What do you think?
Rate this book
The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics: How Conservatism and Liberalism Evolved Within Humans, Third Edition
Please note that when Amazon says "out of stock," or "available in 2-6 weeks," Amazon drop ships orders from the publisher Ingram within 1-2 days and it will arrive normally.
Why do people adopt different political ideologies? How can seemingly equal intellects, presented with the same facts and circumstances disagree so vehemently over how society should be structured? What psychological undercurrents guide people to adopt Conservative or Liberal political beliefs, and where did they come from?
The answer lies in a well known concept in biology termed r/K Selection Theory, and this third edition is the most complete examination of this ground-breaking idea to date.
r/K Theory examines how all populations tend to adopt one of two psychologies as a means of adapting their behavior to the presence or absence of environmental resources. The two strategies, termed r and K, each correlate perfectly with the psychologies underlying Liberalism and Conservatism.
One strategy, named the r-strategy, imbues those who are programmed with it to be averse to all peer on peer competition, embrace promiscuity, embrace single parenting, and support early onset sexual activity in youth. Obviously, this mirrors the Liberal philosophy's aversion to individual Darwinian competitions such as capitalism and self defense with firearms, as well as group competitions such as war. Likewise, Liberalism is tolerant of promiscuity, tolerant of single parenting, and more prone to support early sex education for children and the sexualization of cultural influences. Designed to exploit a plethora of resources, one will often find this r-type strategy embodied within prey species, where predation has lowered the population's numbers, and thereby increased the resources available to it's individuals. The other strategy, termed the K-strategy, imbues those who pursue it with a fierce competitiveness, as well as tendencies towards abstinence until monogamy, two-parent parenting, and delaying sexual activity until later in life. Obviously, this mirrors Conservatism's acceptance of all sorts of competitive social schemes, from free market capitalism, to war, to individuals owning and carrying private weapons for self defense. Conservatives also tend to favor abstinence until monogamy, two parent parenting with an emphasis upon "family values," and children being shielded from any sexualized stimuli until later in life. This strategy is found most commonly in species which lack predation, and whose population's have grown to the point individuals must compete with each other for the limited environmental resources that they are rapidly running out of. Meticulously substantiated with the latest research in fields from neurobiology to human behavioral ecology, this work offers an unprecedented view into not just what governs our political battles, but why these battles have arisen within our species in the first place. From showing how these two strategies adapt in other more complex species in nature, to examining the role of a migrating history in the evolution of more complex leftist political ideals, to examining what genetic and neurostructural mechanisms may produce these divergences between individuals, to examining how the environment may alter the expression of these ideals, to showing what this theory indicates our future may hold, this work is the most thorough analysis to date of just why we have two political ideologies, why they will never agree, and why we will tend to become even more partisan in the future.
Why do people adopt different political ideologies? How can seemingly equal intellects, presented with the same facts and circumstances disagree so vehemently over how society should be structured? What psychological undercurrents guide people to adopt Conservative or Liberal political beliefs, and where did they come from?
The answer lies in a well known concept in biology termed r/K Selection Theory, and this third edition is the most complete examination of this ground-breaking idea to date.
r/K Theory examines how all populations tend to adopt one of two psychologies as a means of adapting their behavior to the presence or absence of environmental resources. The two strategies, termed r and K, each correlate perfectly with the psychologies underlying Liberalism and Conservatism.
One strategy, named the r-strategy, imbues those who are programmed with it to be averse to all peer on peer competition, embrace promiscuity, embrace single parenting, and support early onset sexual activity in youth. Obviously, this mirrors the Liberal philosophy's aversion to individual Darwinian competitions such as capitalism and self defense with firearms, as well as group competitions such as war. Likewise, Liberalism is tolerant of promiscuity, tolerant of single parenting, and more prone to support early sex education for children and the sexualization of cultural influences. Designed to exploit a plethora of resources, one will often find this r-type strategy embodied within prey species, where predation has lowered the population's numbers, and thereby increased the resources available to it's individuals. The other strategy, termed the K-strategy, imbues those who pursue it with a fierce competitiveness, as well as tendencies towards abstinence until monogamy, two-parent parenting, and delaying sexual activity until later in life. Obviously, this mirrors Conservatism's acceptance of all sorts of competitive social schemes, from free market capitalism, to war, to individuals owning and carrying private weapons for self defense. Conservatives also tend to favor abstinence until monogamy, two parent parenting with an emphasis upon "family values," and children being shielded from any sexualized stimuli until later in life. This strategy is found most commonly in species which lack predation, and whose population's have grown to the point individuals must compete with each other for the limited environmental resources that they are rapidly running out of. Meticulously substantiated with the latest research in fields from neurobiology to human behavioral ecology, this work offers an unprecedented view into not just what governs our political battles, but why these battles have arisen within our species in the first place. From showing how these two strategies adapt in other more complex species in nature, to examining the role of a migrating history in the evolution of more complex leftist political ideals, to examining what genetic and neurostructural mechanisms may produce these divergences between individuals, to examining how the environment may alter the expression of these ideals, to showing what this theory indicates our future may hold, this work is the most thorough analysis to date of just why we have two political ideologies, why they will never agree, and why we will tend to become even more partisan in the future.
290 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 2012
95 people are currently reading
423 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
August 30, 2021
This work attempts to explain the psychological forces that underlie ideologies and it is the pinnacle of meta political thought. The theory of r/K selection as applied to evolutionary psychology encompasses all other works on political dynamics and renders them, if not obsolete, inferior by comparison of explanatory power. Indeed I would compare it to Plato’s Republic for depth of insight, if not breadth of application, for the former is more versatile.
Other works of this ambition are deductive, such as Spengler’s Decline of the West. They gather data and attempt to discern the underlying causes. AC’s work however is inductive. It provides a mechanism which can then be applied to explain a multitude of situations. For deductive works to attain the rank of genius, it invariably takes the onerous labor of a beast of burden. But for inductive works such as this and Nassim Taleb’s Antifragile, it takes simplicity--elegant simplicity.
Some other works catch a glimpse at AC’s insight, such as Edward Dutton’s theory of spiteful mutants or Sir John Glubb’s eminent The Fate of Empires, but they never quite hit the nail on the head by providing a holistic context coupled with a mechanistic explanation.
Indeed the beauty of a mechanistic explanation is that it works sans context. Like a key that opens many doors, after understanding this theory you won’t be able to avoid seeing r/K everywhere you look. It will provide a direct perspective to almost any social issue you may encounter in life.
The fact that the liberal psychology is designed to exploit a glut of resources directly goes to explain his range of seemingly contradictory behaviors. It is his paramount advantage and directive to maximize his fertility, so that his genes can absorb the glut. Which then means it is his advantage to be anti-competitive. Behaviors which then beget the liberal’s despicable traits of treachery, mendacity, incompetence, vulgarity, unrefinement. It is such a self-evident explanation, that one can only wonder how none of us have realized it before now.
You will get to examine the theoretical causal links in belabored redundancy as AC repeatedly re-explains the basic tenets of the theory to show how it applies to various contexts, while simultaneously being too vague and not delving into the deeper nuances of the theory’s implications (perhaps in a sequel?). As I have noticed from reading other reviews, the ambiguity can confuse some readers, causing them to misinterpret what AC is saying, or be unable to follow the big leaps in reasoning.
AC notes that he intends to spread his theory far and wide into cultural hegemony and therefore in this case it is fair criticism to say the book fails in its objective by not catering to the lower standard deviations. Perhaps the redundancy of the substance is not padding, but surreptitiously serves this aim. The book is not without feats of prose however because it is written in such a way as to explain the prerequisites for the principles of its theory in a seamless fashion that the intelligent layman can pick up on the fly and immediately apply to real life.
I note that the K mores and psychology mirror the “law of human nature” as C.S. Lewis calls it in Mere Christianity where he describes how we have an innate sense of a standard of behavior that we expect others to also have. And he also remarks how, on the whole, all human societies are more similar to each other than they are different, especially from the moral perspective. AC indirectly draws this comparison too when he says that K is inherently virtuous and God does not want to look at globs of grey goo.
In conclusion, this work is a modern classic. Every conservative should own a physical copy to pass down the generations as bequeathed wisdom.
Pairs well with The Culture of Critique.
Typos (3rd Ed.):
Page 122 line 4: *Liberals
Page 122 line 7: *Liberals
Page 122 line 9: *assess threats
Page 131 line 1: *reader’s
Page 139 line 20: *track
Page 229 line 1: *never
Other works of this ambition are deductive, such as Spengler’s Decline of the West. They gather data and attempt to discern the underlying causes. AC’s work however is inductive. It provides a mechanism which can then be applied to explain a multitude of situations. For deductive works to attain the rank of genius, it invariably takes the onerous labor of a beast of burden. But for inductive works such as this and Nassim Taleb’s Antifragile, it takes simplicity--elegant simplicity.
Some other works catch a glimpse at AC’s insight, such as Edward Dutton’s theory of spiteful mutants or Sir John Glubb’s eminent The Fate of Empires, but they never quite hit the nail on the head by providing a holistic context coupled with a mechanistic explanation.
Indeed the beauty of a mechanistic explanation is that it works sans context. Like a key that opens many doors, after understanding this theory you won’t be able to avoid seeing r/K everywhere you look. It will provide a direct perspective to almost any social issue you may encounter in life.
The fact that the liberal psychology is designed to exploit a glut of resources directly goes to explain his range of seemingly contradictory behaviors. It is his paramount advantage and directive to maximize his fertility, so that his genes can absorb the glut. Which then means it is his advantage to be anti-competitive. Behaviors which then beget the liberal’s despicable traits of treachery, mendacity, incompetence, vulgarity, unrefinement. It is such a self-evident explanation, that one can only wonder how none of us have realized it before now.
You will get to examine the theoretical causal links in belabored redundancy as AC repeatedly re-explains the basic tenets of the theory to show how it applies to various contexts, while simultaneously being too vague and not delving into the deeper nuances of the theory’s implications (perhaps in a sequel?). As I have noticed from reading other reviews, the ambiguity can confuse some readers, causing them to misinterpret what AC is saying, or be unable to follow the big leaps in reasoning.
AC notes that he intends to spread his theory far and wide into cultural hegemony and therefore in this case it is fair criticism to say the book fails in its objective by not catering to the lower standard deviations. Perhaps the redundancy of the substance is not padding, but surreptitiously serves this aim. The book is not without feats of prose however because it is written in such a way as to explain the prerequisites for the principles of its theory in a seamless fashion that the intelligent layman can pick up on the fly and immediately apply to real life.
I note that the K mores and psychology mirror the “law of human nature” as C.S. Lewis calls it in Mere Christianity where he describes how we have an innate sense of a standard of behavior that we expect others to also have. And he also remarks how, on the whole, all human societies are more similar to each other than they are different, especially from the moral perspective. AC indirectly draws this comparison too when he says that K is inherently virtuous and God does not want to look at globs of grey goo.
In conclusion, this work is a modern classic. Every conservative should own a physical copy to pass down the generations as bequeathed wisdom.
Pairs well with The Culture of Critique.
Typos (3rd Ed.):
Page 122 line 4: *Liberals
Page 122 line 7: *Liberals
Page 122 line 9: *assess threats
Page 131 line 1: *reader’s
Page 139 line 20: *track
Page 229 line 1: *never
November 4, 2014
Intriguing
a fascinating book. I was previously unaware of r/K Theory. I don't have the background to judge if the author gets the science right, but if he does, it is "a key that opens many doors" as another reviewer said.
There is a lot of food for thought here. I think there are some instances where the author speculates a bit to much, or stretches to make a connection. But those are much fewer than the "aha" moments. I think that the developing science of the neurological and physical basis of consciousness will shed more light on this.
If this theory is correct, the implications for human society are profound. My one problem is that this seems to be an analysis mostly of the current and recent American political environment. There are some attempts to apply the theory to the past, but without physical evidence like DNA or amygdala, it seems more like conjecture than anything else. And I wish I knew more about other societies and their history, to determine if/how this theory could be applied to them.
So, read it, and have your friends read it, and then discuss.
The one thing that was off putting was the (admittedly popular) view of evolution as being synonymous with advancement or increasing complexity, a rise from inferior to superior. But sometimes the best adaptation is in the direction of simplicity; this is still evolution. It grated after a while. But then, the author is presumably K-selected, so this usage is not surprising.
This book is not written in a style to convince the r-selected, but it will light fires in the brains of the K-selected.
a fascinating book. I was previously unaware of r/K Theory. I don't have the background to judge if the author gets the science right, but if he does, it is "a key that opens many doors" as another reviewer said.
There is a lot of food for thought here. I think there are some instances where the author speculates a bit to much, or stretches to make a connection. But those are much fewer than the "aha" moments. I think that the developing science of the neurological and physical basis of consciousness will shed more light on this.
If this theory is correct, the implications for human society are profound. My one problem is that this seems to be an analysis mostly of the current and recent American political environment. There are some attempts to apply the theory to the past, but without physical evidence like DNA or amygdala, it seems more like conjecture than anything else. And I wish I knew more about other societies and their history, to determine if/how this theory could be applied to them.
So, read it, and have your friends read it, and then discuss.
The one thing that was off putting was the (admittedly popular) view of evolution as being synonymous with advancement or increasing complexity, a rise from inferior to superior. But sometimes the best adaptation is in the direction of simplicity; this is still evolution. It grated after a while. But then, the author is presumably K-selected, so this usage is not surprising.
This book is not written in a style to convince the r-selected, but it will light fires in the brains of the K-selected.
January 27, 2022
For the doubters: Yes, this theory is just one aspect of reality. It is inevitable that whatever topic one focuses on will be magnified by virtue of it being the subject of a book. Nonetheless, Anonymous Conservative has written a pioneering book on how one simple aspect of evolution can explain so much of history and politics.
For everyone else: This is possibly the greatest evolutionary detective story I have read, rivaling Rushton’s REB. I have not laughed so much in pure intellectual enjoyment at making connections and explaining history and politics through the strong foundation of biology. This is a truly great work by a man who has done vigorous individual research into biology, psychology, and neuroscience. I am so compelled by the book that I now see r-K strategy everywhere I look! My mind needs to cool down from its current furor, but I am sure I will be left with one of the greatest intellectual tools (r-K evolutionary strategy) to analyze modernity, politics, and history. Amen.
For everyone else: This is possibly the greatest evolutionary detective story I have read, rivaling Rushton’s REB. I have not laughed so much in pure intellectual enjoyment at making connections and explaining history and politics through the strong foundation of biology. This is a truly great work by a man who has done vigorous individual research into biology, psychology, and neuroscience. I am so compelled by the book that I now see r-K strategy everywhere I look! My mind needs to cool down from its current furor, but I am sure I will be left with one of the greatest intellectual tools (r-K evolutionary strategy) to analyze modernity, politics, and history. Amen.
January 11, 2020
***1/4
Insightful and insipid, this book is a mixed bag. Fifty pages too long and in need of copy/editing, the arguments in the first half are brilliant, but the thesis of the book is vitiated when the author non sequituriously concludes against his own evidence and arguments in favor of some kind of Libertarianism; in so doing he displays a fine example of the bias he decries (in this case, a dogmatic adherence to individual 'freedom') in others.
Also, the author should be made aware that individual freedom and in-group loyalty are antonyms.
Insightful and insipid, this book is a mixed bag. Fifty pages too long and in need of copy/editing, the arguments in the first half are brilliant, but the thesis of the book is vitiated when the author non sequituriously concludes against his own evidence and arguments in favor of some kind of Libertarianism; in so doing he displays a fine example of the bias he decries (in this case, a dogmatic adherence to individual 'freedom') in others.
Also, the author should be made aware that individual freedom and in-group loyalty are antonyms.
August 17, 2018
The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics:
How Conservatism and Liberalism Evolved Within Humans (Third Edition)
Anonymous Conservative,
Federalist Publications, Macclenny, Florida, 246 pages, May 2017
Introduction
Anonymous Conservative takes the two wings of American politics on a soaring flight of fancy. By taking off from a (what I believe is a very wobbly presuppositional) platform (derived from something he names as “r/K Selection Theory”), Anonymous Conservative supplies and applies a bird’s eye “goo to you” view of Natural Selection to the landscape of current American politics. Republicans are wolves, i.e., “K Selection” and the “r Selection” are akin to rabbits a.k.a. as the Democrats. Apparently the psychology of these two named animals manifests itself in the predictable behaviour of the Conservative GOP and the Liberal Dems.
Thesis
The thesis of the book is: “No individual can truly understand the intellectual battles that occur between ideologies without understanding the study of r/K Selection Theory within Evolutionary Biology.” (p. 19). Therefore, according to Anonymous Conservative one must presuppose Evolutionary Biology. However, the trouble with “goo to you” or “molecules to man” Darwinianism is that it is so hard to prove and must therefore be accepted by faith. Thus Anonymous Conservative presupposes that the book’s audience will share with him the same set of Evolutionary presuppositions. Otherwise they will not “truly understand the intellectual battles” between the Left and the Right. “Put most simply, our two main political ideologies are merely intellectual outgrowths of the two main reproductive strategies that have been described in the field of Evolutionary Biology for decades.” (p.2)
So there you have it, all the bickering between the Blues and the Reds is over reproduction. Understand the “birds and the bees” or in this case the “wolves and rabbits” and you will have figured out how an individual can vote Republican or Democrat!
As a stopped clock tells the correct time twice a day there is no doubt that certain human traits may be analogous to those observed in the animal kingdom. However, we can thank God that the American Founders were not Evolutionists, but were for the most part Trinitarian. Otherwise we would have had a completely differently worded Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. Indeed, there probably would have been no American Revolution!
Being Trinitarian the Founders therefore believed that humanity was created by and in the image of the Triune God on the sixth day of Creation when He formed Adam from the dust of the earth and then his wife, Eve, from one of his ribs. Therefore, though now fallen, each individual human being is the image and likeness of the God who made us. We are not animals. The Founders believed that we, though fallen, still are the image of God and therefore are morally responsible human beings (free moral agents) which, unlike animals, will be judged as individuals by God on Judgment Day. Any likeness we share with any animals is due to the fact that the Lord God made us all.
It may appeal to Evolutionists, but this (ex-Marxist but now) Conservative reviewer doesn’t recommend this book. It’s too much like Jonah swallowing a whale! However, having said that, I did find some of the material contained therein fascinating. Who knew there was such a thing as a cross-dressing cuttlefish!
A Better Way
Anyway, for the record I believe that Anonymous Conservative is simply dealing with the reflection of the Trinity as it applies to American Politics. Here’s a very brief take on the Christian position:
God is Three in One. He is the original One and Many, Unity in Diversity. Whereas the Republican focusses on the one, i.e., the rights of the individual, the Democrat seeks the wellbeing of the many, the collective. (The secret is to hold both in balanced tension.)
The Founders, influenced by the teachings of the Bible in general, but in particular by Israel as a republic (whose Ruler was God, i.e., before Israel rebelled and wanted a king to rule over them), sought to keep the one and the many aspect of America in equal tension by viewing the one and the many “problem” as that of the somewhat paradoxical idea of equal ultimacy, wherein the one does not lord it over the many or the many over the one.
The E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one) and the “One nation under God” motifs summarize the Founders’ intent. The rights of the individual are always viewed in the context of the rights of the many and vice versa. Whenever this balance is lost political polarization will occur.
John Adams, the second President of the United States, wanted to maintain political balance. Referring to that which constitutes the United States as a nation (and not the 1787 Constitution itself), says Adams, “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” – John Adams, Letter to Jonathan Jackson (2 October 1780), "The Works of John Adams", vol 9, p.511.
Thomas Jefferson, however, believed that a two-party system would be healthy. Jefferson wrote, “In every free and deliberating society, there must, from the nature of man, be opposite parties, and violent dissensions and discords; and one of these, for the most part, must prevail over the other for a longer or shorter time.” – Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798. ME 10:45.
Jefferson, at a later time, did go on to say, “Both of our political parties, at least the honest portion of them, agree conscientiously in the same object: the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. One side believes it best done by one composition of the governing powers, the other by a different one. One fears most the ignorance of the people; the other the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove. We think that one side of this experiment has been long enough tried and proved not to promote the good of the many, and that the other has not been fairly and sufficiently tried. Our opponents think the reverse. With whichever opinion the body of the nation concurs, that must prevail.” – Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:52.
Conclusion
We must deal with what we have today – political polarization. The solution is not in understanding Darwin’s Theory of Evolution or Neo-Darwinianism. The answer is in getting back to the original intent of America’s Founders, which is a Democratic Republic based on the clear teachings of the Bible. This would be to honour God and His Gospel.
Let’s allow Anonymous Conservative the final word to illustrate political tension: “Up until now, it has been assumed that most humans are exactly the same. As a result, the political argument was based on logic and reason. Conservatives believed that all men wished to be free to plot their own destiny, while liberals believed that all men wished to be protected from the angers of other free men. One believed everyone wanted to be protected from government, the other that all people sought to be protected by government. If this theory is correct (and it almost certainly is, given the scale of the evidence), then some element of our society is always going to be unhappy with how their government is structured. Bipartisanship is a myth.” (p. 242)
The equal ultimacy of the Trinity, i.e., the God of the Bible, revealed as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, one God but three Persons, needs to be deeply studied. For therein lies the answer to politics. Find rest, peace in Him.
How Conservatism and Liberalism Evolved Within Humans (Third Edition)
Anonymous Conservative,
Federalist Publications, Macclenny, Florida, 246 pages, May 2017
Introduction
Anonymous Conservative takes the two wings of American politics on a soaring flight of fancy. By taking off from a (what I believe is a very wobbly presuppositional) platform (derived from something he names as “r/K Selection Theory”), Anonymous Conservative supplies and applies a bird’s eye “goo to you” view of Natural Selection to the landscape of current American politics. Republicans are wolves, i.e., “K Selection” and the “r Selection” are akin to rabbits a.k.a. as the Democrats. Apparently the psychology of these two named animals manifests itself in the predictable behaviour of the Conservative GOP and the Liberal Dems.
Thesis
The thesis of the book is: “No individual can truly understand the intellectual battles that occur between ideologies without understanding the study of r/K Selection Theory within Evolutionary Biology.” (p. 19). Therefore, according to Anonymous Conservative one must presuppose Evolutionary Biology. However, the trouble with “goo to you” or “molecules to man” Darwinianism is that it is so hard to prove and must therefore be accepted by faith. Thus Anonymous Conservative presupposes that the book’s audience will share with him the same set of Evolutionary presuppositions. Otherwise they will not “truly understand the intellectual battles” between the Left and the Right. “Put most simply, our two main political ideologies are merely intellectual outgrowths of the two main reproductive strategies that have been described in the field of Evolutionary Biology for decades.” (p.2)
So there you have it, all the bickering between the Blues and the Reds is over reproduction. Understand the “birds and the bees” or in this case the “wolves and rabbits” and you will have figured out how an individual can vote Republican or Democrat!
As a stopped clock tells the correct time twice a day there is no doubt that certain human traits may be analogous to those observed in the animal kingdom. However, we can thank God that the American Founders were not Evolutionists, but were for the most part Trinitarian. Otherwise we would have had a completely differently worded Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. Indeed, there probably would have been no American Revolution!
Being Trinitarian the Founders therefore believed that humanity was created by and in the image of the Triune God on the sixth day of Creation when He formed Adam from the dust of the earth and then his wife, Eve, from one of his ribs. Therefore, though now fallen, each individual human being is the image and likeness of the God who made us. We are not animals. The Founders believed that we, though fallen, still are the image of God and therefore are morally responsible human beings (free moral agents) which, unlike animals, will be judged as individuals by God on Judgment Day. Any likeness we share with any animals is due to the fact that the Lord God made us all.
It may appeal to Evolutionists, but this (ex-Marxist but now) Conservative reviewer doesn’t recommend this book. It’s too much like Jonah swallowing a whale! However, having said that, I did find some of the material contained therein fascinating. Who knew there was such a thing as a cross-dressing cuttlefish!
A Better Way
Anyway, for the record I believe that Anonymous Conservative is simply dealing with the reflection of the Trinity as it applies to American Politics. Here’s a very brief take on the Christian position:
God is Three in One. He is the original One and Many, Unity in Diversity. Whereas the Republican focusses on the one, i.e., the rights of the individual, the Democrat seeks the wellbeing of the many, the collective. (The secret is to hold both in balanced tension.)
The Founders, influenced by the teachings of the Bible in general, but in particular by Israel as a republic (whose Ruler was God, i.e., before Israel rebelled and wanted a king to rule over them), sought to keep the one and the many aspect of America in equal tension by viewing the one and the many “problem” as that of the somewhat paradoxical idea of equal ultimacy, wherein the one does not lord it over the many or the many over the one.
The E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one) and the “One nation under God” motifs summarize the Founders’ intent. The rights of the individual are always viewed in the context of the rights of the many and vice versa. Whenever this balance is lost political polarization will occur.
John Adams, the second President of the United States, wanted to maintain political balance. Referring to that which constitutes the United States as a nation (and not the 1787 Constitution itself), says Adams, “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” – John Adams, Letter to Jonathan Jackson (2 October 1780), "The Works of John Adams", vol 9, p.511.
Thomas Jefferson, however, believed that a two-party system would be healthy. Jefferson wrote, “In every free and deliberating society, there must, from the nature of man, be opposite parties, and violent dissensions and discords; and one of these, for the most part, must prevail over the other for a longer or shorter time.” – Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798. ME 10:45.
Jefferson, at a later time, did go on to say, “Both of our political parties, at least the honest portion of them, agree conscientiously in the same object: the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. One side believes it best done by one composition of the governing powers, the other by a different one. One fears most the ignorance of the people; the other the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove. We think that one side of this experiment has been long enough tried and proved not to promote the good of the many, and that the other has not been fairly and sufficiently tried. Our opponents think the reverse. With whichever opinion the body of the nation concurs, that must prevail.” – Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:52.
Conclusion
We must deal with what we have today – political polarization. The solution is not in understanding Darwin’s Theory of Evolution or Neo-Darwinianism. The answer is in getting back to the original intent of America’s Founders, which is a Democratic Republic based on the clear teachings of the Bible. This would be to honour God and His Gospel.
Let’s allow Anonymous Conservative the final word to illustrate political tension: “Up until now, it has been assumed that most humans are exactly the same. As a result, the political argument was based on logic and reason. Conservatives believed that all men wished to be free to plot their own destiny, while liberals believed that all men wished to be protected from the angers of other free men. One believed everyone wanted to be protected from government, the other that all people sought to be protected by government. If this theory is correct (and it almost certainly is, given the scale of the evidence), then some element of our society is always going to be unhappy with how their government is structured. Bipartisanship is a myth.” (p. 242)
The equal ultimacy of the Trinity, i.e., the God of the Bible, revealed as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, one God but three Persons, needs to be deeply studied. For therein lies the answer to politics. Find rest, peace in Him.
February 10, 2019
Reading this book, I remember thinking "wow, I haven't been this mindblown in years". This is a book for rightwingers, and it's a must-read for anyone who endeavors to understand what the hell is wrong with people on the left.
The one potential negative about this book, is that it is written in very formal English. English is not my first language, and in almost every paragraph there was some word I had to look up in the dictionary.
Kinda frustrating at length, but you gotta learn, right?
An absolutely mindblowing book detailing how political ideology to a great extent is genetic. Well worth the read.
5 stars.
The one potential negative about this book, is that it is written in very formal English. English is not my first language, and in almost every paragraph there was some word I had to look up in the dictionary.
Kinda frustrating at length, but you gotta learn, right?
An absolutely mindblowing book detailing how political ideology to a great extent is genetic. Well worth the read.
5 stars.
March 24, 2024
If you're interested in the science behind political ideology, this book is for you. The r/k selection theory is a revolutionary idea.(Not being hyperbolic, btw)
October 1, 2023
Every once in a while, a book comes along that presents a theory so intriguing it changes how I think. The theory might be utter bullshit, or it may hold a kernel of truth, or it may be the start of a new paradigm altogether; I'm not quite sure. This is one of those books.
The premise is that prey (r) and predators (K) have developed unique survival strategies for different environments. These strategies have, through evolutionary pressures (i.e., "survival of the fittest"), become encoded in all animal DNA. Further, because humans have (at different times and in different environments) been both prey AND predator, we have developed the traits of both, giving us the ability to adapt and survive in diverse and changing environments. These two survival blueprints, depending how strongly they are expressed in individuals, influence our political affiliations.
Basically, the two strategies are these: Prey avoid conflict, are sexually promiscuous, and do not form strong group bonds. Predators, on the other hand, embrace competition, are monogamous, and show extreme loyalty to their family or pack.
As long as the discussion was limited to prey and predator in the animal kingdom, the theory explains behavior in simple and straightforward terms that make a lot of sense (although too many exceptions mar the theory: most feline predators, for example, are solitary, not pack, animals). Once humans enter the picture, however, the author discards any attempt at objectivity. The "norm" for humans becomes K-related behavior, while r-related behavior is denigrated as aberrant. But if both are survival strategies, then neither is normal or abnormal; the strategy selected will depend on the current environment and one's ability to adapt to that environment.
Once the author decides that rs cause all the misery in the world, he stops at nothing to "prove" it, even if he has to contradict himself to do it. Some examples:
1. After stating that virtually all migrants flee to new environments explicitly to avoid conflict and confrontation in their homeland, the author declares that they are not fleeing at all but are being "imported" by leftists: "Whenever leftist r strategists become obsessed with importing the foreign, the foreigners they want to import invariably are of one kind—they are the violent foreigners who kill, and who often are imported despite a known hostility to the r strategist’s nation and its people." Noticeably missing is any clarification about how leftists are able to differentiate between violent and nonviolent refugees and convince just the violent ones to immigrate.
2. Some ultra-conservative Mormons have adopted the uber-r strategy of procreating as often and as fast as they can. Some of the more extreme Mormons even condone polygamy, an unmistakable r strategy that promotes the use of multiple underage sexual partners to increase the number and frequency of offspring. Conveniently, Mormons are never mentioned in the text, so we will never learn why such conservative K types follow the r strategy of "mating as often as possible, with as many different mates as possible, beginning as early as possible in life" instead of the typical K strategy of fewer children later in life.
3. "... r psychology is primarily an adaptation to the presence of copious resources, which do not require out-competing peers. By contrast, the K psychology is an adaptation to a relative scarcity of resources, where only the fittest compete and survive." So of course it follows that children abandoned by their fathers and raised by single mothers almost invariably grow up to be liberal rs. Wait, what? A child who must compete with multiple siblings for attention, food, and other insufficient resources from an impoverished single mother grows up in an environment with "copious resources"?
4. After more than a hundred pages of proclaiming that rs are not only non-competitive but distinctly anti-competitive, the author turns around and says, "Thus both the r- and K-type psychologies will prove competitive." This is to prepare you for:
5. Nazism (you knew there had to be Nazis, right?) was NOT an authoritarian right-wing phenomenon perpetrated by conservative, militaristic fanatics who murdered six million people in a racist attempt to rid the world of anyone unlike them. No, it was actually liberals who deceived those trusting, unsuspecting Nazis in a devious ploy to confiscate the victims' wealth and other resources. Liberals caused the Holocaust by proxy without ever getting their own hands dirty. Don't believe me? Listen to this: "Wealthy Jews stood little chance once the r strategists succeeded in portraying them as a cheating out-group, and turned the K strategists upon them."
I will leave you with this quote, which advises Ks how to treat rs in order to convert them from their evil ways and make the world a better place: "When they demand politeness, apply rudeness. When they demand you cede ground, take even more, and ridicule them in the process. Every time they try to oppress socially, stimulate their amygdala and teach their brain to pursue another path. Understand that when they are at their most agitated and agonized, their amygdala is developing. Understand, what you are doing to them is good for them."
The premise is that prey (r) and predators (K) have developed unique survival strategies for different environments. These strategies have, through evolutionary pressures (i.e., "survival of the fittest"), become encoded in all animal DNA. Further, because humans have (at different times and in different environments) been both prey AND predator, we have developed the traits of both, giving us the ability to adapt and survive in diverse and changing environments. These two survival blueprints, depending how strongly they are expressed in individuals, influence our political affiliations.
Basically, the two strategies are these: Prey avoid conflict, are sexually promiscuous, and do not form strong group bonds. Predators, on the other hand, embrace competition, are monogamous, and show extreme loyalty to their family or pack.
As long as the discussion was limited to prey and predator in the animal kingdom, the theory explains behavior in simple and straightforward terms that make a lot of sense (although too many exceptions mar the theory: most feline predators, for example, are solitary, not pack, animals). Once humans enter the picture, however, the author discards any attempt at objectivity. The "norm" for humans becomes K-related behavior, while r-related behavior is denigrated as aberrant. But if both are survival strategies, then neither is normal or abnormal; the strategy selected will depend on the current environment and one's ability to adapt to that environment.
Once the author decides that rs cause all the misery in the world, he stops at nothing to "prove" it, even if he has to contradict himself to do it. Some examples:
1. After stating that virtually all migrants flee to new environments explicitly to avoid conflict and confrontation in their homeland, the author declares that they are not fleeing at all but are being "imported" by leftists: "Whenever leftist r strategists become obsessed with importing the foreign, the foreigners they want to import invariably are of one kind—they are the violent foreigners who kill, and who often are imported despite a known hostility to the r strategist’s nation and its people." Noticeably missing is any clarification about how leftists are able to differentiate between violent and nonviolent refugees and convince just the violent ones to immigrate.
2. Some ultra-conservative Mormons have adopted the uber-r strategy of procreating as often and as fast as they can. Some of the more extreme Mormons even condone polygamy, an unmistakable r strategy that promotes the use of multiple underage sexual partners to increase the number and frequency of offspring. Conveniently, Mormons are never mentioned in the text, so we will never learn why such conservative K types follow the r strategy of "mating as often as possible, with as many different mates as possible, beginning as early as possible in life" instead of the typical K strategy of fewer children later in life.
3. "... r psychology is primarily an adaptation to the presence of copious resources, which do not require out-competing peers. By contrast, the K psychology is an adaptation to a relative scarcity of resources, where only the fittest compete and survive." So of course it follows that children abandoned by their fathers and raised by single mothers almost invariably grow up to be liberal rs. Wait, what? A child who must compete with multiple siblings for attention, food, and other insufficient resources from an impoverished single mother grows up in an environment with "copious resources"?
4. After more than a hundred pages of proclaiming that rs are not only non-competitive but distinctly anti-competitive, the author turns around and says, "Thus both the r- and K-type psychologies will prove competitive." This is to prepare you for:
5. Nazism (you knew there had to be Nazis, right?) was NOT an authoritarian right-wing phenomenon perpetrated by conservative, militaristic fanatics who murdered six million people in a racist attempt to rid the world of anyone unlike them. No, it was actually liberals who deceived those trusting, unsuspecting Nazis in a devious ploy to confiscate the victims' wealth and other resources. Liberals caused the Holocaust by proxy without ever getting their own hands dirty. Don't believe me? Listen to this: "Wealthy Jews stood little chance once the r strategists succeeded in portraying them as a cheating out-group, and turned the K strategists upon them."
I will leave you with this quote, which advises Ks how to treat rs in order to convert them from their evil ways and make the world a better place: "When they demand politeness, apply rudeness. When they demand you cede ground, take even more, and ridicule them in the process. Every time they try to oppress socially, stimulate their amygdala and teach their brain to pursue another path. Understand that when they are at their most agitated and agonized, their amygdala is developing. Understand, what you are doing to them is good for them."
October 25, 2020
Politics Religion and Morailty for Dummies
A clear explanation of why socialism amd capitalism exist. Why religion exists . Why morality exists. The controlling gene is discussed and how environment and viruses affe t it. The book is overwhelmingly referenced making the argument indisputable. This book demonstrates that the science is absolutely settled. A must read for any person cannot understand why people can have such strongly held polar opposite truths.
A clear explanation of why socialism amd capitalism exist. Why religion exists . Why morality exists. The controlling gene is discussed and how environment and viruses affe t it. The book is overwhelmingly referenced making the argument indisputable. This book demonstrates that the science is absolutely settled. A must read for any person cannot understand why people can have such strongly held polar opposite truths.
May 23, 2020
Quite a striking book that offers readers a highly useful and original lens to think about political ideology.
The work is imperfect, I'm not sure I agree with everything in it, and perhaps it would be best to think of this book as a useful first step requiring a lot more discussion and development. And yet it contains a genuinely insightful collection of ideas.
The work is imperfect, I'm not sure I agree with everything in it, and perhaps it would be best to think of this book as a useful first step requiring a lot more discussion and development. And yet it contains a genuinely insightful collection of ideas.
April 15, 2023
A clear, but amazingly comprehensive explanation of the observable social order. Given what has transpired since it was written, it would appear r/K selection theory has a great predictive quality.
August 13, 2022
"Callousness and Unemotional traits (CU traits) are an important core feature of the psychopath. These traits entail a lack of empathy, and are correlate with diminished amygdala functioning in functional neuroimaging tests. If one accepts previous evidence that the amygdala is required to “flag” the signals of emotions in other people, those with deficient amygdala function likely find themselves simply unable to discern subtle emotional cues indicating distress in peers. Other research shows that reduced amygdala responsiveness underlies the reduced cooperation seen in psychopathy."
It took me a while.
Scary!
I've faced problems with choosing the proper shelves! Is it psychology, or genetics, or rather anthropology? I know, I know there is a psychology in title, but, still felt that psychology will not cover scientific findings this book is placing reliance on. Final decision was to render it into Neuroscience.
Since it's tightly related to politics, some will claim, I want to say only that liberals should read this book, to learn about basics of their mindset, while conservatives must read to understand why liberals act as they do.
It took me a while.
Scary!
I've faced problems with choosing the proper shelves! Is it psychology, or genetics, or rather anthropology? I know, I know there is a psychology in title, but, still felt that psychology will not cover scientific findings this book is placing reliance on. Final decision was to render it into Neuroscience.
Since it's tightly related to politics, some will claim, I want to say only that liberals should read this book, to learn about basics of their mindset, while conservatives must read to understand why liberals act as they do.
March 11, 2016
I want to just put holy shit over and over till I reach character limit.
This study explains how people and groups react and what motivates their psychology. The urges which motivate these behaviors are not conscious but they are not accidental either.
The findings are shocking and easily overwhelming. Taken as a filter it can be laid over anytime to explain history. This very powerful discovery on evolution man does not attempt to take a stance on metaphysics but follows the spiritual belief of a clockwork universe and how evolution prefers to turn the gears.
this is the matrix.
This study explains how people and groups react and what motivates their psychology. The urges which motivate these behaviors are not conscious but they are not accidental either.
The findings are shocking and easily overwhelming. Taken as a filter it can be laid over anytime to explain history. This very powerful discovery on evolution man does not attempt to take a stance on metaphysics but follows the spiritual belief of a clockwork universe and how evolution prefers to turn the gears.
this is the matrix.
April 24, 2016
Great points on the two major parties
The author argues that liberals are selected for a trait called r. This trait sees abundance of resources. Another trait, called K, is found in conservatives. This K-trait finds scarcity if resources. It so happens that these two traits chose our political natures. I wonder where Libertarians, who tend to be socially liberal but fiscally conservative, fall.
The author argues that liberals are selected for a trait called r. This trait sees abundance of resources. Another trait, called K, is found in conservatives. This K-trait finds scarcity if resources. It so happens that these two traits chose our political natures. I wonder where Libertarians, who tend to be socially liberal but fiscally conservative, fall.
September 30, 2016
This whole thing made sense after you read it. It's a strong well-supported theory
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews