/sunflower/ - Sunflower

>>2014

Only those who consider themselves dead aren't slaves. All others are fools merely pretending.

>>2014

I don't even pay taxes right now why the hell would I be paying taxes to anyone later?

>>2016

Because you don't control the material.

>>2017

Part of having religiosity and slave-like resistance to overwhelming odds (the japanese are consistent in their belief that you should do everything you can, no matter, what. Their culture portrays this often with great and heroic acts ultimately ending in nothing, just to prove the point that the ultimate consequence is actually inconsequential.), to wring out every ounce of opportunity and benefit one can.

If you want a slave-race, you don't want people like me. You want people who are agreeable, conscientious, extroverted, essentially most qualities that I don't have. I'd rather just fuck off in a cave and die.

>>2017

If you fail to make the connection, I'm saying caring about material reality isn't the end goal. What we consider the material is mental, mainly, peasants farming for eternity don't need to know how math works. They just have to keep morality in check, making sure they don't go lazy and start not farming and dying, killing other people over petty squabbles, listening to their parents and friends in order to actually do something cooperative. North western europeans, and to an extent nordics, are also optimized towards ideological rather than genetic tribe groups. This allows for rather strange groups of people that to any other race would look insane.

>"George, look at the state of that bloke who just walked in - unkempt hair, shabby clothes, shambling gait… OH HELLO PRIME MINISTER!"

< That kind of excentricity is actually quite typical of the upper class. Most of the posh manners are quite literally bourgeois, ie Middle Class. The upper class has a different often more rugged ideal, that which comes from mainly being concerned with life in the military and managing a manor. City life was a Middle Class thing.

>As John C. Wright likes to point out, there are three possible attitudes people can have toward the universe: they can believe the world is bigger than their mind can conceive, smaller than they can conceive, or the same size. I believe that the slave mindset is that the world is smaller than what their mind can conceive. In keeping with this belief, a slave will tend to tear things down in response to stress. The master’s mindset is, I think, the case where people believe that their theories are predictive of everything in the universe, and “God’s in heaven and all’s right with the world”. Their response to stress is to conserve the status quo and dismiss anything weird or amiss as strictly impossible (“the science is settled”). That leaves the free man’s mindset, which is the expansive and imaginary belief that “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” According to the pattern I’ve laid out, such a person responds to stress with creativity.

I could write out more posts but you don't comprehend a really basic and essential concept. Keep looking up skirts, you'll never find your answer in the external.

>>1987

Could you define your concept of romance ?

>>2020

You need to care about something external or else you just get solipsism by another name. Your statement "Only those who consider themselves dead aren't slaves. All others are fools merely pretending." is a strange type of cop out. You can value your life and still give it up for a cause you believe in, or just to spite someone. By not putting value in your life, you're just lusting after being immaterial. But you don't actually believe you're already dead. You just want to. Because that means the cave of your mind is the only thing that matters. You can go inside there and paint beautiful intricate pictures on the walls. Even use the light of the sun shining into the mouth of the cave to cast shadows on the wall and make them dance. This is a valid option. You could spend eternity like this. Do you want to ?

There's a middle ground between letting the external/material control you and not caring about it to the point that you're a ghost. It's called having a spine. You can work towards external goals and if things don't go your way and you lose, you don't need to prostrate yourself and beg for your life. You can spit on them and laugh while you're burning at the stake. I think deep down you're afraid that you'd roll over when threatened. So that's why you don't care about anything external to yourself. Someone can't make you accept imperfection if they don't have anything you care about to use as leverage.

>>2021

>You need to care about something external or else you just get solipsism by another name

Staying alive, morality, keeping your virtue. For humans, having children, keeping and creating your virtue.

>You can value your life and still give it up for a cause you believe in

Some people are scared of losing their life doing what they think is correct, I say this statement to make sure this kind of mistake doesn't happen.

>>2021

You might be under the assumption that I'm an ascetic, or wannabe ascetic, saying you should lay down your life towards the closest thing that shows any power over you. I say the opposite, it's only in realizing that you have control over your choices that you can live, and death isn't the worst thing that can happen to man.

>>2022

I won't tell others how to live, but humans should aim to protect their families and their loved ones. They should work hard to get the things they want, but never at the expense of their virtue. What you decide is your virtue is your own choice.

>>2021

>I think deep down you're afraid that you'd roll over when threatened

I at one point realized that deep down I was a coward who didn't want to meet adversity, maybe when I was 15. I've since then worked on proving that wrong, but proving something wrong doesn't make it go away. Once you meet with your fears enough you'll have to decide, at one point, what you are in relation to what you've done. This itself might be a mistake. I don't believe I'm a coward now, but there are things I'm unwilling to do no matter what pressure or salvation it might bring me. I did say I'd rather go to hell doing what I believe is right, than go to heaven in fear of being wrong.

>So that's why you don't care about anything external to yourself

>you don't need to prostrate yourself and beg for your life

I consider things external to myself to be valuable, but I don't post about those things there often since they're not related. The comment about prostrating myself is odd, there might be a misunderstanding somewhere. I don't know how to reply to that.

What do you see the dagger of benevolence as, if you want to answer. So far one guy has missed the mark to an extreme that I at times wonder if he's looking at the same thing, and another has a good grasp of the idea.

>>1933

>>2021

Although your mode of thinking has fit into the idea that one should give up immediately. Stop that. Don't give up.

>>2021

>Could you define your concept of romance ?

Epic Romance.

>>2029

>this is actual normalfag-level thinking

Maybe that's how the world is like, and ignoring it makes you a fool with no control.

>>2007

I see visual snow, but only when looking at this post. It's weird. I don't usually see snow, even when I'm in trance.

>>2031

Being in control over yourself and your own emotions is a good thing. The world can be whatever it's like, but it shouldn't control who you are. I need to readjust my thinking, what I do here isn't as important as I've made it up to be.

>>2021

>>2030

His concept of romance is precisely the opposite of actual romance. It's taking everything one does as being good, because you've done it, and being perfect, because you've done it. It's taking away all blame from oneself and placing it on others, as you could see here multiple times on this thread alone. It's very abusive. He will demean and insult you, without any basis in truth, if it would make him feel better about himself. Even here >>2040 he tries his best to crawl and slither away from taking any blame, and tells others to stop doing things that he himself does.

>>2026

I see it as an elaboration of the problem I have with christianity. There's no us and them divide. I don't think the kind of thing it represents is bad, within the right context. I just see it being universal as some kind of perversion.

>Staying alive, morality, keeping your virtue. For humans, having children, keeping and creating your virtue.

>I'm not going to engage in materialistic thinking. The things in this life will pass.

So what about multiple generations down the line ? I could be mis reading this but these statements seem to loosely imply that you don't particularly care about the condition your children and children's children find themselves in. Just as long as they live a virtuous life and bear children, it's all good. How is this not slave morality ? The thing that made me engage in "materialist thinking" was worrying about the kind of life my grandchildren might have and things I could do to make sure they have the best possible one. That made me worry about power and influence. Not just being virtuous. Being virtuous doesn't guarantee anything. Neither does being correct. Only power does.

>Spitting on the face of your enemies, and smiling even in death, what circumstances lead to this?

Having an external goal. I see your goals as mainly internal ones. Being willing to fight to the death for something is different than just being willing to accept death.

>Although your mode of thinking has fit into the idea that one should give up immediately. Stop that. Don't give up.

You're kind of close to the mark. I think it's hopeless. But I don't really care that it's hopeless. It's better to die on your feet, in good company, fighting for something you believe in than it is to slink away and accept things can never be the way you think they should. Metaphorically speaking of course.

>>2045

>There's no us and them divide

There is some. If you don't want to do something, and don't want to deal with someone, then you leave. I don't believe it should be universal, because not everyone can actually fit that standard. Not all humans can, at least.

>So what about multiple generations down the line

Keep in mind I believe cultivation and caring about this world are two different things. Wordly wisdom can improve this world, but they're not ways to escape it.

>Being virtuous doesn't guarantee anything. Neither does being correct. Only power does.

If everyone thought this way, nothing good would actually come. Everyone will be trying to compete with each other, and no one will actually cooperate. Having a respect for people, and expecting things to be done in a certain way even when you're not around and not enforcing it, having power to back it up in the case that the people you're interacting with are thugs in disguise, this is mostly a deal with wordly things. If you want to deal with that, I have different opinions and less "mystical" or slave-like systems and ideologies to deal with it. I'm not concerned with that, I genuinely do believe that being virtuous will bring me good things if not now, then later. I'm also highly neurotic, and I hate being wrong more than I like being alive or like comfort.

>fighting for something you believe in than it is to slink away and accept things can never be the way you think they should

Figure out your fights, sometimes, like here, fighting and caring too much really doesn't matter.

I know what failing to cultivate and reach consummation will mean. I don't know if I fit the standards outlined by any religion, by any faith, by any decree, by any rule, by any idea or reality of how the universe functions. But at the end, I truly do want to be something close to a good person.

>>1630

I placed my conception of the world/the universe/whatever on the table. One thing to note, your view of the universe is entirely personal. This applies to everyone. There are different things related in your body that can view the universe, but in general your view of the universe is highly related to your own physical and mental circumstances.

Since each level has 1-9 levels within it, this isn't the full view. It's only 1-7D. Within just the numerical counting, 1 would be 0D, and 8D 9.

I also wanted to comment that >>480 works off of dialectics. It's not the rejection of any law, since the focus is on the observance of the universe it's by it's nature something that affirms rather than denies it. So I wonder why one would have to commit these deeds in order to understand it. Most of my progress come from dealing with my attachments, and sometimes going deeper (the depth of comprehension) is required to go higher. You can't have either without the other, great heights logically have depth, depending on how one views it. Standing on top of a great tower, the ground is very far away.

>>2046

>Very materialistic thinking

>I'm not going to engage in materialistic thinking

>cultivation and caring about this world are two different things

Even if your goal is just cultivation, don't you still need to engage in some "materialist thinking" in order to operate effectively in the world ?

>Everyone will be trying to compete with each other, and no one will actually cooperate.

I don't think everyone should compete with each other, but groups should. I see making sure your group has power as a way to secure a good life for your family and a future for your descendants. I also feel personally responsible for whatever situation my descendants find themselves in.

>I genuinely do believe that being virtuous will bring me good things if not now, then later

More christian thinking. This relates back to my problem with benevolence. That type of thinking can work. But the trick is that it relies on everyone around you thinking the same way, either being christians, or in your case being virtuous. The good things are mostly just coming from the good people around you. Without a system in place to make sure only people who meet the standard are around you, it will eventually collapse because of free riders taking advantage of your virtue. Unless if by later, you mean after you're dead.

>I truly do want to be something close to a good person

How does being a good person even mean anything if you have no effect on the world ? Are you just a good person in your head ? What evidence of your goodness will be around after you're gone ?

>>2064

I believe in material reality but I don't particularly care about it. All of your statements are valid, except for the christian thinking part, and if you care about it then solve the issue yourself. I think some of your statements come from a misunderstanding of my position.

>>2065

It's quite possible I'm misunderstanding your position. I do try though.

>group selected people tend to also be more "benevolent" or "good"

There's a section in the selfish gene where dawkins talks about the evolutionary stability of some strategies. I think the terms he uses are something like retaliators, doves and hawks. One of the interesting points he brings up is that while a retaliatory tit-for-tat strategy can drive out hawks and bullies, it doesn't select against doves. Doves being people who don't punch back when punched. The more stable strategy, at least with the limited types of games being set up, is a combination of some minority of hawks/bullies and a population of doves. It's more stable over time than a population of people who punch back. The retaliators are good at eliminating aggressors and parasites, but not capable of making sure the population doesn't get a bunch of passive people. In this situation, even thought it's strange, there's a beneficial relationship between the predators and the prey. The passive people eliminate the "benevolent" by just being food for the predators. When it's all said and done, the passive doves are still around eighty percent of the population and they don't have "good" people to contend with. Both the predator and the prey win. This is why you can't just be good and benevolent. You need some inter and in group conflict. Otherwise the meek will inherit the earth. Cattle for creatures that are no longer warded off by the "good" and "benevolent".

>>2067

Wars and fights is something I've not really settled within my own head, mentally. On one hand, I wouldn't feel bad about killing someone who I really and truly dislike. On the other hand, I have to actually consider what my actions will bring. There's a dagger that some entity gave me that represents just taking hits and never caring, ever. It's on the table.

https://aeolipera.wordpress.com/2020/04/05/what-they-dont-teach-you-at-the-white-knight-academy/

Most of the population will and always will be idiots. It's best to tell idiots that they shouldn't do or harm anything.

>Cattle for creatures that are no longer warded off by the "good" and "benevolent"

The meek shall inherit the earth simply meant people who are willing to follow orders, or God's law, and God's law wasn't always pretty. I believe I've taken the stance that mass slaughter and killing isn't actually going to happen, so I've decided that the best strategy for the average person is to focus on their family, make a family, and work hard. The feeling of resentment and unfairness isn't helpful towards this end. Knowing who to trust and not to trust is entirely reliant on your own abilities.

>>2067

I think the circumstances of how populations go through decline and incline is too complex for my mind to truly comprehend through rational and elaborate theories. In complex environments where there's too much information to process and sort through, it's best to either hyper-specialize and form groups of like-minded people, or simplify the strategy for something that works more than it doesn't. Simplifying the strategy towards things that any sub-100 IQ idiot can follow, but is still hyper-adaptive and works in the long term rather than the short term. The longer the span of time, the more it's adaptive to be altruistic. The shorter, the more reasonable it is to be narcissistic and psychopathic. It's obviously best to bring these two strategies, with those who focus on hyper specialized information gathering and creativity, and those who merely keep things going. Leaders and rulers require some level of narcissism (only a narcissist would want to rule over anyone and think they're correct, anyone with more of a brain doesn't want to take that kind of responsibility), and psychopaths are only good when paired with actual high IQ and not low-IQ moronic niggers.

Hyper-specialized phenotypes are essentially those with Asperger's, a drive towards creativity that allows them to solve problems they care about. Figuring out how to build a shelter, create houses, build even bigger structures, how to farm effectively, what's the most effective way to grow crops, how to handle yourself against others (or the lack of it). These things require hyper-specialized people who don't care about societal gains, not necessarily. Improvement is more likely to be a byproduct of their interests rather than a drive towards benefit. If you can imagine, these people are also very childish by nature. Not in the bullying childish, but childish in the sense of always holding onto that awe and wonder and finding and exploring new ideas and concepts.

I'm of the belief that these kinds of people, those who are worthwhile, can only come up under altruistic conditions. Otherwise, these people don't provide enough immediate benefit to the group. They'd probably be killed and eaten, hopefully in that order, than make it to adulthood, and if they do they wouldn't be able to function properly considering the kind of things they would've needed to deal with.

>>2069

You seem to follow this general trend of research. What do you think of dutton's high IQ/criminal personality model ? It's parsimonious in explaining why, despite having high IQ, asians don't innovate as much as europeans. It also fits in well with your theory of autism leading to creativity. There is some evidence that autism is in part due to higher testosterone levels. So IMO the real question is how do you get a high IQ cooperative population, without "self domestication" happening ?

Europeans are more sexually dimorphic than both asians and africans. Asians of both sexes are low testosterone, while africans of both sexes are high. You see low testosterone/dimorphism in k selected pair bonders. You see high testerone in both sexes of r selected animals. So where do you see sexual dimorphism along with intelligence ? You see it in k selected tournament species. This is where that kind of genius comes from, not just a loving environment. Men fighting men over pussy in a harsh, predictable environment. That is where the european developed what made them unique. Everything that comes after is a spandrel, relative to this. All these things that came after, like altruism, christianity, marriage, etc… They only provide a benefit in so far as they lash the destinies of people together, to allow group selection to take place. They do not however re create the initial selection regime that led to the positive traits that this group selection process later refined.

tl;dr We need to go FULL trad. Not just 1950s suburbia. Chucking spears n shit trad.

>>2070

>Men fighting men over pussy in a harsh, predictable environment

I think it's more likely that creativity will come up within a harsh and unpredictable environment, from a population that has historically been very K-selected rather than an r-selected one. Otherwise, it's not creativity that will be allow a person to survive, it's conformity within an already predictable and most likely understood environment, or being asian. Whites are an odd mix of r-selected traits and K selected traits, if we're to take a more idealistic approach just slap them right in the middle between yellows and blacks.

The older I get the more people like these make sense to me:

https://salo-forum.com/index.php?threads/comparative-cultural-traditions.5914/#post-59523

>>2070

Self-domestication, actual and true self-domestication, would be more beneficial than it would detrimental. As long as the disagreeable portion of genius is kept, regardless of neuroticism or what bent the genius is aimed towards, and the criminal aspect of constantly asking uncomfortable and dangerous questions isn't acted upon, it's fine. People with asperger's also tend to have strong moral beliefs, I believe this is just due to being able to differentiate ideas and thoughts from moral ones. Or, seeing the consequences for one's actions, like knowing that touching your hand on a hot stove is bad. Carry that same amygdala response to everything that provides pain, and that would be a good enough moral foundation.

I think.

>>2073

>creativity will come up within a harsh and unpredictable environment

It needs to be predictable. It can be hard to figure out, but it has to be something that the population can eventually wrap their heads around. Otherwise it's like saying that playing slot machines will teach someone game theory. The fact that europeans are the most sexually dimorphic suggests that the reason for their traits is tournament mating, of some kind. In my view of it, the mix of r and k traits comes down to this tournament style as a base and then overtime there was a selection for longer life history speeds. Your theory that creativity comes from k selected people in harsh environments, means that the chinese attempt to colonize africa will be a good thing. However they have modern innovations. I don't think taking the modern chinese and putting them into pre historic africa would lead to creativity.

>As long as the disagreeable portion of genius is kept

How is it kept ? A trait not selected for, is eventually going to go away. In my opinion, most of the traits associated with genius come from the pre group selected phase of europe, when we were more tribal.

Think of the gene pools as dice, with symbols on them. The right symbol combinations lead to a genius. Every generation, two dice get taken out of the bag and one random one, potentially with new symbols on it, gets put in. The bags capable of producing geniuses, or other wombo combos will do well. The person playing the game can't read any of the symbols. Some bags just do better. So those dice that make the good combos are not being selected for. Over time they will just get shuffled out. The person playing will wonder why their winning bag doesn't work anymore, but not understand the situation.

>>2075

>I don't think taking the modern chinese and putting them into pre historic africa would lead to creativity.

It would lead to chinese people being in Africa. I don't know what they'll do there, but some sort of civilization would most likely come up, and it would take probably somewhere around the range of thousands of years for that to go away/be selected against due to there not being any natural, and not artificial, selection for it. Even then Chinese civilization has lasted for 5,000 years, so they're doing something right even if they're not doing much of anything at all.

>Your theory that creativity comes from k selected people in harsh environments

K-selected people are a requirement due to them generally having a higher IQ and more altruistic tendencies. My idea is that there needs to be an unpredictable environment before there can be any necessity for actual creativity over incremental improvements. I also don't agree with dutton that agreeableness = altruism, I think it's more complicated than that. Nor do I agree that autism = lack of empathy, but this goes into argument over definitions.

>How is it kept

Hopefully it's selected for, by people. Asperger's is more genetic than "normal" autism but it's still in the gene pool regardless, this indicates that even despite it's massive sexual and social detriments it's still beneficial. I also don't believe in evolution in the traditional sense and hesitate to fully engage in it.

Africans aren't known for their geniuses so I'm not inclined to agree with the tribal idea. I also think the focus should be less on how geniuses are born and more on how to improve yourself now. Which is why I posted all those links about thinking and IQ.

>>2076

>Africans aren't known for their geniuses so I'm not inclined to agree with the tribal idea

This is an invitation for an elaboration of the tournament idea. I don't understand how that would produce sexual dimorphism, or why this isn't the case with other ethnicities. I know Scandanavians are the groups with the greatest sexual dimorphism of any humans, this includes IQ as well. Men on average having 3 IQ points over their women. I just assumed this was due to the fact that women don't need to engage in as much mental effort as men, and it's beneficial to just dumb them down.

>>2076

More important than any of that, the return to the "roots" via going back into tribalism isn't feasible. If it happens, that's fine, but the problem as I see it now is figuring out how to get people to live in a world of social isolation, through imageboards and other social platforms. Although that's revealing my own personal interests more than any sort of altruistic interests.

I suppose my thinking is flawed since it's easier to just dumb everyone down rather than have them improve themselves as a whole. Technology is frightening.

I placed my view of vampirism in the study room of the egregore. With that I'll be done with this, as in entirely. My posts make up almost 50% of this thread.

Read the Nine Commentaries to understand my problem with the BO. I believe his thinking is essentially Falun Dafa but reversed, since he found out he couldn't conform to the standards provided. Read Falun Dafa, and only study Falun Dafa exclusively if you are to do so, in order to gain something closer to enlightenment.

>>2079

>Read

I should say practice since Falun Dafa isn't a book. Zhuan Falun is the book. Whatever fits.

>>2077

> I don't know what they'll do there, but some sort of civilization would most likely come up

Not likely. The tropical diseases and parasites there mean that survival is random. In those situations, it's best to just have more children. Trying to plan and organize a society there isn't as efficient as offspring spam, or else that's what would have been done there.

>K-selected people having a higher IQ

There is no relationship between k and IQ. In fact, both woodly and dutton have research papers out there that show that the general trend of society right now is for IQ to go down and k to go up.

>Asperger's is more genetic than "normal" autism

There are studies out there that show that IQ expression is mediated by life history speed (r/k). People with high k who have higher IQ, specialize in knowing a few things well, not generalists. While those with faster life history speeds(r strategists) will be generalists. Most idiot savants are high k on personality tests. The increasing rate of autism in the population may be due to the increasing levels of k. The reason k going up is likely due to contraception separating sex from reproductive activity. So only those who want children, or are too stupid to use contraceptives, will have them. Higher IQ people with short life history strategies are being knocked out.

>This is an invitation for an elaboration of the tournament idea. I don't understand how that would produce sexual dimorphism

This lecture series is worth a watch if you have the time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA&list=PL848F2368C90DDC3D&index=1 . It does a better job than I could of getting this across, even though sapolsky is inclined toward sucky "guns germs and steel" style thinking at times.

I'll try to explain it in my own way though. In tournament species, like gorillas and lions. You have one male, or sometimes tiny group, mating with all the females. Male offspring from these prides are expected to go off and find a pride to take over, through force, or just be outsider omegas, until they can. When they take over a pride and kill the old patriarch, they go as far as killing(sometimes eating) any offspring born that could have been from the old patriarch, using gestation time as an indicator. So males in these species are heavily selected for being able to fight other males. Females are under no such selection. Sexual dimorphism. In humans, the reason why this pattern doesn't produce as much dimorphism in africa is down to the environment. There is no need for paternal investment or planning. Survival is random and a strong male just means strong offspring, not survival. In the scandinavian area, no man around means likely death in the winter. So there are similar "winner take all" effects. There are some gaps in my explanation, but I would need to really bloviate to fill them in.

>>2032

I don't get visual snow(perhaps because I have it all the time) from the post. But I feel some kind of energy coming from some of the posts they make. Including that one and >>2082 .

>>2082

>There is no problem with my acting and thinking in relation to communism

You are a communist.

>Your attachment to law and morality is keeping you down

Law and morality are just words, they express a concept that has to be understood. Saying there's no "law" beyond a level isn't true, the expression of a law as a command from a divine body is one expression of the law. Once you move past it, the law remains, but it's not expressed in the same way.

Li Hongzhi's statement that one should practice something until you enlighten to it completely is valid. It's only after you've made a system indestructible by making it into a single particle that you can learn something else. I've felt this when trying to learn something new, the ideas expressed conflict with ones that I'm trying to build.

>>2081

>Not likely

Environmental factors can be overcome with actually having a functional brain.

>There are studies out there that show that IQ expression is mediated by life history speed (r/k). People with high k who have higher IQ

>There is no relationship between k and IQ

Higher IQ is more likely to come up within a K-selected society, than an r-selected society. I was just looking at what populations are have the highest IQ and what their life history strategy is like.

>>2086

Even when you're finished with Falun Dafa (I've completed it twice, Falun Dafa as expressed by the exercises has it's roots within the 0D. As Li Hongzhi says it, Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forbearance are expressions of this void, this substance that is by nature not a substance. Although I disagree with it not being a substance, it's the same as anything else that's mentally viewable.)

Since cultivation is very complicated his teachings and the energy he emits works on more than just his system. It's very complex.

>>2081

I personally don't see how humans could survive using a tournament style reproductive strategy. I could see them surviving through the typical K-selected route of having literal tournaments, that are made sure of not being (too) deadly, and women selecting men based off of how they fare against others. Europeans having bodies more suited for wrestling being one reason why I believe this. But outside of this, I don't think any human population can survive through that kind of polygamy. Any group of omegas can kill an alpha in his sleep.

>>2082

>it's the reason you can't understand what I'm saying or see what I'm trying to show you

Heh.

>>2087

>Higher IQ is more likely to come up within a K-selected society, than an r-selected society.

No, if this were the case then k would correlate with IQ in some way. There are things outside of advanced society that use IQ and cause selection for it. Why would the trait exist to be selected for if longer life history speeds were a requirement for it to be useful ? If you use brain volume as a proxy for IQ, we lost IQ points when we started farming. It went back up slightly with advanced society creating a selection environment that favored it. But going off of skull records, it has never gone back up to the level it was before agriculture.

>>2104

Jump to 1:05:23

https://www.bitchute.com/video/rk62G8Ip3myD/

Find a relation between rats, (the more intelligent) birds, primates, whales, humans (primates), octopus (or any other of those squishy abominations), well any intelligent animal.

There has to be an association with r/K selection and IQ. If there no correlation within race, or is there no correlation between races? That's important.