Posted on 08/23/2012 9:23:59 AM PDT by AnonymousConservative
It's becoming clear to me this is not irony at all, but simple life-cycle stuff. Like the blooming, then the dearth, of algae in a pond.
Are those same types pushing for gay marriage and for educating public school children about homosexuality as normal (not superior in any way)? If so, they are part and parcel, but from the other description of them it seems very strange.
Yes, they are. The world I’ve lived in is 60% homosexual and I’ve seen deep into it. Please don’t fall into the idiocy of thinking that all male homosexuals are limpwristed mincing sissies. There are a lot of “masculine” homosexuals, and, yes, they are on board with this gay marriage as normalization thing.
Likewise, not all lesbians are of the repulsive Rachel Maddow type. Some are actually quite easy on the eyes but they are still evil sinners that need to get right with God. When the Lord smote Sodom and Gomorrah, his Righteous Wrath of Divine Judgment fell on all of those guilty of the abomination of homosexuality, regardless of how they looked or their mannerisms.
And by the way, I was in a gay marriage for over 40 years. My late wife (God Bless her soul) and I enjoyed decades of true joy and genuine Christian happiness. The vile homosexuals have destroyed so much -- but they're NOT going to take the word "gay" from me. I want it restored to its true meaning!
OK; I will bow to your far greater experience. Thanks for clarifying and giving additional info.
Sounds to me like you wrote your book to have some fun at the faculty lounge. But way to go!
“Please don’t fall into the idiocy of thinking that all male homosexuals are limpwristed mincing sissies.”
That can be correct, and not invalidate the thesis, though. We are talking about one brain difference which interacts with a lot of other brain structures. Overall, research does support diminshed aggression among homosexuals, as I noted.
Now inividuals vary, so just like heteros will have Dick Marcinko killing people left and right like an angry Sasquatch with a machinegun on one side, and pacifist hippies on the other, so too will there be variation among homosexuals. But if you look at averages, you will find the mean level of aggression shifted signifgantly towards nonconfrontational, and I would assert we should look to this structural difference and teh “r-ification” of humans as the neurological and evolutionary contribution contributing to that.
With any luck, and some help from friends, nobody will ever know I did this.
But thanks for the encouraging words.
Some readers may object to this article’s implication that homosexuality is genetically determined, because they think a lot of it is learned. My take is that if the described research is correct, this article bolsters the general feeling that “queers ain’t right in the head.”
Very interesting, and I mostly agree, with one caveat. You get into tricky areas when you look at ability as relates to r/K. r’s are less openly competitive, but they are survivors, who will do anything, and engage in rule breaking to win. I suspect even the novelty seeking is a part of finding new ways to compete without openly competing. So they do have advantages.
They are also excellent at maneuvering through social hierarchies, so they will often rise, irrespective of success.
There is a great blog here, which I view as describing the epitome of amygdala dysfunction in management, which the author describes as SOB syndrome, based on a phrase common to all of them he knew.
http://mandynamerica.com/blog/memorable-sobs-in-inaction/
The big problem is r’s are conditioned early on in childhood to be pretenders, so you never know what you will get, or what you have.
But interesting analysis, and I agree on most all of it.
The article says “extraverted” — when it means “extroverted” when referring to mothers of homosexual men. I’m not sure extraverted is a word.
See spelling and definition here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/extroverted
I forgot to mention one, focused as I was on business in isolation. r's tend to thrive in areas where there's a slew of complex regulations which can be negotiated through like a complex social hierarchy. K's, I suspect, are more at home in an environment of simple laws that say what they mean and mean what they say.
Have you spent some time poking through libertarian theory and Austrian economics? One of their major themes is: economic competition, when viewed in the global sense, is another kind of social co-operation. They're also big on pointing out that a lot of business competition consists of finding niches with new products: in essence, competing for consumer dollars without competing directly.
But on the other hand, the Rothbardian segment insists that the current regulations on banks should be replaced by one simple law that's much tougher than the current set-up: 100% reserves on demand deposits. Anything more lenient, they consider to be encouragement of fraud. The 100%-reserv'ers consider this point to be non-negotiable.
To get back to regulations, the regulatory State provides a big advantage to r's because of how it grew. The legislators discovered a principle that computer programmers didn't discover until 1990 or so: the more user-friendly the application, the more back coding is needed to make it work properly. With respect to legislation, the "back coding" is a combination of implementary regulations and amendments that make the original law much more complex - like, most notoriously, the Internal Revenue Code.
Thank you for the correction - I always appreciate when somebody tries to help me sound smarter than I am (and I need the help).
Here, the word extraverted is actually in the text from the original source, where I think it is being used as a technical psychological term. I guess Carl Jung used it in that form to describe a quality of personality, and it stuck among specialists. You know you’re big when people start purposely misspelling stuff to be more like you.
Thanks again though. When you write, you find out just how difficult it is to be precise. Any help is much appreciated.
Yeah, there is a fine line between creativity in competiting, and avoiding competition.
One of the things which I think differentiates r-competing is a willignness to use K’s against other K’s, as proxies. Whether it is a Lib hiding behind the tax man, a gungrabber hiding behind a fed, or a hippie siding with the communists, each is seeking to use another K/warrior as a proxy to attack their real competition, without facing them directly. This breaking of rules we view as sacrosanct is why they are so vexing.
“One of their major themes is: economic competition, when viewed in the global sense, is another kind of social co-operation. “
It is what I think K-selection has always been. Taking allies to cooperate socially, but only in order to compete for limtied resources, and take them from others, who will have to do without. So it is cooperative, but only to be competitive. I believe that is why cooperation evolved. We had to cooperate to compete, or we would easily be killed by others who cooperated. The best cooperators were the ones who survived, by killing off everyone else.
Unfortuantely, I am almost certianly not as bright as you are in economics though, so I can’t contribute much to you there. But if you get the basics on the biology side, which you clearly do, I suspect you won’t need my help anyway.
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.