Posted on 08/23/2012 9:23:59 AM PDT by AnonymousConservative
The funniest thing about the r/K divide within our species is how pervasive it is. Everywhere I look, I see aspects of it manifesting in our culture, our behavior, our history, and even our future.
Here is a free abstract from an interesting study examining the “balancing selection hypothesis” of homosexuality.
Let me rephrase this, so it makes more sense. There may be a gene which produces women who are more fertile, have more offspring, and want to deal with children less. At the same time it makes men more feminine (and more promiscuous, since that correlates with homosexuality). (There is other research which implicates multiple genes in homosexuality, as well as non-random X-chromosome inactivation in mothers. Although the genetic causes of homosexuality are probably many, it will not alter the overall conclusions of this blog post.)
Many r-selected species see the sex-specific behavioral tendencies and sexual dimorphism reverse from what is seen in K-selected species. In a K-selected species, males are responsible for provisioning and protection, and so they grow large, aggressive, courageous, and competitive. By contrast, females remain more feminine and conflict averse – they are designed to attract males with their femininity, and nurture children in security by removing them from the dangers which the male confronts for the family.
In many r-selected species, however, females must raise their offspring alone, so they become aggressive, competitive, and more “manly” (by K-selected standards), to provide for and protect their single parented offspring better. Obviously the best example in humans is the modern day man-jawed, flannel-wearing feminazi. Meanwhile in r-selection, the promiscuous males become more feminine (likely to help them avoid conflict with other males), more diminutive, more focused on superficial flash that is designed to attract mates quickly, and less competitive and courageous. They become more feminine, by our K-selected standards.
From the abstract of the study on homosexual genes:
“Our analysis showed that both mothers and maternal aunts of homosexual men show increased fecundity compared with corresponding maternal female relatives of heterosexual men. A two-step statistical analysis, which was based on t-tests and multiple logistic regression analysis, showed that mothers and maternal aunts of homosexual men (i) had fewer gynecological disorders; (ii) had fewer complicated pregnancies; (iii) had less interest in having children; (iv) placed less emphasis on romantic love within couples; (v) placed less importance on their social life; (vi) showed reduced family stability; (vii) were more extraverted; and (viii) had divorced or separated from their spouses more frequently.”
So not only does this gene make male carriers more feminine, it also makes females more fecund, and less likely to end up in a monogamous relationship. Such female carriers will exhibit less desire to rear children, be less romantically attached to their partner, be less likely to have a stable family, and be more likely to divorce or separate. Promiscuous, feminized males, and females with low rearing drive and an aversion to monogamy. Where have we seen that before?
I have always been struck by the feminine nature of the modern Liberal male, who we maintain is merely an individual within our species who exhibits an r-type reproductive strategy. Both Liberal men and women rely more on navigating social structures than on open conflict and competition to get ahead. Liberal men seek to be protected from competition by others through government, just as most women seek the protection of men. Liberal men prefer that others should provide for them (and the populace) through governmental largesse, while women seek out men who can provide for them. While the studies haven't been done for obvious reasons, I suspect one would find the average Liberal male is vastly inferior in physical combative ability compared to the average Conservative male. And then of course, there is always Gavin Newsom.
It is established that in Kluver-Bucy syndrome, the deficient function of the amygdala which characterizes the syndrome does produce hypersexuality, including compulsively mating with inappropriate partners and objects. Of course one facet of the Liberal brain is a diminished development of the amygdala. If amygdala structural variation underlies ideology and sexual behavior, is it possible that atypical amygdala development might be implicated in homosexuality in a similar way?
Yes, as a matter of fact it is. Homosexual men and women exhibit less neurological connectivity within the right amygdalae hemisphere than do heterosexual men when examined via PET scan, while Liberals exhibit relatively smaller right amygdala hemispheres than Conservatives, when examined via MRI. By contrast, the same studies show that Heterosexual men and Lesbians exhibit increased connectivity in the right hemisphere of the amygdala, while Conservatives exhibit increased volume in the right amygdala. (The right hemisphere of the amygdala is believed to deal with negative stimuli, such as threat and fear more, while the Left hemisphere is more involved in reward/pleasure, in addition to threat/fear. To paraphrase the title of a study which discusses this cognitive difference in ideologies, Conservative K-types confront the bad, while Liberal r-types roll with the good.)
A quote from the Homosexual brain structure study:
Homosexual subjects also showed sex-atypical amygdala connections. In (Homosexual Males), as in (Heterosexual Women), the connections were more widespread from the left amygdala; in (Homosexual Women) and (Heterosexual Males), on the other hand, from the right amygdala … The results cannot be primarily ascribed to learned effects, and they suggest a linkage to neurobiological entities.
Also noted in the study:
The choice to measure amygdala connectivity was based on several reports about sex differentiated amygdala lateralization in processing of emotional memories (with an activation of the right amygdala in men, and the left amygdala in women) (19, 20). (see the article for the references)
From an article on Discover Magazine's website, describing the paper, found here
“The researchers also looked at the amygdala, a part of the brain that’s associated with emotions, and found that straight women and gay men both have more connections between the amygdala and brain regions associated with anxiety and mood disorders. Meanwhile, the amygdala of lesbians and straight men had more connections to the region that controls fight or flight reactions”
Please think back to my blog series on debating tactics and the amygdala hijack, and see if the above paragraph might describe a mechanism by which Liberals might be more prone to anxiety and mood disruption during casual debate.
Here is a quote from Kanai's study of neurological correlates of political affiliation:
We found that … greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala. These results were replicated in an independent sample of additional participants. Our findings extend previous observations that political attitudes reflect differences in self-regulatory conflict monitoring … by showing that such attitudes are reflected in human brain structure.
Of course if r/K sex-specific behavioral tendencies held, K-type (feminine) women and Liberals would all be expected to exhibit the more conflict-averse/feminized model of behavior, while men and r-type women would be expected to exhibit a more aggressive, provisioner/protector model of behavior. Some have proposed that there are sex-specific variations in homosexual participation in sports (where homosexual men seem to avoid aggressive sports, while homosexual women appear to be over represented in such aggressive sports). Numerous studies also note that male homosexuals tend to exhibit much less aggression than male heterosexuals.
Is homosexuality just an extreme r-type development of the amygdala? Normally designed to affect aggression and embrace of conflict, it is occaisionally expressed so severely that it then bleeds over into sexual desires. Could Homosexuality actually be a case of mother nature overshooting the r-type Liberal mark, and shifting the neurological foundations of r/K sex-specific behaviors too far?
In moderate amounts, this r-trait just produces a cowardly and effete man, obsessed with superficial style/flash, who avoids aggression/competing, and as Heartiste pointed out here, exhibits exactly the type of less desirous/more aloof attitude r-type women crave in their short term relationships. In large amounts, it goes overboard and turns a Barack Obama into a Barney Frank, but the advantages of all the moderately-feminized male r-strategists outweighs the periodic genetic dead end. (The Heartiste post linked above was quite interesting for another study it cited showing that in twins with only one heterosexual sibling, that sibling was more promiscuous than average.)
Homosexuality could also be adaptive, since an r-type individual, trying to persist in a K-selective environment would be well served to defer competing for a mate until a more r-selective period began. By creating a male with diminished desire and desperation for a female mate, this would both diminish the r-type's drive towards mate competition in K-selective periods, and then increase female attraction as the female cohort became more r-minded during more r-selective periods. Of course if this hypothesis is correct, it would also explain why homosexuals tend to support Liberals more than Conservatives.
What will be interesting will be to see the Liberal's reaction to this hypothesis. Will they be aghast and deny the evidence, and thereby betray underlying negative feelings and perceptions, of a discriminatory nature, about homosexuals and homosexuality? Are Liberals so Homophobic that they will deny what the scientific evidence so clearly indicates? Or will they adopt a genuinely non-judgmental, tolerant position, embracing of their homosexual brethren, and the common evolutionary history and psychological inclinations they share?
Only time will tell.
If genetic, then there must be some evolutionary advantage to being pure evil, just as there is clearly one for being somewhat good.
Perhaps, but what if it is an anomaly like schizophrenia? It may have some adaptive purposes while being also something akin to disease or malformation. In fact, Dr. Peck believe there was a correlation of schizophrenic family history and those who he termed “people of the lie”: evil narcissists.
I think the evolutionary advantage to good arises in conditions of resource scarcity. The more selflessly you, I, and Humblegunner work together, the better a team we make, and the greater our advantage over the other teams.
If, however, resources are everywhere then there is no disadvantage to me screwing you and Humblegunner, as I will always be able to get resources elsewhere without you, and I get the short term advantage of having screwed you. (As in r-selection. Think of the rabbit who is the quintessential r-selected organism. Each rabbit exists in a field of grass it will never begin to fully consume.)
This is why you only find animals which care for each other as you get towards the K-selected end of the spectrum. Elephants, dolphins, wolves, etc. As you go more towards the r-selected side, you get deer, rabbits, mice etc, and there is no attachment between individuals. Deer don’t feel bad looking at the body of a comrade.
Basically you only get caring and good when you get a team, and you only get a team if resources are limited, and individuals have to form a team to compete effectively for them.
In that vein, good seeing you around, brother.
You are 100% correct. The homosexualists will stoop to any level to justify their deathstyle choice. Sodomites deliberately make the decision to engage in their deviant behavior. With Christian counseling and the power of prayer, sodomy can be and has been reversed and normalcy restored. God does not make sodomites and all the junk "science" masked by flowery, polysyllabic terms, doesn't change that.
Similarly, I have long disagreed with Berkeley-educated Michael Alan Weiner (who uses the pseudonym of Michael Savage in his guise as an entertainer) claim's that liberalism is a mental disorder. That only serves to give such evil a pass by attributing one's leftist stance as a genetic disorder. Like sodomites, liberals aren't born that way. God does not make liberals for they deliberately and maliciously choose to disobey their Creator by adopting the atheistic philosophy of the left.
Vile sinners such as Barney Frank were by no means born with a defect that led them to sodomy or liberalism. It was a conscious decision on their part to disobey Almighty God. The Lord gives us free will to choose the Right path or follow the broad highway of immorality paved by Satan. With Christian counseling and powerful prayer (lots and lots of it in this case), even the repulsive Barney Frank can be transformed to become a Servant of God. Though it's unlikely in his case because Barney Frank has hardened his heart, the rejoicing both in Heaven and here on Earth would be awesome if such a purveyor of evil were redeemed.
“There actually is evidence for genetic causes, though they are probably predispositions, enahnced by epigenetic effects in the womb due to maternal stress reactivity.”
No there isn’t. Behavioral genetics is a complete bust, and it’s becoming more apparent with every additional dollar we toss down a rat hole investigating them.
http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/GeneWatch/GeneWatchPage.aspx?pageId=384
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020212
But they are nevertheless part and parcel of the gay agenda.
100% utter junk science pushed by homosexuals.
Oh, Bevis...and I thought you were so butch!
/monty python reference
Don’t agree. Because I work in the arts I’m very familiar with the spectrum of the homosexual lifestyle - and its history. There have always been macho types (like Rock Hudson), in between types (like Montgomery Clift) and overtly femme types like Truman Capote. It goes back to the ancient Greeks.
Interesting. I have developed a theory that morality is enhanced by scarcity. Note how, when civilizations have surpluses, they tend towards the immoral, and the hedonistic (Rome in antiquity, Europe in the 1700's, and America now are good examples). Your theorum correlates to mine.
So, seemingly, those gays who insist that being gay isn’t a choice may be right...but given thatwe are a k-selected species, why then should we turn our culteral norms on their head to satisfy the whims of these quite abnornal people?
Feel sorry for them, yes. Make sure that they aren’t discriminated against, of course. But let the abnormal run society? No way!
in before the zot
in before the pimp my blog
in before the viking kittens.
Your theory is absolutely right, IMO. The ironic part is the scarcity, in creating morality and societal functionality, produces excess, which then destroys it all, producing scarcity, which then restarts the cycle.
BTW, love the tag.
Liberalism, atheism and homosexualism have long formed an unholy trinity, engaging their so-called "science" to raise doubts about Almighty God. More recently, that assemblage of leftists has brought the AGW thugs into their fold to push the myth of "global warming" down our throats.
Isn't it strange how these godless liberals are so quick to attribute the sins of sodomy and liberalism to genetic factors but so rapidly dismiss any possible role of genetics when it comes to racial differences? Charles Murray and Richard J. Herrnstein used rigorous science in the landmark book, The Bell Curve but the leftists in academia noisily dismissed their well-documented findings. Yet the futile search goes on by these pseudo-scientists to find anything, anything at all to dismiss the role of free will for choosing homosexuality and and its twin sin of atheistic liberalism.
“the brain is a complicated organ”
Indeed sir.
The most complicated of all.
One researcher said; “We’ll never understand it.”
You and I could be twin brothers on this.
That is basically my entire point with all of this. If we look at K-seleced behavioral drives, we see all that we recognize innately as good. Competitiveness and loyalty to group(be it family, or nation), monogamy and high-investment two-parent rearing to produce children with more opportunity. Later age of first intercourse, so girls find the best guy available, when they are at maximum maturity and perceptiveness.
Viewed through the K-selection prism, all of Conservatism’s values suddenly have clear, purpose, and are purely good. By contrast, the Liberal’s r-selected values are exaclty the opposite of our species normal desires.
I’ve seen you around, and though you don’t know me, we would get along well. I am not supporting the gay agenda with this post. Reread the post. It is a scientific examination of how gays may just be “super Liberals,” based of r/K Selection, and the neurobiology. Even the genetics is a very small part of it, which the theorem could probably stand on it’s own without.
On behavioral genetics, bear in mind all of Liberalism wants to assert the “Blank Slate Theory.” If everyone is equal at birth, the Liberal can say that the only reason you have success and someone else doesn’t is that you had an unfair advantage. That then allows the Liberal to justify using government to correct that unfair advantage.
Nothing terrifies the Liberal more than the idea that some people are just smarter than others, or better adapted to society, and can therefore contribute more to society.
It is why so many on the right are promoting Human Biodiversity, and why the Left hates it.
I'm an old-school, hardliner on the issue of liberalism and sodomy as you may see from my prior posts in this thread. In my estimation, you are absolutely correct about the "pure goodness" of Conservatism and its polar opposite of evil inherent in all manifestations of liberalism, be they called Marxism, Nazism, Islam, homosexualism or atheism.
I'll go so far as to make this statement: The intersection between liberals and Christians forms the null set. To be fair, not all Conservatives are necessarily Christian but all genuine Christians are in fact Conservative.
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.