4 ms·

It's more parsimonious to just assume that black women have fewer options. Black men between 20 and 34 (prime mate-choosing years) have an 11% incarceration ra

It's more parsimonious to just assume that black women have fewer options. Black men between 20 and 34 (prime mate-choosing years) have an 11% incarceration rate. The unemployment rate and median income among (unincarcerated) black men is also low. So black women are more likely to need to look for people of a different racial background. That means that if everyone has a slight bias towards their own ethnic group, it's going to hit black women the hardest. (It would be a pretty strange mutation if you didn't have that bias.) Thus, they have to try the hardest, and have the least to show for it. Or they're on Ebony Elite.

psyklic 17y ago
Using broad statistics to say that black women have fewer options may not be the right approach. Black women who use the Internet and OKCupid are probably far less likely to have incarcerated, unemployed men in their social circles. If you look at dating sites in general, there aren't many users who live in dangerous or poor areas.
- byrneseyeview 17y ago
  Ignoring those statistics doesn't help, either. Maybe a lot of people working on the Netflix prize said "But maybe IMDB and Netflix target a completely different audience." But those people didn't win.
HeyLaughingBoy 17y ago
It would be a pretty strange mutation if you didn't have that bias Since this is potentially a sensitive subject, I'll preface my question with the assertion that I'm not offended, just curious. I have no such bias; why do you consider it a "strange mutation?"
- sokoloff 17y ago
  I would imagine that the argument of GP is roughly: Suppose in a population at a certain time, 2 simple genetics based traits suddenly become available (visible/detectable) during mate selection. Trait A has the property that whether you have or don't have a particular expresion of it, you seek mates in the same condition. Trait B has the property that you randomly select mates without regard to their trait B status matching yours. Trait A would tend to persist or even be amplified throughout generations, while trait B would be dispersed and become less obvious over generations. Given the obviousness of race during mate selection, and the fact that the human race as a whole has not homogenized in that dimension, I would say that there is some non-trivial natural preference among humans to pick "like" when seeking mates. (There are of course obvious flaws in the above thinking, the most obvious I can think of being that societal mobility has only in the last few hundred years made it reasonably practical to date outside the local area in which you were born. I do however think that there's a genetic basis for "birds of a feather" in mate selection, and that that doesn't imply the root cause is an undesirable form of racism.)
- byrneseyeview 17y ago
  Sokoloff's post pretty much nails it, but I'll add that it's not just about sex. Before the invention of trade, there was basically no way for one tribe of humans to profitably interact with another tribe. So anyone who has the trait "Treat my genetic relatives (my tribe) nicely; be hostile to anyone who looks different," will have more material success (and more kids) than someone with another set of genes. Give civilization another couple thousand years, and this might change. But if you look at the results of the Implicit Association Test, and the continued popularity of ethnic conflict, you've gotta assume that evolution has a big lead on political correctness. By the way, have you taken the implicit association test? I highly recommend it for those of us who aren't biased. It's often illuminating. https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/
Mz 17y ago
(It would be a pretty strange mutation if you didn't have that bias.) Humorously enough: I have one of the most common white genetic disorders on the planet. It is homozygous recessive, so daddy has to contribute a gene for it to be passed on. The odds of someone who is neither white nor ethnically Jewish carrying the gene are substantially lower than the odds of a white man carrying it. I have tended towards getting involved with non-whites post-divorce, in part because the idea of having a second child with this disorder is one of my worst nightmares. I have already raised one child with it and he is remarkably healthy. But he and I have a relatively mild form of it. Having a second child with the disorder by a different father might mean having a sicker child. So it really does give me pause when some white man starts making eyes at me. And I'm mostly Irish-German, so I'm quite pale. Close friends who know my situation have joked about getting me a t-shirt "to go clubbing" (which I don't do) which says something nasty and discriminatory, like "No white meat". I don't automatically rule out white men, but, yes, I do in fact have a "strange mutation" which does actually give me a bias in the opposite direction. :-D
- PostOnce 17y ago
  ...It might be awkward to ask someone to have a DNA screening at the point when dating got serious, but it might also be worth your time.
  - Mz 17y ago
    A) I'm not asking for advice, just sharing something I found humorous in the context of the remark made. B) If you will notice, I said nothing about dating. I don't date. I don't plan on having that change. C) Given that initial testing failed to turn up my mutations, that my diagnosis (of a mild variant of the condition) is new-ish and was quite cutting edge when I got it, that they keep finding more mutations for this condition, and that I have spoken to a number of people who had to be retested after more mutations were identified to finally get theirs properly cataloged, I am of the opinion that DNA testing can confirm someone is a risk but cannot prove with 100% certainty that someone is "safe". Therefore, a bias towards men who are not of predominantly white European genealogy may be the only real insurance that can be had. D) The answer "I've had a vasectomy" works just fine for me. I am 44 years old and have serious health issues. So I have no specific plans to have more children. But my first child was not planned either and I am not past menopause. Sh*t happens. That's the piece that concerns me. But thanks for talking to me. That's almost always a Good Thing. :-D

psyklic 17y ago

Using broad statistics to say that black women have fewer options may not be the right approach. Black women who use the Internet and OKCupid are probably far less likely to have incarcerated, unemployed men in their social circles. If you look at dating sites in general, there aren't many users who live in dangerous or poor areas.

byrneseyeview 17y ago
Ignoring those statistics doesn't help, either. Maybe a lot of people working on the Netflix prize said "But maybe IMDB and Netflix target a completely different audience." But those people didn't win.

HeyLaughingBoy 17y ago

It would be a pretty strange mutation if you didn't have that bias Since this is potentially a sensitive subject, I'll preface my question with the assertion that I'm not offended, just curious. I have no such bias; why do you consider it a "strange mutation?"

sokoloff 17y ago
I would imagine that the argument of GP is roughly: Suppose in a population at a certain time, 2 simple genetics based traits suddenly become available (visible/detectable) during mate selection. Trait A has the property that whether you have or don't have a particular expresion of it, you seek mates in the same condition. Trait B has the property that you randomly select mates without regard to their trait B status matching yours. Trait A would tend to persist or even be amplified throughout generations, while trait B would be dispersed and become less obvious over generations. Given the obviousness of race during mate selection, and the fact that the human race as a whole has not homogenized in that dimension, I would say that there is some non-trivial natural preference among humans to pick "like" when seeking mates. (There are of course obvious flaws in the above thinking, the most obvious I can think of being that societal mobility has only in the last few hundred years made it reasonably practical to date outside the local area in which you were born. I do however think that there's a genetic basis for "birds of a feather" in mate selection, and that that doesn't imply the root cause is an undesirable form of racism.)
byrneseyeview 17y ago
Sokoloff's post pretty much nails it, but I'll add that it's not just about sex. Before the invention of trade, there was basically no way for one tribe of humans to profitably interact with another tribe. So anyone who has the trait "Treat my genetic relatives (my tribe) nicely; be hostile to anyone who looks different," will have more material success (and more kids) than someone with another set of genes. Give civilization another couple thousand years, and this might change. But if you look at the results of the Implicit Association Test, and the continued popularity of ethnic conflict, you've gotta assume that evolution has a big lead on political correctness. By the way, have you taken the implicit association test? I highly recommend it for those of us who aren't biased. It's often illuminating. https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

Mz 17y ago

(It would be a pretty strange mutation if you didn't have that bias.) Humorously enough: I have one of the most common white genetic disorders on the planet. It is homozygous recessive, so daddy has to contribute a gene for it to be passed on. The odds of someone who is neither white nor ethnically Jewish carrying the gene are substantially lower than the odds of a white man carrying it. I have tended towards getting involved with non-whites post-divorce, in part because the idea of having a second child with this disorder is one of my worst nightmares. I have already raised one child with it and he is remarkably healthy. But he and I have a relatively mild form of it. Having a second child with the disorder by a different father might mean having a sicker child. So it really does give me pause when some white man starts making eyes at me. And I'm mostly Irish-German, so I'm quite pale. Close friends who know my situation have joked about getting me a t-shirt "to go clubbing" (which I don't do) which says something nasty and discriminatory, like "No white meat". I don't automatically rule out white men, but, yes, I do in fact have a "strange mutation" which does actually give me a bias in the opposite direction. :-D

PostOnce 17y ago
...It might be awkward to ask someone to have a DNA screening at the point when dating got serious, but it might also be worth your time.
- Mz 17y ago
  A) I'm not asking for advice, just sharing something I found humorous in the context of the remark made. B) If you will notice, I said nothing about dating. I don't date. I don't plan on having that change. C) Given that initial testing failed to turn up my mutations, that my diagnosis (of a mild variant of the condition) is new-ish and was quite cutting edge when I got it, that they keep finding more mutations for this condition, and that I have spoken to a number of people who had to be retested after more mutations were identified to finally get theirs properly cataloged, I am of the opinion that DNA testing can confirm someone is a risk but cannot prove with 100% certainty that someone is "safe". Therefore, a bias towards men who are not of predominantly white European genealogy may be the only real insurance that can be had. D) The answer "I've had a vasectomy" works just fine for me. I am 44 years old and have serious health issues. So I have no specific plans to have more children. But my first child was not planned either and I am not past menopause. Sh*t happens. That's the piece that concerns me. But thanks for talking to me. That's almost always a Good Thing. :-D