Abused children grow up to be conservatives. How many conservatives were abused as children?

[zorq]

John Hibbing recently conducted some experiments and wrote an article about the fundamental differences in the personalities of liberals who he defines as "supporters of innovation and reform" and conservatives defined as "supporters of tradition and stability". The difference he found was that conservatives have a much stronger "negativity bias." A negativity bias refers to the notion that, even when of equal intensity, things of a more negative nature (e.g. unpleasant thoughts, emotions, or social interactions; harmful/traumatic events) have a greater effect on one's psychological state and processes than do neutral or positive things.

But negativity biases have been shown to be strongly correlated with children who have been abused.

We already know that MANY conservative celebrities have a history of childhood abuse. Bill o'Reilly mentions the assaults he received from his father a great deal in his biography. But O'Reilly only warns against inflicting FREQUENT pain on your children. Sean Hannity brags about how his father routinely hit him with a belt (but he turned out okay) when trying to defend a basketball coach who assaults his players, and calls himself a supporter of "good-old-fashioned discipline."

In fact that's not surprising because it seems that every source advocating for corporal punishment of children is a conservative and usually religious organization.

Conservatives are more likely to abuse their kids and abused kids are more likely to become conservatives. Obviously this isn't a closed system, or a direct function, but how much of this is a vicious cycle?

 

[Tigers!]

Conservatives are more likely to abuse their kids and abused kids are more likely to become conservatives. Obviously this isn't a closed system, or a direct function, but how much of this is a vicious cycle?

An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof. What proof do you have for such a claim?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Conservatives are more likely to abuse their kids and abused kids are more likely to become conservatives. Obviously this isn't a closed system, or a direct function, but how much of this is a vicious cycle?

An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof. What proof do you have for such a claim?

Did you seriously just deliberately delete out all the links he provided backing up his statement when you quoted his post and then ask him for something to back up his statement?

 

[ronburgundy]

An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof. What proof do you have for such a claim?

Did you seriously just deliberately delete out all the links he provided backing up his statement when you quoted his post and then ask him for something to back up his statement?

Actually, none of his links support his claim. His links show that both abuse and conservatism are correlated with "negativity bias". This does not support the inference that abuse and conservatism are correlated with each other, which is required as even minimal support for zorg's claim that they each causally impact each other. The two correlations are weak, and thus the majority of variance in both abuse and conservatism does not covary with negativity bias. That makes it highly plausible that they are not correlated with each other.

Plus, even if they has such a weak correlation that would fall well short of supporting the bi-directional causal claim zorg made.

Finally, Zorg's links of conservatives advocating corporal punishment are irrelevant, because such punishments are not "abuse" as the term is defined and measured by the studies his cites on abuse and negativity bias.

That said, in theory it wouldn't be surprising if his claim were true. There is evidence that abuse leads to adult issues with anger and aggression, and evidence that fear and anger are the emotional foundations of social conservatism, and that when bad things happen that make people angry or afraid society moves to the right, such as after 9/11.

These links support the proximal links in the causal chain that zorg is claiming. Showing that A causes B, and the B causes C is better evidence that A causes C than merely showing A and C are both correlated with B (which is what zorg showed). However, even my links do not test for a direct causal link between abuse and conservatism in either direction.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Did you seriously just deliberately delete out all the links he provided backing up his statement when you quoted his post and then ask him for something to back up his statement?

Actually, none of his links support his claim.

Irrelevant to the point I was making. If he'd made a post like yours and pointed out the flaws in the links used to back up the claim, that would have been a completely different post which I wouldn't have had a problem with. What he did was deliberately delete the references provided to back up the claim from his reply while simultaneously asking him to provide references to back up his claim. It was just fucking weird.

 

[zorq]

Did you seriously just deliberately delete out all the links he provided backing up his statement when you quoted his post and then ask him for something to back up his statement?

Actually, none of his links support his claim. His links show that both abuse and conservatism are correlated with "negativity bias". This does not support the inference that abuse and conservatism are correlated with each other, which is required as even minimal support for zorg's claim that they each causally impact each other. The two correlations are weak, and thus the majority of variance in both abuse and conservatism does not covary with negativity bias. That makes it highly plausible that they are not correlated with each other.

Plus, even if they has such a weak correlation that would fall well short of supporting the bi-directional causal claim zorg made.

Finally, Zorg's links of conservatives advocating corporal punishment are irrelevant, because such punishments are not "abuse" as the term is defined and measured by the studies his cites on abuse and negativity bias.

That said, in theory it wouldn't be surprising if his claim were true. There is evidence that abuse leads to adult issues with anger and aggression, and evidence that fear and anger are the emotional foundations of social conservatism, and that when bad things happen that make people angry or afraid society moves to the right, such as after 9/11.

These links support the proximal links in the causal chain that zorg is claiming. Showing that A causes B, and the B causes C is better evidence that A causes C than merely showing A and C are both correlated with B (which is what zorg showed). However, even my links do not test for a direct causal link between abuse and conservatism in either direction.

I believe that the studies show that conservatism is CORRELATED with negativity bias and that negativity bias is CAUSED by abuse.

Said in another way:
Abuse (among other things) causes Negativity Bias and a person with Negativity bias is more likely to be conservative.

I also made an additional claim that advocates for corporal punishment of children are almost all conservatives and, presumably, (missing piece) conservatives employ this corporal punishment more often than liberals.

Oh and there is another missing piece: How much corporal punishment does it take to qualify as abuse that inflicts negativty bias? I don't know.

But of course you and Tigers! are right, I haven't and can't put all the pieces together into an immaculate puzzle. That would require it's own study employing scientific principles. I don't have the resources or inclination to do that. But from the outside, it looks like the pieces fit.

 

[ronburgundy]

Let me start by saying that I appreciate that you are sincerely trying to use evidence to evaluate this issue and your errors are honest and common ones. It is a breath of fresh air on this board to see someone of any political leaning to care enough about evidence to at least try to use it. I also don't doubt your claim on its face, and like I said before think there is additional types of evidence that make it a plausible hypothesis.

Actually, none of his links support his claim. His links show that both abuse and conservatism are correlated with "negativity bias". This does not support the inference that abuse and conservatism are correlated with each other, which is required as even minimal support for zorg's claim that they each causally impact each other. The two correlations are weak, and thus the majority of variance in both abuse and conservatism does not covary with negativity bias. That makes it highly plausible that they are not correlated with each other.

Plus, even if they has such a weak correlation that would fall well short of supporting the bi-directional causal claim zorg made.

Finally, Zorg's links of conservatives advocating corporal punishment are irrelevant, because such punishments are not "abuse" as the term is defined and measured by the studies his cites on abuse and negativity bias.

That said, in theory it wouldn't be surprising if his claim were true. There is evidence that abuse leads to adult issues with anger and aggression, and evidence that fear and anger are the emotional foundations of social conservatism, and that when bad things happen that make people angry or afraid society moves to the right, such as after 9/11.

These links support the proximal links in the causal chain that zorg is claiming. Showing that A causes B, and the B causes C is better evidence that A causes C than merely showing A and C are both correlated with B (which is what zorg showed). However, even my links do not test for a direct causal link between abuse and conservatism in either direction.

I believe that the studies show that conservatism is CORRELATED with negativity bias and that negativity bias is CAUSED by abuse.

No, the linked study shows only a correlation between abuse and negativity bias. They just took people who had been abused or not and measured their reactions to pictures of emotional faces. It could very easily be the result of inheriting the emotional bias from the same parents that abused them, thus there being no causal impact of the abuse itself on negativity bias.

Said in another way:
Abuse (among other things) causes Negativity Bias and a person with Negativity bias is more likely to be conservative.

Let's assume that your first clause is true (though it isn't as explained above). Your two clauses that I underlined above can be true, but combining them does not allow for any valid inferences about how abuse and conservatism might be related. If each of the above relationships were so strong that they were nearly 1:1, then it would very likely that conservatism and abuse were correlated (though no implication of causality). However, they are not strong but rater quite weak and unreliable relationships. When two variables (in this case conservatism and abuse) each have weak correlations with a third (in this case negativity bias), it is often the case that they are not correlated with each other. For example, both being female and being raised in high income family are each positively correlated to measures of verbal skills. However, being female and being raised in a high SES family are not positively correlated with each other and have no real impact on each other.

Also, note that it could easily be genes that impact both negativity bias and conservatism, thus making them correlated with each other without any causal relation between them. If abuse did increase negativity, it would not due so by impacting the genes the contribute to negativity, thus it would not have any impact on conservatism.

I also made an additional claim that advocates for corporal punishment of children are almost all conservatives and, presumably, (missing piece) conservatives employ this corporal punishment more often than liberals.

Oh and there is another missing piece: How much corporal punishment does it take to qualify as abuse that inflicts negativty bias? I don't know.

But of course you and Tigers! are right, I haven't and can't put all the pieces together into an immaculate puzzle. That would require it's own study employing scientific principles. I don't have the resources or inclination to do that. But from the outside, it looks like the pieces fit.

The pieces don't fit, for the reasons I have explained. It is a logical and scientific error to infer what you are from the data you have. You don't even have a basis to infer a correlation between abuse and conservatism, let alone any causal connection between them.
In the end, all of your evidence combined amounts to weaker evidence for your claim than if you simply could show a simple correlation between being abused as a kid and being conservative later on. I am surprised I couldn't find such data, but I didn't look too deeply.

 

[zorq]

Let me start by saying that I appreciate that you are sincerely trying to use evidence to evaluate this issue and your errors are honest and common ones. It is a breath of fresh air on this board to see someone of any political leaning to care enough about evidence to at least try to use it. I also don't doubt your claim on its face, and like I said before think there is additional types of evidence that make it a plausible hypothesis.

I believe that the studies show that conservatism is CORRELATED with negativity bias and that negativity bias is CAUSED by abuse.

No, the linked study shows only a correlation between abuse and negativity bias. They just took people who had been abused or not and measured their reactions to pictures of emotional faces. It could very easily be the result of inheriting the emotional bias from the same parents that abused them, thus there being no causal impact of the abuse itself on negativity bias.

Okay, you're right. The abuse may not be causing any negativity bias, but it isn't at all implausible that the abuse causes the negativity bias in many people. Especially since other studies in soldiers suffering from PTSD identify a similar correlation to negativity bias. It's not a big leap to see that psychic trauma may cause a change in personality in the form of a negativity bias. I suppose that we won't know for sure until more studies are done.

Said in another way:
Abuse (among other things) causes Negativity Bias and a person with Negativity bias is more likely to be conservative.

Let's assume that your first clause is true (though it isn't as explained above). Your two clauses that I underlined above can be true, but combining them does not allow for any valid inferences about how abuse and conservatism might be related. If each of the above relationships were so strong that they were nearly 1:1, then it would very likely that conservatism and abuse were correlated (though no implication of causality). However, they are not strong but rater quite weak and unreliable relationships. When two variables (in this case conservatism and abuse) each have weak correlations with a third (in this case negativity bias), it is often the case that they are not correlated with each other. For example, both being female and being raised in high income family are each positively correlated to measures of verbal skills. However, being female and being raised in a high SES family are not positively correlated with each other and have no real impact on each other.

Also, note that it could easily be genes that impact both negativity bias and conservatism, thus making them correlated with each other without any causal relation between them. If abuse did increase negativity, it would not due so by impacting the genes the contribute to negativity, thus it would not have any impact on conservatism.

You are correct. This is the weak link in my argument. I have made an error here inferring more significance to this correlation than than it deserves. We could inflict trauma on an entire population potentially giving all of them more negativity bias without necessarily affecting the number of conservatives in that population.

I also made an additional claim that advocates for corporal punishment of children are almost all conservatives and, presumably, (missing piece) conservatives employ this corporal punishment more often than liberals.

Oh and there is another missing piece: How much corporal punishment does it take to qualify as abuse that inflicts negativty bias? I don't know.

But of course you and Tigers! are right, I haven't and can't put all the pieces together into an immaculate puzzle. That would require it's own study employing scientific principles. I don't have the resources or inclination to do that. But from the outside, it looks like the pieces fit.

The pieces don't fit, for the reasons I have explained. It is a logical and scientific error to infer what you are from the data you have. You don't even have a basis to infer a correlation between abuse and conservatism, let alone any causal connection between them.
In the end, all of your evidence combined amounts to weaker evidence for your claim than if you simply could show a simple correlation between being abused as a kid and being conservative later on. I am surprised I couldn't find such data, but I didn't look too deeply.

I looked too, and I don't think there is a study like that out there. The first study I linked to is only a couple years old and it is the first one of it's kind to show that there is a significant difference in the WAY conservatives and liberals think. Before that, everyone pretty much assumed that our brains work the same regardless of our political preference. This assumption may have reduced the chances for that kind of study to get funded.

You may insist that the pieces don't fit, but I think that statement is too strong at this point. I think the pieces COULD fit, but for now I'll concede that it is unproductive to insist that that do.

 

[ronburgundy]

Let me start by saying that I appreciate that you are sincerely trying to use evidence to evaluate this issue and your errors are honest and common ones. It is a breath of fresh air on this board to see someone of any political leaning to care enough about evidence to at least try to use it. I also don't doubt your claim on its face, and like I said before think there is additional types of evidence that make it a plausible hypothesis.



No, the linked study shows only a correlation between abuse and negativity bias. They just took people who had been abused or not and measured their reactions to pictures of emotional faces. It could very easily be the result of inheriting the emotional bias from the same parents that abused them, thus there being no causal impact of the abuse itself on negativity bias.

Okay, you're right. The abuse may not be causing any negativity bias, but it isn't at all implausible that the abuse causes the negativity bias in many people. Especially since other studies in soldiers suffering from PTSD identify a similar correlation to negativity bias. It's not a big leap to see that psychic trauma may cause a change in personality in the form of a negativity bias. I suppose that we won't know for sure until more studies are done.

Said in another way:
Abuse (among other things) causes Negativity Bias and a person with Negativity bias is more likely to be conservative.

Let's assume that your first clause is true (though it isn't as explained above). Your two clauses that I underlined above can be true, but combining them does not allow for any valid inferences about how abuse and conservatism might be related. If each of the above relationships were so strong that they were nearly 1:1, then it would very likely that conservatism and abuse were correlated (though no implication of causality). However, they are not strong but rater quite weak and unreliable relationships. When two variables (in this case conservatism and abuse) each have weak correlations with a third (in this case negativity bias), it is often the case that they are not correlated with each other. For example, both being female and being raised in high income family are each positively correlated to measures of verbal skills. However, being female and being raised in a high SES family are not positively correlated with each other and have no real impact on each other.

Also, note that it could easily be genes that impact both negativity bias and conservatism, thus making them correlated with each other without any causal relation between them. If abuse did increase negativity, it would not due so by impacting the genes the contribute to negativity, thus it would not have any impact on conservatism.

You are correct. This is the weak link in my argument. I have made an error here inferring more significance to this correlation than than it deserves. We could inflict trauma on an entire population potentially giving all of them more negativity bias without necessarily affecting the number of conservatives in that population.

I also made an additional claim that advocates for corporal punishment of children are almost all conservatives and, presumably, (missing piece) conservatives employ this corporal punishment more often than liberals.

Oh and there is another missing piece: How much corporal punishment does it take to qualify as abuse that inflicts negativty bias? I don't know.

But of course you and Tigers! are right, I haven't and can't put all the pieces together into an immaculate puzzle. That would require it's own study employing scientific principles. I don't have the resources or inclination to do that. But from the outside, it looks like the pieces fit.

The pieces don't fit, for the reasons I have explained. It is a logical and scientific error to infer what you are from the data you have. You don't even have a basis to infer a correlation between abuse and conservatism, let alone any causal connection between them.
In the end, all of your evidence combined amounts to weaker evidence for your claim than if you simply could show a simple correlation between being abused as a kid and being conservative later on. I am surprised I couldn't find such data, but I didn't look too deeply.

I looked too, and I don't think there is a study like that out there. The first study I linked to is only a couple years old and it is the first one of it's kind to show that there is a significant difference in the WAY conservatives and liberals think. Before that, everyone pretty much assumed that our brains work the same regardless of our political preference. This assumption may have reduced the chances for that kind of study to get funded.

You may insist that the pieces don't fit, but I think that statement is too strong at this point. I think the pieces COULD fit, but for now I'll concede that it is unproductive to insist that that do.

Okay, it isn't that your pieces don't fit into a puzzle the might be of abuse and conservatism having causal impact on each other. It it is that you only have half the pieces and they are most of "blue sky" type pieces that also fit into countless other puzzles where abuse and conservatism do not impact each other. And even if abuse and conservatism do impact each other (which again I agree is plausible), the impact is likely weak with most of the relationship being indirect and non-causal resulting from the countless confounding factors that are likely to impact both (like genes, poverty, lack of education, and countless types of bad experiences other than abuse that might increase negativity and conservatism independently rather than impact one via the mediation of the other).

 

[Perspicuo]

Conservatives are more likely to abuse their kids and abused kids are more likely to become conservatives. Obviously this isn't a closed system, or a direct function, but how much of this is a vicious cycle?

An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof. What proof do you have for such a claim?

Just a very good hypothesis. Every conclusion we draw out of empirical data is not a fact, it's a incipient hypothesis awaiting further research. Up to then it's just plausible. Plausible, in the absence of a well researched rival explanation, is an excellent wager.

 

[fromderinside]

Just a very good hypothesis. Every conclusion we draw out of empirical data is not a fact, it's a incipient hypothesis awaiting further research. Up to then it's just plausible. Plausible, in the absence of a well researched rival explanation, is an excellent wager.

What is excellent? How about the best available information upon which to place a wager? Even there best is probably too strong even with available attached. Actually, I prefer something akin to Okham's proposition./quibblequibblequibble

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I believe that the studies show that conservatism is CORRELATED with negativity bias and that negativity bias is CAUSED by abuse.

Well, it could be caused by abuse. It can also be caused by simply not considering any other way of thinking.

 

[Valjean]

Conservatism is surely multifactoral; Nature, nurture, or both.

 

[Perspicuo]

Just a very good hypothesis. Every conclusion we draw out of empirical data is not a fact, it's a incipient hypothesis awaiting further research. Up to then it's just plausible. Plausible, in the absence of a well researched rival explanation, is an excellent wager.

What is excellent? How about the best available information upon which to place a wager? Even there best is probably too strong even with available attached. Actually, I prefer something akin to Okham's proposition./quibblequibblequibble

Decisions are made in the absence of strong empirical evidence all the time. Sometimes you look for evidence and some seem to point towards whatever. There you have to brave it. Like doctors who don't know exactly what you have, so they give the best treatment for what they consider is the most likely. But it's a shot in the dark. We do that all of the time, no matter how knowledgeable we are.

 

[fromderinside]

What is excellent? How about the best available information upon which to place a wager? Even there best is probably too strong even with available attached. Actually, I prefer something akin to Okham's proposition./quibblequibblequibble

Decisions are made in the absence of strong empirical evidence all the time. Sometimes you look for evidence and some seem to point towards whatever. There you have to brave it. Like doctors who don't know exactly what you have, so they give the best treatment for what they consider is the most likely. But it's a shot in the dark. We do that all of the time, no matter how knowledgeable we are.

Why are you remaking my point? Apparently quibblequibblequibble is important to you. If so leave something with which I can quibble.

 

[ApostateAbe]

John Hibbing recently conducted some experiments and wrote an article about the fundamental differences in the personalities of liberals who he defines as "supporters of innovation and reform" and conservatives defined as "supporters of tradition and stability". The difference he found was that conservatives have a much stronger "negativity bias." A negativity bias refers to the notion that, even when of equal intensity, things of a more negative nature (e.g. unpleasant thoughts, emotions, or social interactions; harmful/traumatic events) have a greater effect on one's psychological state and processes than do neutral or positive things.

But negativity biases have been shown to be strongly correlated with children who have been abused.

We already know that MANY conservative celebrities have a history of childhood abuse. Bill o'Reilly mentions the assaults he received from his father a great deal in his biography. But O'Reilly only warns against inflicting FREQUENT pain on your children. Sean Hannity brags about how his father routinely hit him with a belt (but he turned out okay) when trying to defend a basketball coach who assaults his players, and calls himself a supporter of "good-old-fashioned discipline."

In fact that's not surprising because it seems that every source advocating for corporal punishment of children is a conservative and usually religious organization.

Conservatives are more likely to abuse their kids and abused kids are more likely to become conservatives. Obviously this isn't a closed system, or a direct function, but how much of this is a vicious cycle?

There can be no controlled tests outside of Nazi Germany, so all we have are correlations. Not just conservatism, but just about every undesirable psychological trait correlates with corporal punishment, which both self-promoting sociologists and demagogues trumpet as evidence that corporal punishment is evil. The fallacy is that psychological traits are highly heritable. Violent parents are more likely to spank, the genetic variants are inherited by their children, and the children are more likely to be violent. Spanking need not be any causal link in that chain. And, it isn't just violence, but an array of r-selected traits correlate with each other, so those who have the genes for violence also have the genes for low intelligence, promiscuity, crime, addiction, psychopathy, authoritarianism (conservatism) and so on.

 

[fromderinside]

.... an array of r-selected traits correlate with each other, so those who have the genes for violence also have the genes for low intelligence, promiscuity, crime, addiction, psychopathy, authoritarianism (conservatism) and so on.

Given the loose association of the 'traits' in terms of fitness, the probability that three or five generations down the way that group or phenotype/gene group representation will increase its proportion in the population (my personal measuring system), divergence or representation in a culture will remain connected is problematic.

Phenotypic Plasticity in the Interactions and Evolution of Species http://max2.ese.u-psud.fr/epc/conservation/PDFs/HIPE/Agrawal2001.pdf

full document available hard to copy pieces

Genetic and plastic responses of a northern mammal to climate change http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691280/pdf/12769458.pdf

Full document available. hard to copy pieces

Genetic variation across species’ geographical ranges: the central–marginal hypothesis and beyond http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03659.x/full

There is growing interest in quantifying genetic population structure across the geographical ranges of species to understand why species might exhibit stable range limits and to assess the conservation value of peripheral populations. However, many assertions regarding peripheral populations rest on the long-standing but poorly tested supposition that peripheral populations exhibit low genetic diversity and greater genetic differentiation as a consequence of smaller effective population size and greater geographical isolation relative to geographically central populations. We reviewed 134 studies representing 115 species that tested for declines in within-population genetic diversity and/or increases in among-population differentiation towards range margins using nuclear molecular genetic markers. On average, 64.2% of studies detected the expected decline in diversity, 70.2% of those that tested for it showed increased differentiation and there was a positive association between these trends. In most cases, however, the difference in genetic diversity between central and peripheral population was not large. Although these results were consistent across plants and animals, strong taxonomic and biogeographical biases in the available studies call for a cautious generalization of these results. Despite the large number of studies testing these simple predictions, very few attempted to test possible mechanisms causing reduced peripheral diversity or increased differentiation. Almost no study incorporated a phylogeographical framework to evaluate historical influences on contemporary genetic patterns. Finally, there has been little effort to test whether these geographical trends in putatively neutral variation at marker loci are reflected by quantitative genetic trait variation, which is likely to influence the adaptive potential of populations across the geographical range.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Whatever the cause of the correlations may be, the correlations are nevertheless existent and the traits are heritable, so the biological explanation is secondary. My evolutionary thinking on the matter is that geography is not the only delimiter between r and K selection strategy, but within each geographic region there would be a sympatric (non-geographic) differential mating pattern, in which the K-strategy upper class mates with the upper class, and the r-strategy lower class mates with the lower class. This is most evident in the caste system of India, but it otherwise exists at least implicitly in every human society.

 

[fromderinside]

My intent was to do more than refocus the question on species genetics. By introducing world wide relations and climate variation among other variations I was hoping to suggest epigenetic mechanism where a phenotype would switch from one set of operations to another given changes in population, climate, migration, etc. Not only do such switches occur but more than one set of response types are present to engage in a variety of situations competitively with dominant phenotypical expressions wherever and whenever conditions change, perhaps from a single or just a few genotype complexes in hierarchy.

 

[ApostateAbe]

My intent was to do more than refocus the question on species genetics. By introducing world wide relations and climate variation among other variations I was hoping to suggest epigenetic mechanism where a phenotype would switch from one set of operations to another given changes in population, climate, migration, etc. Not only do such switches occur but more than one set of response types are present to engage in a variety of situations competitively with dominant phenotypical expressions wherever and whenever conditions change, perhaps from a single or just a few genotype complexes in hierarchy.

Yes, that's the way epigenetics works. A bunch of speculators take epigenetics as an escape from Darwinian thinking of human nature, but I see it as the opposite. I think of it as accelerating Darwinian adaptations. My hypothesis can accommodate both: if human r versus K adaptations are mostly epigenetic, then it would be same Darwinian principle at the core.