Logical Anarchy Today Episode 60 – Refuting Stefan Molyneux, r/K Theory and IQ


Logical Anarchy Today – Logical Anarchy Today Episode 60 – Refuting Stefan Molyneux, r/K Theory and IQ

r/K theory was something I almost fell for. I even did a dumb episode on it. Ignore that episode. I will be the first to admit that I was wrong on this idea. On this episode I’m going to try and make it right and show that Stef’s recent shift towards statism is simply unscientific and unfounded. Not only that, but it’s also dangerous and stupidly collectivist.

The Truth About Gene Wars: r/K Selection Theory [P1]

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

Gene Wars: r/K Selection Theory | CLASSIFIED MATERIAL [P3]

Wikipedia and r/K theory

Choice Conversations on Stef and r/K Theory and IQ

Genetic Variants Build a Smarter Brain

Interested in Bitcoin as an alternative to US Dollars? Use our Coinbase link!

If you sign up with our coinbase link and purchase $100 in bitcoin, you will recieve an extra $10 from coinbase.

The “Shift” Bitcoin debit card is through coinbase as well.

Support the show by entering Amazon through our link HERE!

Support the show with Bitcoin HERE!

Use this address to add the Logical Anarchy Today show to your podcatcher or subscribe on iTunes!

http://shoutengine.com/LogicalAnarchyToday.xml

9 thoughts on “Logical Anarchy Today Episode 60 – Refuting Stefan Molyneux, r/K Theory and IQ



  1. Stef is stuck on this "genetics is the source of everything" philosophy. Same with IQ. While IQ could be tied to genetics, as I pointed in the episode there seems to be only 20 or so genetic markers associated with IQ that only account for a 1% difference in people's IQ scores. r/K is a theory coming out of favor it seems with geneticists simply because we can read DNA now. Once you can do that, you cease the conjectural theorizing of DNA since you can now see it. r/K was a theory created by E.O. Wilson BEFORE scientists had the opportunity to decipher DNA. He mentions at the very beginning of his Gene wars pt 1 how r/K is a way to look at society through a epigenetic, hormonal, biological and genetic lens. This is just a lie since there has never been any genes associate with "r" or "K" discovered within DNA. Not only that, but he uses this "science" to justify limiting the movement of other people because of "r" genes or genetics that lead to "low IQ". This inevitably leads to collectivism as means enforcement, at least with how friendly Stef has become with the Donald. His talking points have become the typical neo-con talking points and it's all based in Pseudo science.


  2. I suggest listening to it again. Many of the genetic markers associated with IQ account for only a 1% difference in IQ scores. There have never been any "r" or "K" genes discovered along with genes both associated with race and IQ (most geneticist, which Stef is not, concede that "race" is a tricky thing to nail down genetically).


  3. If you are willing to use the state to keep the low IQ brown people out, what is to stop you from kicking the low IQ people already in the country out? Statists documents like the constitution? How does Stef explain the above average IQ statists in Mensa and other organizations? I love a lot of Stef's work. Huge fan, but this is just plain cherry picking stats to fit a world view.


  4. Hi Jon, I think what you are doing is great. I admire all people that stand up and bring philosophy and anarchy out to the world. More of that.

    I have not spent much time reading about about r/K, and it could be that Molyneux is wrong about it. I think he is also wrong about the script about "Frozen" and its meaning, but from a philosofic view his thoughts were very interesting.
    Ok, that said, I wrote the sentence above (Excuse me, "Stef's recent shift towards statism is simply unscientific and unfounded") before listening to your podcast, and I still think the same after listening. I have been fortunate to have nighttime listening to many podcasts and also a lot of Molyneux work the latest 5-6 years. The impression I got when listening to your podcast, is that you are wrong in thinking of the FDR-show as a cult, this is something people put out when they got emotional when Stefan focused on bad-parenting and telling people that if bad parents still wont regret their actions in your childhood, you should consider get away from them. Thats fair, it is a good think to consider. Also this thing about Molyneux becoming a statist, and you mention "how friendly Stef has become with the Donald". This is so misunderstood. Molyneux have explained this in a few shows; why should he not be allowed to admire (sort of) or even discuss the fact that a self-funded "politician" makes his way almost to the top in this race, so far? It is interesting. It is not logical to conclude that he now tends to be a statist. This Donald-thing is a huge difference compared to the normal stuff. Molyneux is not a statist, and I have never heard him say somthing different from that. Ofcourse, I may be wrong, but I dont think it is correct, or fair, to say he is. If you listen to what he actually says, you will understand that, but I think if you listen to a show once or twice a month, there could be some elements dragged out of context that gives this impression. Thats just my comment. By the way, you have a new follower.


  5. I hear ya and that is a fair assessment. Stefan, from what I have seen, seems to say one thing explicitly and then say the opposite implicitly. I mean in FDR 3103 (I'll put a link to it below) Stefan says "If you feel the government is getting to big you have to link arms with people, push back, reduce the size and power of the state. Which is a brutal, reducing the size and power of the state outside of a civil war or foreign invaders or interstellar invasion of people who want to eat the brains of liberals and still leave hungry. You need to link arms with like minded people and commit to really pushing back in a peaceful, electoral and democratic fashion. That's the reality."

    https://youtu.be/W6NYP9qmjfU?t=49m14s

    To me, as a Voluntaryist, I find the idea of engaging in the political process as me engaging in the initiation of violence in order to get what I want. I'm just not willing to do that. So Stef's remark here coupled with his admiration for Trump (where was this admiration for the more principled Ron Paul?) leads me to believe that Stef is veering dangerously close to Statism. Stef seems to be abandoning the principles he first professed in the name of pragmatism and that is very dangerous in my opinion. And again, I admire the guy. He has done a lot of great work. I'm not saying stop listening to him or anything, even if he is a statist now (I have learned a lot from minarchists and statists myself). I'm just saying that Stef puts on this show of impenetrable philosophical armor and in this case, it seems to be an unnecessary weak spot in the philosophy. I appreciate the follow too! Thanks so much!

    Thanks for commenting on the blog too. Looking at my stats I get decent views but no comments on here so it's nice to see. And like what I'm doing to Stef here I think we all need to do to each other to make sure we have the correct philosophy regarding government, statism and anarchism. I like to win debates myself but I like to do so on solid and principled footing. So thanks for the challenge here!


  6. I also hear ya on the cult thing. I guess for me I find the whole "Defooing" thing along with the comment section of his channel off putting. Segregation from the larger community is a major tactic of cults which is why I personally use the term. It's why I find the military and other such state entities to be cults as well. I understand your misgivings on the term though and I acknowledge that it is definitely me speaking in hyperbole in way.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *