4 ms·

Perhaps it's popular because it's not true. But it should be true, and everyone wishes it was true. The evolutionary basis of xenophobia is well-understood.

Perhaps it's popular because it's not true. But it should be true, and everyone wishes it was true. The evolutionary basis of xenophobia is well-understood. A quick search turns up, for example: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/racism-and-xenophobia-linked-to-biological-fear-of-outsiders-in-stone-age-566708.html http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/... Babies of about the same age as the ones shown in Obama's tweet already display instinctive xenophobia: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/are-babies-bigoted-1980725/ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/are-babies-bigo...

ztratar 9y ago
But xenophobia is most certainly a spectrum of emotion, and that which occurs in babies can be taught quite easily out of them. Once friendships occur, specifically, it tends to fade away pretty quickly. So I'm not sure if baby-sourced studies like the one you show "prove" that "it's not true." Not saying that the studies are wrong; just that we all have many biological traits that we overcome easily through nurture.
shallot_router 9y ago
Instinctive xenophobia is different from indoctrinated bigotry.
SubiculumCode 9y ago
In-group out-group markers are flexible, but can most easily be based on physical characteristics, so it is maintained. The best chance to remove it is to counteract those markers with in-group markers pertaining to class, dress, language, and values. EDITED for typos and clarity.
djtriptych 9y ago
Trash analysis from a throwaway account. Independent.co.uk link discusses proposed evolutionary/biological origins of xenophobia, and specifically points at groupthink, not individual bias, as a possible explanation. Smithsonian link describes a study where babies show a preference for non-racialized puppets who displayed similar food preferences. Nothing to do with race or bigotry.
- coriolanus 9y ago
  Here's a better link: https://www.utoronto.ca/news/racial-bias-may-begin-babies-six-months-u-t-research-reveals https://www.utoronto.ca/news/racial-bias-may-begin-babies-si...
  - djtriptych 9y ago
    Points to lack of exposure to other races as a likely cause. Far from babies being born racist.
    - coriolanus 9y ago
      Right. The reason my house is brown is: lack of exposure to blue paint. No one is saying you can't convince babies, or anyone, not to be racist. Actually, if history proves anything, it's that you can convince anyone of anything if you get to them early enough.
      - anigbrowl 9y ago
        But your claim seems to be that they're racist by default. I grew up in a poor ethnically homogenous country at a time when there was only one TV channel. I didn't meet or even see anyone of a different ethnicity until my early teens. Why didn't I have any negative feelings towards them despite my complete lack of exposure?
moufestaphio 9y ago
Yeah, I see this sentiment flowing around very often and I agree with you on this. I prefer to think of it this way: The ability to rise above this type of thing is a part of what makes us human. Learning to not be bigot is something you have to do. You have to work at it always, it's not free.
- coriolanus 9y ago
  Certainly. The point is just that the statement is literally false. That doesn't mean it can't be poetically true.
nsaslideface 9y ago
The first article from 2004 has two anthropologists say they "believe" evolutionary psychology can explain exclusionary behavior, while the second has the line "While extrapolating this to mean that the babies are racist or bigoted is probably a step too far...it does raise interesting questions". I wish that's all I needed to firmly hold something as fact, it must feel nice.
DonaldPShimoda 9y ago
Specifically looking at the Smithsonian article, they don't even mention xenophobia until the last sentence. What they're talking about is instinctive preference for other creatures which the baby identifies with, and in the research the article cites there isn't any direct correlation to race. They talk about food preference — something superficial. There was no research cited to indicate whether the behavior extends to racial distinction, so your using this research to back up your claim that "babies of about the same age as the ones shown in Obama's tweet already display instinctive xenophobia" is intellectually dishonest at best. And I ignored the Independent article because they're known to be poor at in-depth reporting.
- coriolanus 9y ago
  My fault -- you can find much better links if you search for 15 seconds instead of 5: https://www.utoronto.ca/news/racial-bias-may-begin-babies-six-months-u-t-research-reveals https://www.utoronto.ca/news/racial-bias-may-begin-babies-si...
- djtriptych 9y ago
  Alt-righters will occasionally shitpost stuff like this to derail any real discussion. I've seen dumps of dozens of misleading links to support points like the above. Forcing the thread to disprove each one is an effective method of hijacking the thread.
epistasis 9y ago
>Perhaps it's popular because it's not true Why would something being untrue make it popular?
- sigzero 9y ago
  Have you watched the news and any kind of social media lately?
matthewbauer 9y ago
That's not hate though.

ztratar 9y ago

But xenophobia is most certainly a spectrum of emotion, and that which occurs in babies can be taught quite easily out of them. Once friendships occur, specifically, it tends to fade away pretty quickly. So I'm not sure if baby-sourced studies like the one you show "prove" that "it's not true." Not saying that the studies are wrong; just that we all have many biological traits that we overcome easily through nurture.

shallot_router 9y ago

Instinctive xenophobia is different from indoctrinated bigotry.

SubiculumCode 9y ago

In-group out-group markers are flexible, but can most easily be based on physical characteristics, so it is maintained. The best chance to remove it is to counteract those markers with in-group markers pertaining to class, dress, language, and values. EDITED for typos and clarity.

djtriptych 9y ago

Trash analysis from a throwaway account. Independent.co.uk link discusses proposed evolutionary/biological origins of xenophobia, and specifically points at groupthink, not individual bias, as a possible explanation. Smithsonian link describes a study where babies show a preference for non-racialized puppets who displayed similar food preferences. Nothing to do with race or bigotry.

coriolanus 9y ago
Here's a better link: https://www.utoronto.ca/news/racial-bias-may-begin-babies-six-months-u-t-research-reveals https://www.utoronto.ca/news/racial-bias-may-begin-babies-si...
- djtriptych 9y ago
  Points to lack of exposure to other races as a likely cause. Far from babies being born racist.
  - coriolanus 9y ago
    Right. The reason my house is brown is: lack of exposure to blue paint. No one is saying you can't convince babies, or anyone, not to be racist. Actually, if history proves anything, it's that you can convince anyone of anything if you get to them early enough.
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      But your claim seems to be that they're racist by default. I grew up in a poor ethnically homogenous country at a time when there was only one TV channel. I didn't meet or even see anyone of a different ethnicity until my early teens. Why didn't I have any negative feelings towards them despite my complete lack of exposure?

moufestaphio 9y ago

Yeah, I see this sentiment flowing around very often and I agree with you on this. I prefer to think of it this way: The ability to rise above this type of thing is a part of what makes us human. Learning to not be bigot is something you have to do. You have to work at it always, it's not free.

coriolanus 9y ago
Certainly. The point is just that the statement is literally false. That doesn't mean it can't be poetically true.

nsaslideface 9y ago

The first article from 2004 has two anthropologists say they "believe" evolutionary psychology can explain exclusionary behavior, while the second has the line "While extrapolating this to mean that the babies are racist or bigoted is probably a step too far...it does raise interesting questions". I wish that's all I needed to firmly hold something as fact, it must feel nice.

DonaldPShimoda 9y ago

Specifically looking at the Smithsonian article, they don't even mention xenophobia until the last sentence. What they're talking about is instinctive preference for other creatures which the baby identifies with, and in the research the article cites there isn't any direct correlation to race. They talk about food preference — something superficial. There was no research cited to indicate whether the behavior extends to racial distinction, so your using this research to back up your claim that "babies of about the same age as the ones shown in Obama's tweet already display instinctive xenophobia" is intellectually dishonest at best. And I ignored the Independent article because they're known to be poor at in-depth reporting.

coriolanus 9y ago
My fault -- you can find much better links if you search for 15 seconds instead of 5: https://www.utoronto.ca/news/racial-bias-may-begin-babies-six-months-u-t-research-reveals https://www.utoronto.ca/news/racial-bias-may-begin-babies-si...
djtriptych 9y ago
Alt-righters will occasionally shitpost stuff like this to derail any real discussion. I've seen dumps of dozens of misleading links to support points like the above. Forcing the thread to disprove each one is an effective method of hijacking the thread.

epistasis 9y ago

>Perhaps it's popular because it's not true Why would something being untrue make it popular?

sigzero 9y ago
Have you watched the news and any kind of social media lately?

matthewbauer 9y ago

That's not hate though.