The Genetics of Politics | Liberals vs. Conservatives | Gene Wars [P2]

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

An examination of the biological and genetic basis for political ideologies: Do genetics determine if you’re a liberal or conservative? What role does r/K selection theory play in the world where we live? How big is your amygdala – and what does that mean about your possible political perspective? Includes a look at the Prefrontal Cortex, Anterior Cingulate Cortex and the impact of dopamine in the realm of political biology.

Part 1: The Truth About Gene Wars: r/K Selection Theory

Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at:

Get more from Stefan Molyneux and Freedomain Radio including books, podcasts and other info at:

The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics

Video Rating: / 5


  1. ApricotParrotInSpace says:

    but Asians breed like rabbits and they are obsessed with rules

  2. Winter Star says:

    1:04:47 I'll have to disagree with you on that one given the amount of protests we've been hearing in support of the fat acceptance movement, mainly centred on obese women.

  3. Winter Star says:

    "PFC – Private First Class? No, Prefrontal Cortex". I laughed when I heard that because I had a similar error in communication when I was talking about neuroplasticity with my friend who had recently gotten out of basic military training.

  4. PCoderch says:

    This guy is clearly a piece of shit conservative. He flatters conservatism continuously while denigrating liberalism. Not a bit biased, huh? His entire pathetic "theory" falls to the ground when you consider that the most liberal countries in the World are the countries of northern Europe. These countries not only have harsh winters, which acccording to his theory should make them conservative, but they also have the most conscientious, industrious and responsible peoples on Earth. And, yet, they are liberals. Riddle me that?

    Face it: liberals are better educated and make more money than conservatives. There are far more liberals with PhD degrees than conservatives. This guy also doesen't bring up that social conservatism has one of the strongest predictive power when it comes to predicting a low IQ.

    Your entire video is an epic fail.

  5. Bob Job says:

    so what do I do if I'm more R selected? could it be due to my adhd which causes dysfunction with dopamine levels and such? how could I learn to become more k selected?

  6. Trigger Finger says:

    This series is making my brain hurt Stefan. I feel strange, like my amygdala is mutating. It's in conflict.

  7. Tristan Tully says:

    did stef just say 'economical deep penetration'????? @42:50

  8. SuperKittyPogoDance says:

    OMG…. this stuff is amazing! I love your vids!

  9. Sabedoria Filosofia says:

    Jee, this garbage again

    ''libs are R strategy theory/ cons are K theory''

    In what galaxy**

    ''Liberals'' have the lowest fertility rates, not only in USA. ''Conservatives'' have the highest.

    ''Liberals'' i mean ''white 'liberal believer' ''.

    Most of non-white democrats are not real socially liberals.

    Yes there is brain differences between libs and cons, but this is not a perfect dichotomy, more a ''dirt dhichotomy''.

  10. Brian the Brain says:

    Okay, so one of the things he talks about is following rules.
    Stefan says that r selected like to break rules to get an even outcome and K selected like to follow rules to win and come out ahead. What about people like me who think that the only rule is win by whatever means necessary? That the only rule is to win and do whatever to advantage myself.

    Like, for example, I see crushing competition out of the market not as being anti-competitive but rather extremely and ruthlessly competitive. Why not use violence (even if its done by the State) to crush competition to advantage me? If I can get away with it, thats great!

    To hell with the rules, the only rule in my book is "win" by hook or by crook, or by a combination of both.

  11. Nathan Baldwin says:

    How can you say that the least successful breed the most, and also claim that spreading r/K selected traits is the true goal? I'm assuming that the least successful are the r selected types but they are all on welfare having 3 kids each right? While the Ks, while rich are outnumbered 1% vs 99% but they're having maybe 1.5 kids per family and are being out bred? AM I missing something or is there circular logic in this concept? As you said, r types will be envious of the material wealth of Ks and want it removed in the form of high race rates. But aren't they ultimately winning anyway? Since they are just reproducing on a welfare income?

  12. Nathan Baldwin says:

    This is really good. I think you have put high testosterone on both sides of the equation though, equating high testosterone with K selected competition but also with r selected promiscuity. Am I wrong?

  13. Math Beerlover says:

    Truth is not logic. That had been the mistake of Aristotle and the Greeks. Truth is measurement and repeat ability not logic. If we think in this manner we will come to the same conclusions about gravity as the Greeks did.

  14. Andrea Gambardella says:

    Ecology has long-term purposes, hence, according to this analysis, it should be related with the K type nevertheless is mostly a left political topic.
    Education, school and research should be related with the K type, nevertheless (at least in my country) the left use to invest more in these areas.
    K could often desire a r-environment: Mafia, for example, is such a K-type organization, and yet it thrives in the parts of the world where poor r-type people have a lot of children and where organized criminality can rule over them taking advantage of their chaotic environment.

    How would you explain these inconsistencies?

  15. YuorMomFcuk says:

    does that mean hitler's ideals were k selected?

  16. Brian Parker says:

    Getting a lot of value from your series thus far thank you. I'd like to note that non-monogamy doesn't necessarily create weak bonds between mates, and I think that especially in prehistoric Humans and Bonobo we see the opposite: a strengthening of bonds. By creating group adhesion through sex there is a greater likelihood for altruism and other behaviors that will inevitably benefit offspring. There's a distinction here between this type of behavior and a facet of the currently predominant sex-culture of the West (the rabbit mating behavior aka "hit and quit").

    Obviously the transition from r selective Human populations to k selective resulted in these adaptations/behaviors being suppressed/lost, and I think this change has aided in the gradual alienation of our species. There is more power in healthy and stable non-monogamy for humans than power lost through infidelity etc., thus we may benefit from it. While I don't think non-monogamy is the right choice for every society, I do think that the benefits from having a large family that takes care of its offspring collectively will always out-compete those societies that have smaller families. So whatever you avenue to achieve this, do it.

    Hope this makes sense I typed this while fairly tired.

  17. Ben Cheevers says:

    I watched the first video, felt like it was informative, I'm at 40 minutes of this video, I had to stop it and try to research. I agree with you that this entire argument is based on the idea that humans can be either K or r. r/K is a description of the selection processes between the two archetypes. It seems like he realized this and sneaked in (wow snuck isn't a word) two sentences in the first video declaring the size difference in humans in their amygdala were between a total size of 2mm to 5mm and he expands on this shaky footing to declare that individual humans are either r or K selected. It's a house of cards built with a lot of solid building materials here and there, for instance he utilizes broad statements that make sense are sensible. For instance I'll pick the next one I hear, I'm around 48 minutes now, and it happened immediately: "if your not that invested in your kid's not that emotionally attached the them then it's much easier to abuse them'. It's like he takes lots of sensible statements about life and attributes it to this one very shaky theory that assumes that a K selected species, as in us, actually is composed of K selected achievers and r selected layabouts.

    The TL;DR of this is he takes r/K selection theory, which is a heavily invested in and seemingly correct theory and extrapolates that theory which applies to species and just says what he wants to say and bends the theory in any way he likes to attempt to justify his thinking. I'm not against what he's saying either, he's saying a lot of, in my opinion, correct statements except when he tries to relate it back to r/K theory. I would even go so far as to say that when he is describing what he calls 'K people' he is accurately describing people, all of them. When describing 'r people' he has created a strawman phantom that is responsible for everything negative in society. He is playing on people's uninformed ideas by describing the K character trait which is determined by genes, that he associates with his personal political beliefs (which I subscribe to) that the 'master race' belongs to. This speech is intellectual jerk off material for people who agree with him by telling them that they are amazing superman gods and their opponents are retarded bunnies. It does nothing whatsoever to educate.

  18. Frank Carr says:

    If the liberals are so r selected, how do they have the capacity to fight against the return of competitive environments.

Leave a Reply