The phases are Crisis, High, Awakening, and Unraveling. Here, Crisis is r-psychologies confronted by the shortage of K-selection. This turmoil produces an adaptive shift in the population’s psychology towards a more K-selected, politically Conservative psychology. High is the environment of r-selected resource excess that is produced by a majority K-selected populace, living in an environment where these rewards are enjoyed by those who produce them. Awakening and Unraveling are just the leftists gradually increasing in number due to the r-selection, and fucking up a good thing until it all falls apart, and the Crisis returns.
There is one huge difference this time, and that is our use of public debt to increase resource availability and extend the period of r-selection. This has allowed for a slight increase in the population’s shift towards the r-psychology in this cycle, and lengthened the period of Unraveling. That all will increase the magnitude of the Crisis we will face. This would have been predictable, if you had viewed the increases in national debt which began around 1980 in the context of this work . The disturbing aspect of this is that when the collapse comes, the hardcore Left will be particularly loony, since their amygdalae have essentially no adaptation to a more free, competitive environment. Today, not having free government healthcare, and free cellphones is the same to them as being tossed into Lord of the Flies. When things get so bad that there is no food or housing, they will be capable of anything. The coming Crisis will be epic.
Anonymous Conservative
June 14, 2013
Strauss and Howe’s Generational Theory, in the Context of r/K Theory
[What the author of the post claims will happen is that as society collapses the liberal psychology (“r-selected” people) will be unable to handle it and non-liberals (“K-selected” people) will physically, environmentally, and evolutionarily dominate the situation and come out of the crisis far better than the liberals.
Ry and I were discussion something a bit tangential to this yesterday and what he said is valid. Paraphrasing, “We need to be careful reading this stuff because it matches what we believe and want to believe.”
Still, I have ordered the book and look forward to listening to it.—Joe]
“We need to be careful reading this stuff because it matches what we believe and want to believe.”
That idea should always be kept in mind. However, I think that there is more than enough historical evidence to back up A.C.’s basic premise. “r-selected”, “K-selected”, amygdalae and so on– What ever nuts-and-bolts explanation you want to use for the well-known cycle of “Slavery, awareness, liberation, prosperity, complacency, debt, inflation, anger, decline, finger-pointing and slavery again” it’s still there, staring us in the face from many past cycles.
The point is we need to be aware of it, because slaverly-all-over-again may or may not be an inevitible horror of mass destruction followed by a long Dark Age, depending on how we deal with it.
“We need to be careful reading this stuff because it matches what we believe and want to believe.”
Legions of people wanted to believe that Y2K would be a disaster on the scale of Sherman marching through Georgia, after which the worm would turn and the doers would have it all over the planners who cannot actually do anything.
We saw how that turned out.
I remember having a conversation with my parents about Y2K. Now mind you, this wasn’t me having to talk them out of a bunker in the backyard; they just wanted to know what risks there were, if any, and what we might do to avoid any issues.
I explained that I seriously doubted there would be anything more irksome than minor glitches. My advice was to keep receipts for the last couple of weeks of 1999, as well as hard copies of documents (bank statements, etc) for November and December, just in case.
Mom did ask me about the scaremongers spewing bullshit about ‘cars not working and clocks stopping’. I politely explained that a digital watch isn’t smart enough to actually know what time it is; it knows how to tick and tock. A car’s computer systems don’t know what time it is either; only that when signal X is applied, activate Y switch.
Much to my nonsurprise, the world failed to end in 2000. I remember reading about some minor hiccups in a couple banking institutions (which were quickly resolved, thanks to hardcopy documentation on hand). Some apocalypse; I wanted my money back.
You have to really love a website that manages to make liberalism and homosexuality genetic traits: http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/drd4-long-form-variant-7r-a-genetic-correlate-between-liberalism-and-homosexuality-the-extreme-r-hypothesis-of-homosexuality/
Um, Ubu?
Twin studies HAVE established a correlation between genetics and both liberalism and homosexuality. MUCH stronger for homosexuality than for “liberalism” (the correlation is, IIRC, quite weak — but measurable — for “liberalism”, on about par with other personality traits), which is why you can truthfully say most (I’m hesitant to say “all” for ANY aspect of human behavior, ESPECIALLY sexuality) homosexuals are “born that way”, whereas personality traits such as are commonly identified with “liberalism” are more malleable based on environment.
Note that correlation and causation are not the same — although there is VERY good weight of data to indicate that genetics DO play a causative role in sexual preference (so much that environment has little causative effect) and a TENDANCY towards certain personality traits (so weak that environment can override the tendancy with some regularity).
You have links to these studies?
Off the top of my head? No — I read a LOT of studies, on a variety of subjects, but I don’t carry them around in card catalog form.
I do recall the twin studies on sexual preference quite clearly, because it completely settled my mind as to whether homosexuality was merely a “choice” or an inborn trait — if genetically identical individuals, seperated at birth and raised in wholly different environments, have a marked tendancy to have the same sexual orientation (most apparant when examining it from the homosexual side, since they are the minority), it is fairly apparant that it isn’t a “choice”.
Heck, just Google “twin studies”, and you’ll start hitting behavioral studies on teh first page. Hell, the whole PURPOSE of twin studies is to explore questions like this.