Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How Conservatism and Liberalism Evolved in the State of Nature
Anonymous Conservative Website ^ | 4/27/2012 | Anonymous Conservative

Posted on 05/11/2012 2:50:00 PM PDT by AnonymousConservative

This article is a modified version of the main page at On the site, we are also promoting a book, examining how our two political ideologies evolved, and all of the science supporting this mechanism. Here on FR, I wanted this post to provide the relevant information from the site, so that Freepers might look it over, and these concepts might begin to enter the realm of political science. I have deleted all the references to the book here, so as to not seem as if I am spamming. In truth, if you pull the free paper that is linked at the end of this article, you will have access to almost all of the papers supporting this work, and will understand it as well as any PhD will. I am committed to promoting the idea more than the book, as you will see here and in the paper linked at the end.

I want to promote this work, as it savages Liberal psyches, and offers us Conservatives a window into how Liberals think, and what their psychology evolved to do in a state of nature. I have never found a Liberal who knew what to do once I explained this work to them. Please feel free to use and disperse this information freely.

The theory behind this work is that our political psychologies evolved from the more primitive r and K-type psychologies that have been well described in population biology for over half a century. This is important, because it gives us a very detailed insight into the Liberal mind, what it evolved to do in nature, why it evolved in our species, why it is so different from our's, where similar psychologies can be found in nature, and how it can be manipulated. That this analysis will be devastating to any intellectual argument on behalf of Liberalism is a wonderful plus. (Note this work does not require that Creationists abandon Creationism. All it requires is a belief that a species can adapt/evolve to a new environmental pressure. It doesn’t speak to the larger question of where man came from, only what has happened to him since he appeared.)

In Population Biology, two environments present themselves to individuals, and populations of individuals will evolve a specific psychology in response to each. In one environment, a population exists at the carrying capacity of it’s environment. Since there is not enough food to go around, and someone must die from starvation, this will evolve a specific psychology within such a population.

Termed a K-type psychology, or K-type reproductive strategy, this psychology will embrace competitions between individuals and accept disparities in competitive outcomes as an innate part of the world, that is not to be challenged. Since individuals who do not fight for some portion of the limited resources will starve, this will favor an innately competitive psychology, prone to aggression when faced with threat. Such a psychology is documented in the literature as tending to embrace monogamy, embrace chastity until monogamous adulthood, and favor high-investment, two-parent parenting, with an emphasis upon rearing as competitive and successful an offspring as possible. This sexual selectiveness, monopolization of mate fitness through monogamy, and careful rearing, is performed to produce offspring who will be as genetically fit as possible relative to peers, and thus likely to acquire resources themselves in free competition, and reproduce. Here, wasting time producing offspring that are not as fit as possible will doom one to Darwinian failure, as they will fail in the competition for resources.

Clearly, this mirrors the Conservative’s embrace of competitions, such as war, capitalism, and even the bearing of arms in self-defense against criminals. It also mirrors the Conservatives tendency to favor family values, such as abstinence until monogamy and two-parent parenting.

The other environment an organism can face is the presence of unlimited resources per individual. This most often occurs when a predator keeps a population consistently lower than the carrying capacity of it’s environment. Just as rabbits rarely strip grassy fields bare due to predation, the r-type organism will consistently have enough food so that it will not need to compete with peers, and as a result, producing fitness in offspring will offer no advantage.

This too will evolve a specific psychology. Here, those individuals who waste time fighting for food will be out-reproduced by pacifists, who simply focus upon eating, and reproducing, and avoid the physical risks of combat. Hence this environment will evolve a tendency towards conflict avoidance through cowardice. It is also documented as favoring tendencies towards mating as early as possible, as often as possible, with as many mates as possible, while investing as little effort as possible rearing offspring. Here, since there are unlimited resources, just waiting to be utilized, it is more advantageous to produce as many offspring as possible, as quickly as possible, regardless of genetic fitness, so as to out-reproduce those who either waste time producing quality offspring or waste time competing with each other. Since there is no competition for resources, more offspring of lower quality (all of whom survive) will numerically outcompete fewer offspring, of higher quality.

Here, we see the origins of the Liberal’s tendencies towards conflict avoidance, from opposition to free-market capitalism, to pacifism, to demands that all citizens disarm so as to avoid any chance of conflict and competition. Even the newer tendencies to support the “everyone gets a trophy” movement are outgrowths of this competition-averse urge. Similarly, Liberals are supportive of promiscuity, supportive of efforts to expose children to ever earlier sexual education, and, as the debate over Murphy Brown showed, Liberals are supportive of low-investment, single parenting.

This psychological dichotomy is often synopsized in biology with a statement that the r-selected psychology is about quickly producing offspring in quantity rather than quality, while the K-selected psychology is about slowly and meticulously producing offspring of quality rather than in quantity. One needs fitness to survive a competition, while the other needs numbers, regardless of fitness, since everyone survives.

To my eye, it is inherently clear that this r/K divergence is the origin of our political divide. Indeed, while policy proposals from Conservatives are predicated upon the premise that resources are inherently limited, and individuals should have to work and demonstrate merit to acquire them, Liberals advocate on behalf of policy proposals which seem to be predicated upon an assumption that there are always more than sufficient resources to let everyone live lives of equal leisure. To a Liberal, any scarcity must clearly arise due to some individual’s personal greed and evil altering a natural state of perpetual plenty.

Here, we see how these two deeply imbued psychologies generate grossly different perceptual frameworks within those who are imbued with them. Just as a Liberal will never grasp why a Conservative will look down upon frequent promiscuity and single parenting, the Conservative will never grasp why the Liberal will be so firmly opposed to free market Capitalism, or the right to self defense when threatened. Each sees an inherently different world, and is programmed to desire an inherently different environment.

r/K Theory is not the whole story however, it is merely the beginning. In the paper below, after explaining the mechanisms behind r/K Selection, we will examine just how these psychologies were further molded in humans by our evolutionary history. We will begin by examining how the r/K divergence has evolved into a more complex Competitive/Anticompetitive psychological divergence in other species. We will then examine how these two psychologies, thrown into the group Competitive environment will further evolve to exploit this environment for gain. One will seek the honest success of their own group in such competitions, while the other will seek to use the group competitions simply to diminish the numbers of K-selected individuals in their own home territory. We will then examine studies of the genetics of politics. There, we will shed light on just how each behavioral trait is likely encoded within the genome, and how these two strategies are actually attempts by genetic alleles to dominate the population by subduing their genetic competition.

This work has been meticulously footnoted. In the book and the paper below, we cite studies showing that the genes associated with the adoption of a political ideology are also associated with every facet of the r and K-type behaviors, from promiscuity/infidelity, to competitiveness, to parental investments. In a 2010 study, one researcher even describes an allele of this “political gene” in humans as producing an r-type reproductive strategy through it’s effects on behavior. r/K and ideology are produced by exactly the same urges.

We cite studies showing that a brain structure which varies in development among ideologues, also governs every facet of r and K-type behavior, again, from competitiveness/aggression to promiscuity, to parental investment. It is even associated with such Liberal traits (as identified by Jost, himself a Liberal) as novelty seeking, rule breaking, and trust of threats, absent any awareness of danger.

We cite studies in the social sciences which link an established human r-type reproductive strategy with traits associated with Liberalism, such as rule breaking, promiscuity, and low parental investments.

We provide a detailed analysis of the group selection debate, and show how every aspect of the debate has wholly ignored the role of r/K selection on the outcomes of group competitions. We then show how under conditions of K-selection, group competition can offer individual competitive advantage to those individuals who successfully join with other like minded, loyal, K-selected individuals to compete for resources. We cite studies showing that this has been a fundamental aspect of our evolution, in the form of group warfare. We even cite studies which show that in such a group competitive scheme, a deceptive, disloyal, traitorous strategy will inevitably develop, seeking to exploit the group competitions for selfish personal advantage.

We examine historical events in the context of r and K-selection. There we show that when historical conditions favored a competitive, fitter specimen of human, group functionality increased, societies bloomed, and productivity flourished. As production increased and resources became freely available, conditions became more r-selective, the fit would begin to find themselves punished for their success, political Leftism would thrive, productivity would sink, and eventually, the entire society would collapse. After the collapse, the need to demonstrate merit to acquire resources would return, the society would find itself K-selected and productive once more, and the cycle would begin again, as high productivity provided free resources to the population, and fueled the r-type's proliferation.

Some will ask, why would we have evolved both of these psychologies together, within our species, instead of trending totally r or K. This can occur for a number of reasons. Obviously an organism which inhabits an environment where resources surge in availability, and then become scarce can see it’s r-types surge in number during times of plenty, only to die back once resources become scarce, leaving the K-types behind. As time goes on, the r-types may evolve strategies designed to see a few members persist during times of scarcity, so they may explode again once resources become plentiful.

But in humans, the mechanism may be a little more complex. When we first evolved, a critical adaptation was our loss of hair and ability to perspire. It allowed us to move about in the heat of an African day, when all other furred prey needed to bed down to avoid heat exhaustion. To acquire meat, all we needed to do was roust a bedded down antelope, make it run a short distance, and it would rapidly collapse of heat stroke, so we could then acquire it’s meat easily. There are tribes in Africa who still hunt using this method.

This free availability of resources was r-selective, and it allowed us to explode in numbers. However, as in all ecosystems, we eventually grew to a point that there were not enough resources to support the population. It was at this time that our population divided.

At this point, the competition for limited resources became fierce. One group adopted the K-selected psychology, stayed put, and slugged it out for resources, in free, merit-based competitions. They formed into groups, battled for territory and resources, and adopted a K-selected reproductive strategy. They became the K-type cohort of our population, embracing of freedom from oppression, free competition, war when threatened, monogamy, strong family values, loyalty to in-group, and sexual chastity in the youth.

As the battles began to rage, another cohort, cowardly and weak, fled the scene in terror. Those who fled the fastest and the farthest, found themselves in a new, untapped territory, with free resource availability yet again. Those among them who did the best from Darwin’s perspective, were those who adopted the most r-type strategy of free promiscuity, single parenting, and early age at first intercourse. They had no need for loyalty to in-group, and indeed, would have adopted a more selfish and cowardly psychology, to better facilitate fleeing when times got dangerous and competitive, better disperse their genes, and to serve their own self-interests. They became our population’s r-type cohort, and even today, the gene which is associated with Liberalism is found in large numbers in migratory populations, even as social psychologists note that Liberals score highly in novelty seeking, such as preferring novel environments.

As time went on, Homo sapiens spread across the globe in this manner. r-types fled as the territory behind them became K-selecting and competitive. They became the migrators and colonizers. As time went on, this gradually made the r-type more prone to flee competitions at the first sign of danger, while adhering to an r-type mating and rearing strategy. The adoption of this psychology also made them less able to even comprehend why K-types would ever seek monogamy or the freedom to interact with everyone else as they wished, regardless of consequence.

In between where the r-types fled to, and the K-types were battling it out, there was likely a sort of geographical spectrum. At one end were the extreme r-types, and at the other were the extreme K-types. But in the middle, were areas where some r-types were mingling with some K-types. It is likely that there, these two strategies were evolving psychological traits which would allow them to persist in a mixed population. K-types tried to purge the disloyalty, selfishness, and promiscuity of the r-types, while r-types tried to use deception, as well as the rule-breaking and lack of loyalty identified by Jost (himself a Liberal), as an advantage in exploiting the competitive environment.

It is also interesting to note, even today, as r-types gain hold in a civilization, they seek to engender the free resource availability of the r-selected environment, through government control and redistribution. As in nature, when these free resources are provided, the r-type cohort grows in the population, until the entire financial ecosystem collapses from resource scarcity, the government dissolves, and the civilization becomes ruthlessly competitive and K-selecting once again.

To be clear, individuals are complex. Just as it is difficult to characterize a single individual organism’s exact reproductive strategy in nature, it is difficult to characterize a single human’s political strategy. However, just as the quantum mechanical world yields the chaos of it’s uncertainty to the order and formality of Newtonian physics when viewed from a distance, as we zoom out from our society we will find two primary ideologies within it. Just as in nature, these two ideologies match exactly the two psychologies of the r and K-type psychology.

This theory will not go down well with Liberals, of course. In the biological sciences, r-type organisms are openly accepted as inherently inferior to their K-type counterparts. This is because the r-type organism’s rejection of competitive selection limits the rate of their genetic advancement. Idiots breeding idiots as quickly as possible, simply because they require no intellect to acquire food does not advance a species evolutionarily. As a result, r-type organisms are uniformly less intelligent, less physically capable, less courageous, and less impressive as a species.

Additionally, the r-type organism’s values are inherently distasteful to the K-type mores which are inherent to our species. We support monogamy, high-investment parenting, the protection of our young, and courage and determination because we are a competitive, K-type species. These values are inherent to our K-type nature. As a result, most humans are, overall, programmed to view the rampant promiscuity, child abandonment, early sexualization of children, and cowardice which are inherent to the r-type psychology as inherently inferior from a moral perspective.

Of course that most r-type organisms in nature are weak and pathetic prey species, their evolutionary advancement helplessly held hostage by a more impressive predator species, (whose members actually derive pleasure from eating the r-type organisms on a regular basis), does not help the r-type species shed it’s mark of inferiority.

But if all of this is correct, why is this important, beyond merely denigrating Liberals as r-type organisms? There are several reasons why this work is important to the study of political science. If this theory comes to be widely understood within the populace, it will demonstrate quite clearly that r-type Liberalism is designed for conditions of unlimited resource availability – conditions which our species will never see. That means Liberalism is clearly maladapted to our modern circumstances.

Furthermore, r-type Liberalism is based upon an innate psychology denigrating freedom, denigrating the right to earned resources, and degrading of social/sexual morality, all while punishing any success that is honestly obtained through effort, determination, and ability. This sort of Anticompetitive, oppressive, pathetic, r-type psychology will tend to be anathema to the majority of our K-selected population, especially if they clearly grasp it’s nature and purpose. Even worse, r-type Liberalism will clearly devolve our species’ greatness into a shadow of what it once was through the punishment of success and the reward of failure. Finally, we will show that in nature the undeniable purpose of an r-type psychology is to rapidly boost population numbers to the point of causing overpopulation, resource depletion, and the inevitability of mortal competition. Similarly, r-type Liberalism will boost the numbers of indigent, incompetent, unproductive r-type individuals within a population. Picture welfare queens, turning out ten babies at a pop, all on the government's dime. This r-type, Liberal ideology will thus invariably collapse any civilization that is foolish enough to follow it into chaos, anarchy, and resource shortages, while devolving the very greatness of the population which might have rescued it from such a fate.

Most importantly, this work offers the first real insight into the political mind’s motives and purposes. In offering this insight, it will demonstrate clearly to Conservatives and moderates that Liberals are aberrant by comparison to our species’ K-type mores and virtues. They are not loyal to in-group, they are not supportive of individual freedom, they are culturally degraded, and if given free reign, they will destroy any culture they invade. This theory offers the possibility to awaken the Conservative behemoth within our populations, and make Liberals the enemies of our nations, our values, and our K-selected species.

This is the most powerful argument against r-type Liberalism today, and it is firmly rooted in well established concepts which have been hashed out in both Evolutionary Ecology and Population Biology for decades now.

The free work offered here is designed to promote this theory, so it contains a tremendous amount of our substantiating research. We have even assembled a more technical, more non-partisan paper (available below), with all the necessary scientific substantiation. Please take a moment, look over our work, and examine all of the peer reviewed studies we have assembled that support this thesis.

It will explain what environmental and biological mechanisms are behind the adoption of ideology, lay out much of the peer reviewed research supporting this theory, and it will deal with the erroneous concerns some will have with our assertion of group selection. It will even explain how historical events have impacted our species producing waves of Competitiveness and Anticompetitiveness. To see the paper, simply click below.

Modern Political Thought in the Context of Evolutionary Psychology

Please take a moment, read the paper above, examine the substantiation of the concept of ideology as an expression of r/K drives, and see if politics does not suddenly begin to appear as a wholly different animal to you.

If you look at the pdf above, you will see that I've personally committed years of my life's free time to accumulating this material, as have others who have helped me. I've done this, even as I have been itching to dive into another field of research that is red hot right now, and may not be in a few years. I delayed my desires and ambitions, and pursued this, because I love freedom. But now that this is done, I don't think I can maximize the effects of this work without help from our community, so I just want to ask for some help, from anyone here who can possibly offer it.

First, if you think this information is interesting enough to get a little “Breaking News” or “Frontpage News”sidebar action here at FR, please consider dropping a short post below, saying so. I'll ping the mod a little later to ask, and it might help my cause if a few Freepers say they thought this was interesting enough that other Freepers should see it too. Also, every post below, even a one word post, saying this makes sense, and explains a lot about political ideology, will help any idea makers who happen on this post to feel more comfortable supporting this work themselves, and associating with it.

Second, I view this as an intellectual guerrilla war. If this view of Liberalism as merely an r-selected reproductive strategy catches on, it can do some fundamental damage to that movement's brand. But again, I can only promote it so much. It would help if I had some force multipliers to help the spread of the information. If you like the paper, and you know of anyone who might be able to bring it to a bigger audience, be it a blogger, radio show host, movement leader, think tank guru, or other Conservative voice, please take a moment, and send them the link to the pdf, with a little note about how this might damage the Liberal brand in intellectual circles. If you are a fan of a particular Conservative outlet, consider telling those who run it that you liked this, and so might their fans. If you post on another forum, consider re-posting this there. If you are talking politics someday, please tell others of this work. And idea makers should know, you need not endorse this work at your outlet to promote it. Merely putting it out there, with a caveat that you don't know, will let your fans decide, and they will get it. All of this web material is free to distribute – I just want the information out there.

“When the number of committed opinion holders is below 10 percent, there is no visible progress in the spread of ideas....Once that number grows above 10 percent, the idea spreads like flame.”

-Boleslaw Szymanski, the Claire and Roland Schmitt Distinguished Professor at Rensselaer, and Director of the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center

Remember only 10% of a population needs to believe something strongly, and the entire population will tend to accept the information as common knowledge. Given the substantiation for this work, I do not think such a level of support will be difficult to attain. And if Liberals come to be scientifically accepted to be the cowardly, r-selected “Bunny-Rabbit People,” simply pursuing policies of cowardice, failure, and fecundity because they know no better, it could have an impact on our debate, and the brashness of Liberals in our nation. I have tested this information and it's presentation against Liberals over at TED. It's effects were devastating. Every Liberal I crossed paths with exited the conversations we were in, and when I go back now, somebody there has gone into closed conversations I posted to, and deleted my postings. Just as you, as a Conservative feel this explains everything, and you get a kick out of it as a result, they recognize some very uncomfortable truths within it, and it crushes them. And all we need is to break 10%, and this could be the de facto view of political science in our nation.

Thank you for your time and your interest, and I hope you enjoy the work.

TOPICS: History; Politics; Science; Society
KEYWORDS: conservatism; evolution; liberalism; politics
I have to go out out in a few hours, but I will be back tomorrow morning, and will be in and out commenting all day.

Thank you for any comments and input.

1 posted on 05/11/2012 2:50:04 PM PDT by AnonymousConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative

How can a conservative mind really know how a liberal mind works? Won’t it be referencing everthing by it’s own, conservative standards...and vice versa. It’s all merely supposition.

2 posted on 05/11/2012 2:56:42 PM PDT by stuartcr ("When silence speaks, it speaks only to those that have already decided what they want to hear.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative
It's as old as time: liberal on the left, conservatives on the right.

Except that in nature, the grasshopper eventually freezes to death and the ants get to eat it.

3 posted on 05/11/2012 2:58:22 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

“How can a conservative mind really know how a liberal mind works? Won’t it be referencing everthing by it’s own, conservative standards...and vice versa

If you can look in nature, and find similar psychologies, you can see their purpose.

If you understand the neurobiology, you can see, to some extent, how Liberalism is likely engendered.

Here, I seek to carry a firearm, and feel comfortable being able to compete. I am profoundly uncomfortable in a hostile environment, while rendered defenseless.

The Liberal is equally uncomfortable, being surrounded by capable people. He can only approach the comfort I know, by seeking to see everyone made as weak as he is.

I have an advantage. I spent a good part of my youth exposed to the most extreme variant of this psychology, and I got inside his head. He was extreme enough, that you could see the discomfort he felt in the presence of superior individuals. It was palpable.

He was only comfortable in the presence of losers, who lessened his insecurity.

You need to be intellectually curious why Liberals are so unusual. Pull the pdf, and examine the cites, especially the neurobiology.

4 posted on 05/11/2012 3:21:18 PM PDT by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

Yep. The problem is, the grasshopper’s are in our species, and as their numbers grow, they reapportion the ant’s resources to themselevs in ever increasing amounts. Eventually the ants don’t have enough to support the whole population, civilization collapses, and the grasshoppers have to die back, since there is no reapportioning force.

The ant’s begin producing again, the producitivity lets a little bleed over to the grasshoppers, and they begin growing in number, and the cycle repeats.

5 posted on 05/11/2012 3:25:58 PM PDT by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative; Vigilanteman

Can we just stop calling it liberalism. It isn’t liberal at all. How about leftism?

6 posted on 05/11/2012 3:54:51 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

I would agree, but for one reason. Leftists will continue to call themselves Liberal, to delineate themselves from the leftists you demonize. It is my hope that if everyone get’s up to speed on r/K Theory, and Liberalism is subtly attached to the term r-type (as in r-type Liberalism), we can gradually make them shed the Liberal nomenclature through this subconscious attachment.

Reagan did it once, forcing them back to “progressive” by demonizing Liberal. Of course, Bush lost that advance back to them, and they are now Liberals again. I’m a little hopeful, if this get’s a wider reading, we can attach r-type to them more completely.

7 posted on 05/11/2012 4:29:53 PM PDT by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative

In other countries, liberals are the conservatives.

8 posted on 05/11/2012 4:38:08 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

I know, but at this point, if I can get this to take in the US political community, I’ll be happy.

9 posted on 05/11/2012 4:52:06 PM PDT by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks AnonymousConservative.
Here, we see how these two deeply imbued psychologies generate grossly different perceptual frameworks within those who are imbued with them. Just as a Liberal will never grasp why a Conservative will look down upon frequent promiscuity and single parenting, the Conservative will never grasp why the Liberal will be so firmly opposed to free market Capitalism, or the right to self defense when threatened. Each sees an inherently different world, and is programmed to desire an inherently different environment.

10 posted on 05/14/2012 3:52:39 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (FReepathon 2Q time --
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Thank you for the pings to this. I’m spending all my time trying to get eyes on this, and every bit of help is appreciated.

11 posted on 05/20/2012 9:22:02 AM PDT by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson