e.g. nonstrategists. Breed like an r, end up producing dumb, narcissistic, reckless children — a path to the third world.

Traditional values (home in first world nations!) emphasize not only K strategies, but finding a transcendent reason to see and amplify beauty in it. We call that love. As it turns out, nature sees it as the path to quality over quantity as well.

Recommended Reading