On my walks into work, there is a patch of the property which is landscaped, and I will frequently see wild rabbits nibbling away on the manicured grass. These cute little creatures have no natural predators inside the fencing of the property, and so they have free run of the place.
Now, despite not having any natural predators inside the fence, they are still quite skittish, and often won't let anyone get within 10-15 feet of them. Back when I had rabbits, I could often get within 4-5 feet before they'd start to run away, and unlike our current dog, they had no sense at all for our mood when trying to interact with them.
This type of conflict avoidance is the most easy to understand when it comes to r-selected creatures. They live in an environment of abundance, and so because they are never required to develop skills to procure or protect resources, their efforts are instead geared towards consuming resources and reproducing faster than their rivals, and the ones who do this the best are the ones who shape the local genetic future for their species.
Rabbits don't guard territory, it'd be a waste of time and effort when they could easily just find another patch of grass.
In contrast, K-selected creatures must demonstrate skills just to procure sufficient resources to survive at all, so their skills are geared towards procurement and protection of resources, and the ones who do that the best are the ones who shape the local genetic future for their species.
Now, while the skittish rabbit might seem to be the only possible manifestation, this ignores what's really happening, the fundamental dynamics at play. It's easy to think that, because of the different selective pressures on r-strategists, they're just unskilled blobs without any skills or abilities at all, but this is not true.
The rabbits I see on the way into work are quite quick, they can accelerate fast and have great agility. They are a great example of how, despite being r-strategists, they are not bereft of any traits or competencies, it's just that those traits and competencies are different, and their superiority only needs to be relative, not absolute.
Among r-selected species, there tends to be a much bigger difference in the physiology between males and females. The peacock is an example of this, in that the males, who do not stay with the eggs, are brightly colored and put on vibrant displays for females in order to demonstrate their genetic superiority, their mating fitness. The peacocks with the most impressive plumage are also easier for predators to spot, but since they're parental flakes that abandon their mates soon after mating, it's not that big a deal. The females are much more plain and easily camouflaged, lacking the bright and exotic coloration of the males, which makes sense in that since the females are staying with the eggs, they are more vulnerable to predators, so staying as low-key as possible is critical to preventing themselves, or their offspring, from becoming an easy meal.
The emphasis I am trying to make is that both r-strategists and K-strategists have skills and competencies that allow differentiation within their respective strategies. An "alpha male" exists in both r-selection and K-selection, but the specific traits and behaviors that such a male would posses will be very different. There is always a gradient, some way to sort between superior and inferior specimens.
When it comes to conflict management, then, how an r-strategist and K-strategist react won't be polar opposites. An r-strategist isn't just going to avoid any conflict, but is going to be opportunistic in nature. In a "conflict" where their success appears guaranteed, where their opponent is prevented or unable to strike back, an r-strategist will take action. In addition, they'll readily engage in subterfuge and manipulation, indirect conflicts, where they do not actually eliminate or destroy a rival, but trick their rivals into wasting their time and energy.
In r-selection, it's not just conflict avoidance all the time, but avoidance of conflict which the individual is not able to be successful. The rabbits I walk past avoid having any possibility of interaction with me at all, because at no point in their genetic history has a creature my size ever had a symbiotic relationship with the creatures.
Likewise, the demonstrations of peacocks are not done in a vacuum. They are competing with other males, just indirectly. They are still competing, engaging in conflict, but it's not life-threatening in nature. They can engage in such mating rituals and passionately compete because they still need some way to differentiate between individuals, the terms just aren't as plain and tangible as with K-selection.
In humans, then, we aren't going to see r-strategists running away all of the time either. While the nature of conflict will still be more abstract than what will be found among K-strategists, there will still be fierce competition. As an example, among r-selected men, physique and general wellness is just as important as it is for the K-selected. While they're not using physical fitness to procure and protect resources, it is still used to demonstrate mating fitness as part of the mating dances. Like the glorious plumage of the peacock, the r-selected human male invests time and effort into their displays of mating fitness.
Naturally then, displays of dominance will be present among the r-selected, even though it does not play a tangible role in defining a social order. In r-selection, such dominance is to serve the purpose of mating rituals, the males are determining who is dominant among them, not who is dominant over the entire species. The dominance hierarchy simply does not shape the creature's society as a whole the way that it does for K-selection.
In K-selection, the dominance displays create a literal sorting order that the entire group will abide by even outside the specific context of the display of dominance during a mating ritual. The "alpha" isn't just the one who gets laid, but is also the best at procuring and protecting resources, enforcing discipline and training the young, and generally bearing the responsibility for the future of their "pack".
Christianity, at least to the degree that it abides by scripture, recognizes this in how husbands are not just the leader for the family in name alone, but they are also tasked with the responsibility to develop and discipline their families, including their own wives. Where in r-selection, the most dominant just gets the most opportunities for sex, in K-selection, the most dominant are also burdened with the most responsibility.
So, given all of this, how do we reliably tell the two apart then?
The degree to which a "winner" in any conflict will, or is expected to, shoulder further responsibilities as a consequence of how they deal with conflicts.
While an r-strategist will engage in conflict to mate, they'll never be taking on responsibility for their mates, let alone anyone else.
If you won a philosophical debate, then you win mating access, and that's pretty much it, everyone just moves on with no real change in responsibilities.
While a K-strategist will engage in conflict to mate, they'll also be taking on responsibility for their mates, and anyone else in their "pack".
If you won a philosophical debate, then you not only win mating access, but gain a position of honor and leadership over the others in your group.
Use this to help you understand whether, in a particular circumstance, an individual you are interacting with is reflecting r or K-selected traits when dealing with conflict management. It won't be based in how they run away, but in what changes after they've "won".
Conflict without consequence is the path of the r-selected, and so if you are a K-strategist, be wary of elevating anyone that can effectively compete but ultimately desires only the affluence and power of leadership, without the responsibilities that also come with such authority.
No comments:
Post a Comment