4 ms·

> I think people have an instinct for enriching their genome, that's why we're attracted to features our own group lacks, like different skin/hair color, facial

> I think people have an instinct for enriching their genome, that's why we're attracted to features our own group lacks, like different skin/hair color, facial structure, etc. This is simply false. We know for a fact that humans have an in-group bias. Studies have shown that even infants and toddlers are biased toward their own in-group. https://phys.org/news/2017-04-infants-racial-bias-members.html https://phys.org/news/2017-04-infants-racial-bias-members.ht... https://time.com/67092/baby-racists-survival-strategy/ https://time.com/67092/baby-racists-survival-strategy/ If what you claim is true, we would never have had miscegnation laws. Most people in the world wouldn't encourage marrying their own kind. Just think about it. If people naturally favored the out-group ( people who look different ), racial/ethnic groups and diversity wouldn't exist. Blue eyes and blonde hair wouldn't exist because they are recessive traits. We wouldn't have any diversity because ethnic/racial groups require in-group bias to exist. The fact that we have black people, white people, indian people, chinese people, etc shows that in-group bias is the norm. People naturally find their own kind and traits to be attractive. We know it's innate since it exists in babies. To find out-group features to be desirable requires external pressure - media, education, etc. Edit: Since so many here are downvoting science because of their political agenda... "We Choose Friends Who Are Genetically Similar to Us" https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/we-choose-friends-who-are-genetically-similar-us-180952050/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/we-choose-friends-... "I like your genes: People more likely to choose a spouse with similar DNA" https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140519160716.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140519160716.h...

jhgb 5y ago
Different people can have different views. You can easily have some people wanting to mate with outgroup members and other people not wanting the former people to mate with outgroup members and trying to prevent it. This is not a contradiction.
Dylan16807 5y ago
You're reaching. Early bias exists, but that doesn't remove culture from the equation. Culture is much more powerful. Also, the difficulty of travel until quite recently would still lead to a lot of variety in different locations. Also, that's not how recessive genes work. > To find out-group features to be desirable requires external pressure - media, education, etc. This is a massive mistake, of looking at an overall average and trying to apply it to individual situations. It's like expecting every man to be taller than every woman.
- dotcommand 5y ago
  > You're reaching. Early bias exists, but that doesn't remove culture from the equation. I'm not "reaching". I didn't do the research. Scientists did. The research was on 3 month old infants. Before they are conscious. Before they know how to speak. > Also, the difficulty of travel until quite recently would still lead to a lot of variety in different locations. Right because miscegnation laws existed in the US because one simply couldn't travel from one town in alabama to another town in alabama. > Culture is much more powerful. I agree. Hence why I wrote: "To find out-group features to be desirable requires external pressure - media, education, etc.". Government/media/propaganda can easily undo our natural programming. But that doesn't mean that underlying natural programming doesn't exist. > Also, that's not how recessive genes work. No. That's exactly how it works. To show how powerful culture is, you are denying science because it goes against your "programming". Also, just because I'm pointing out science doesn't mean I'm for miscegnation laws or against people marrying outside their group. I'm for people marrying who they like. Also, ever notice that it's people with an agenda who always downvote science?
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    > I didn't do the research. Scientists did. The reach is in how far you're applying it. > I agree. Hence why I wrote: "To find out-group features to be desirable requires external pressure - media, education, etc.". Government/media/propaganda can easily undo our natural programming. But that doesn't mean that underlying natural programming doesn't exist. But then you can't say the natural programming is the reason. It's one factor and not one of the bigger factors. > No. That's exactly how it works. > To show how powerful culture is, you are denying science because it goes against your "programming". It's not how it works, and I didn't deny any science. Do I seriously need to pull out a genetics textbook? If you keep a steady population and have people marry at random, the number of copies of any particular recessive gene will stay the same. Mix up everyone's eye genes and you'll have a billion people with at least one copy of the gene for blue eyes. If two people with one copy have children, about a quarter of them will have blue eyes. Even if you were making a strawman of ultra-extreme outgroup preference, where couples want to pair brown and blue eyes above all else, you'll still have carriers marrying people with blue eyes and having blue-eyed children. Even if you remove all of those, once you have a single generation of kids that all have one brown gene and one blue gene, they'll mix back up to give you kids with blue eyes.
throwaway769879 5y ago
Preferences evolve during the lifetime of humans. Preferences in infants is usually different from preferences in sexual partners. Don't have the source handy, but it has been shown that females look for people with different genes (at least in regards to antibody-encoding) for mating, but once pregnant, seek people with similar genes (e.g. family). In general, most studies saying people prefer sexual partners with different genes refer to the genes encoding antibodies, not the genome in general.
ASalazarMX 5y ago
> Since so many here are downvoting science because of their political agenda It doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing situation. If your posture was true, only Asians would find Asian girls attractive, for example. The fact that mixed people exist is proof that a subset of the population finds variance attractive, and another subset doesn't or doesn't care. We don't have to differentiate instinct from culture from nurture, just look at the final effect. Politics has no place in this discussion.

jhgb 5y ago

Different people can have different views. You can easily have some people wanting to mate with outgroup members and other people not wanting the former people to mate with outgroup members and trying to prevent it. This is not a contradiction.

Dylan16807 5y ago

You're reaching. Early bias exists, but that doesn't remove culture from the equation. Culture is much more powerful. Also, the difficulty of travel until quite recently would still lead to a lot of variety in different locations. Also, that's not how recessive genes work. > To find out-group features to be desirable requires external pressure - media, education, etc. This is a massive mistake, of looking at an overall average and trying to apply it to individual situations. It's like expecting every man to be taller than every woman.

dotcommand 5y ago
> You're reaching. Early bias exists, but that doesn't remove culture from the equation. I'm not "reaching". I didn't do the research. Scientists did. The research was on 3 month old infants. Before they are conscious. Before they know how to speak. > Also, the difficulty of travel until quite recently would still lead to a lot of variety in different locations. Right because miscegnation laws existed in the US because one simply couldn't travel from one town in alabama to another town in alabama. > Culture is much more powerful. I agree. Hence why I wrote: "To find out-group features to be desirable requires external pressure - media, education, etc.". Government/media/propaganda can easily undo our natural programming. But that doesn't mean that underlying natural programming doesn't exist. > Also, that's not how recessive genes work. No. That's exactly how it works. To show how powerful culture is, you are denying science because it goes against your "programming". Also, just because I'm pointing out science doesn't mean I'm for miscegnation laws or against people marrying outside their group. I'm for people marrying who they like. Also, ever notice that it's people with an agenda who always downvote science?
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  > I didn't do the research. Scientists did. The reach is in how far you're applying it. > I agree. Hence why I wrote: "To find out-group features to be desirable requires external pressure - media, education, etc.". Government/media/propaganda can easily undo our natural programming. But that doesn't mean that underlying natural programming doesn't exist. But then you can't say the natural programming is the reason. It's one factor and not one of the bigger factors. > No. That's exactly how it works. > To show how powerful culture is, you are denying science because it goes against your "programming". It's not how it works, and I didn't deny any science. Do I seriously need to pull out a genetics textbook? If you keep a steady population and have people marry at random, the number of copies of any particular recessive gene will stay the same. Mix up everyone's eye genes and you'll have a billion people with at least one copy of the gene for blue eyes. If two people with one copy have children, about a quarter of them will have blue eyes. Even if you were making a strawman of ultra-extreme outgroup preference, where couples want to pair brown and blue eyes above all else, you'll still have carriers marrying people with blue eyes and having blue-eyed children. Even if you remove all of those, once you have a single generation of kids that all have one brown gene and one blue gene, they'll mix back up to give you kids with blue eyes.

throwaway769879 5y ago

Preferences evolve during the lifetime of humans. Preferences in infants is usually different from preferences in sexual partners. Don't have the source handy, but it has been shown that females look for people with different genes (at least in regards to antibody-encoding) for mating, but once pregnant, seek people with similar genes (e.g. family). In general, most studies saying people prefer sexual partners with different genes refer to the genes encoding antibodies, not the genome in general.

ASalazarMX 5y ago

> Since so many here are downvoting science because of their political agenda It doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing situation. If your posture was true, only Asians would find Asian girls attractive, for example. The fact that mixed people exist is proof that a subset of the population finds variance attractive, and another subset doesn't or doesn't care. We don't have to differentiate instinct from culture from nurture, just look at the final effect. Politics has no place in this discussion.