I’ve always thought that the endpoint of urban fashion is to look like sewn-together garbage, while also looking like you spent a lot of money on it.
I can’t think of a better statement for saying “I’m R-selected” than spending a lot of money on high-contrast, asymmetric clothes that have the appearance of actual litter. The aesthetic has all the elements of the traditional rapper’s American dream: you get to talk shit about how you came from the hood and you’re so tough, but you get to act like a Jewish banker too. Meanwhile signal your dedication to putting all your bioenergetic resources into the R-selected values of youth, beauty, and standing out.
For some reason it reminds me of how kids in the upper-middle class idealize the working class as some kind of noble savages like out of a modernized Dances With Wolves reboot, and constantly try to signal a spiritual connection with them while displaying a hilarious ignorance of what working class people are actually like. You know what what proles really like? German marching music and beer hall putsches! Yeah.
Aeoli Pera 
There’s a lot of speculation on high IQ r-selected folks – they’re geniuses, innovators, artists. What about high IQ K-selected people? Do they become superbeaurocrats? What sorts of lives do you think they lead?
Also, thoughts on sex and race differences in r/K selection? More variation within I’d imagine, but the differences are still significant, right?
>What about high IQ K-selected people? Do they become superbeaurocrats?
Specialists, most often. Superbureaucrats are relatively rare because they’re generalists who combine high-end social skills with high-end technical skills. High-IQ K-selected people will tend more often to be one or the other, as part of the social niche strategy.
>Also, thoughts on sex and race differences in r/K selection?
Rushton wrote an entire book on the racial component, where K to r goes Asian -> white -> black.
The sex difference (warning, this is pure opinion) is that women are about half a standard deviation more k-selected than men and prefer (i.e. “select”) men who are about a standard deviation more R-selected than themselves, whereas men are more R-selected and prefer (select) women who are as k-selected as they can obtain.
>More variation within I’d imagine
That’s not true actually. There’s more difference between the average black and the average white than the expected difference between two randomly selected blacks or between two randomly selected whites.
If we were talking IQs, for example, then you’d expect a 30-point difference between a pure African black and a pure European white and only an average 15-point difference between random choices within-race.
>whereas men are more R-selected and prefer (select) women who are as k-selected as they can obtain.
Would explain my choice of girlfriend lol.
>women are about half a standard deviation more k-selected than men and prefer (i.e. “select”) men who are about a standard deviation more R-selected than themselves
This makes sense, fits with the whole alpha fucks beta bucks phenomenon. Dutton has an excellent new video on this, by the way. Incels shouldn’t focus on r-selected girls (which they implicitly do, given their obsession with sex and looks) as those girls go for chad. They should go for a church girl as those girls will be more accepting of bad looks and neuroticism. (and the market for relationships is kinder to guys, than that of ONSes)
Also, unrelatedly, what’s with the conception of autism/male-brain and obsession with literalism. Maybe somewhat true, but aren’t you autistic with an impressive associative horizon? There are a lot of inconsistencies in psychology that I feel need ironing out.
Regarding your last point, sure there are 30 points between SSA and northern Europe, but I reckon only 20 of those are genetic. If we extrapolate from 85IQ 75% SSA African-Americans, we get 80IQ for pure African, right? Point taken though, there’s a lot of variation between.