A reduction of r/k

Now that our understanding of r/k is getting a bit more nuanced than “left libruls r bad” people are getting confused about whether they’re slow life history strategists, fast life history strategists, or even spiteful mutants. Every now and then some depressed person will go on Dutton’s show and say “I’m a mess, should I not breed?” and he’ll inform them that if they’re concerned enough with the well-being of others to ask that question, they should breed. So lately I’ve been thinking about how to get this down to one simple question.

SLH boils down to a sense of duty. K-strategists are very uncomfortable if they aren’t living up to externally imposed expectations, which is why they’re so concerned with things like religion, ideals, moral effort, society, and politics. These things all represent the sense of peace they feel when their behavior meets the external expectations they’ve internalized. They feel cognitive dissonance and a breakdown in their sense of self when their behavior doesn’t meet these expectations. This explains why many atomized k-strategists become interested in designing their own value systems. Insofar as you’re more comfortable doing your job than following your heart, you’re probably carrying k-selected genes.

FLH boils down to hedonism. R-strategists are very uncomfortable if external expectations are preventing them from acting on their primitive impulses, which is why they’re so enamored of parties, festivals, itinerant lifestyles, conquerors, comedy, outsider status, and giving trite excuses for being freed from all social expectations (e.g. YOLO). These things all represent the sense of whimsical freedom they feel when their behavior is effortless, i.e. following directly from their desires without concern for whether oppressive authorities expect otherwise. Insofar as you’re more comfortable following your heart than accepting responsibilities you didn’t ask for, you’re probably carrying r-selected genes.

If you’re k-selected it may be confusing to think of impulsiveness as producing the sense, for many people, that they’re doing the right thing. For SLH strategists, doing the right thing connotes self-control, whereas for FLH strategists it’s the opposite. It may help you to think of this primitivism as a competing religion, as in Rousseau’s idea of the noble savage, where adherents of this religion believe getting in touch with their deepest primitive instincts is the most moral thing they can do. This may help you to understand why Ashley Madison’s motto is “Life is short. Have an affair.” That’s appealing to a lot of people on a religious level. When they’re doing a good job in the workplace and not at a party, these people feel the same nagging concern that “the world doesn’t feel right” that you feel when you know you’re not doing what you should be doing.

(Spiteful mutation boils down to the desire to offend children. Insofar as you feel that desire, you’re probably carrying spiteful mutations.)

So there are two fundamental and opposing drives here: the desire to live up to expectations and the desire to live spontaneously. Similarly, two sources of anxiety: the fear of failure and the fear of oppression. You can think of it more metaphysically as dad’s boundaries and mom’s boundaries, where mom’s boundaries were made to be broken (or else she wouldn’t have become a mom) and dad’s were made to be enforced (or else he wouldn’t have become a dad). Since people live on a spectrum between these, leaders have to create pressure relief valves for both things: scheduled harvest festivals and the like where k-selected populations feel it’s their duty to be a bit spontaneous, and the availability of temp jobs, rehab centers, and confessionals for r-selected populations who spontaneously decide it’s time to straighten up and fly right.

Unrelated note on the metaphysical thing: Genius appears to have something to do with the masculine brain internalizing the Anima, which is why I think we feel a blood connection to society even when we don’t have children. This is also probably why superbureaucrats/Alchemists, obsessed with proving they’re geniuses shifting world events with the mere stroke of a pen, tend to get into black magic; invoking Cthulhu and Leviathan and all that incomprehensible tentacled horror shit. It’s the desire to externalize the Anima (that which cannot be looked at/examined), because releasing lighting from a bottle would prove they had caught it in a bottle before. They’re trying to forge the one rule/patriarchal boundary that breaks all the old rules. Many such cases. Sad!

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to A reduction of r/k

  1. aiaslives says:

    Are headgirls k-strategists?

  2. RETVRN TO MONKE says:

    Now, THAT answers my question! Thank you.

    > Every now and then some depressed person will go on Dutton’s show and say “I’m a mess, should I not breed?” and he’ll inform them that if they’re concerned enough with the well-being of others to ask that question, they should breed.

    Yes, but coldly and pragmatically considering the pros and cons of having children is precisely the sort of over-civilized thinking that leads to low birthrates in the first place. I don’t think that Dutton addresses this issue directly. Not tryna be all r-selected or anything, but stop asking for permission and let it happen naturally.

    And what’s this about offending children? I thought that spiteful mutants instinctively create social chaos in a wide variety of situations.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      Wanting to break down children’s boundaries is a litmus test. Peeing on a strip isn’t pregnancy but it does tell you if you’re pregnant.

      > coldly and pragmatically considering the pros and cons of having children is precisely the sort of over-civilized thinking that leads to low birthrates in the first place.

      I’m a bit more sympathetic, because I think it’s post-facto rationalizing the fear of abject failure as parents. And I’m talking real failure, as in Jordan Peterson-level failure. This is a realistic fear, based on what I’ve seen.

      • Soft-R Strategerist says:

        I worry about whether or not I’ll have the wisdom and the agency to protect my children from the public school system, the medical industry, the family court system, and the varieties of memetic toxins which circulate online. Plus, I don’t want to bring any diseased or severely disabled children into the world; though, it’s not possible to have enough knowledge to completely prevent this. So, I should probably be more sympathetic. Not sure where Jordan Peterson went wrong or what exactly his daughter did.

    • a name (fuck) says:

      >but stop asking for permission and let it happen naturally
      Like asking an autistic person to just act natural. Or rather, there’s a concern that should be addressed and it’s unnatural to not address it, asking questions and seeking answers is a natural progression. Dutton’s answer is a perfect response to the concern, since it both validates it and points to the fact that even thinking it is a good sign.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      I’ve changed the wording to “shock children” to be a bit less confusing.

  3. Dexter says:

    If you’re going for a one-concept representation of r/K then duty/lack thereof is a good bet. Also, how about boring vs not boring? I’m sorry but if you’re 90th percentile+ K, then you’re probably well-intentioned, but you’re probably also boring. Best thing to do in this situation is to ask about things that they have expertise in through life experiences or hobbies. With high K you have someone who isn’t spontaneous (high impulse control) and low level of idiosyncracies (gotta conform to survive).

    Sometimes I’m a bit jealous of more r-selected people. We’re in such an easy ecology that a live-and-let-live attitude is not deleterious to survival chances unless you take that adage to the extreme. One thing I don’t like, though, is the egotism with some of these sorts. They are the ones who commit crimes and commit antisocial acts at the expense of the group. Parasitic in some sense. Still, though, they probably have more fun – as you mentioned in another boil-r/K-down-to-one-concept post, r is basically extraversion (if you go with a certain definition of extraversion). And extraversion is basically positive emotion.

    I want to get back into E. O. Wilson’s sociobiology. It’s really excellent and technical, with r/K one of numerous concepts he introduces. Besides, I think I would benefit from shifting my attention from the stupidity of whites in the modern age (sociobiologically) – it does frustrate sometimes. With animals you can still focus on interesting concepts but there are no personal interests involved that distract from the study. Additionally, less confounding from memetic evolution so sociobiology is more applicable when it comes to animals.

    I wish Woodley had a youtube channel, even if he only posted one-hundredth of his insight. Very important scientist. Do you know any good channels/blogs for me?

  4. Ryu says:


    I’d like to ask you about something.

    I’m sure you are aware of the famous “Anonymous Conservative.” I have been reading his surveillence series. What do you make of it?

    Seems like he might be getting a bit spooky. If such a network existed, why not hunt them instead and get to the top? Surely such a man must have existed. His “cabal” notion makes the old WN concept of “ZOG” appear small.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      I’m aware of Anonymous Conservative, but not familiar with that series. I stopped reading him when I realized he’s an idiot in the most charitable case.

      • Ryu says:

        Well, he has an entire series on surveillance.

        He believes that there is a vast human surveillance network across the entire world, even to rural Russia and Sri Lanka. He believes this is the group that intimidated Tex.

        I am trying to find the infamous post where Tex found that underground bunker under the Costco. Does it still exist? I read it once, but am having trouble finding it now.

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          >He believes that there is a vast human surveillance network across the entire world, even to rural Russia and Sri Lanka.

          I would guess it’s like anything else green-pilled: true in essence (i.e. holistically), wrong in every detail, and dutifully shying away from the JQ.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s