5 ms·

Factoid: The richest kind of heterosexual household in the US, on average, is Asian man, white woman.

notch656a 5y ago
Shockingly, I found the same study, and you are correct. Factoid: the second richest kind of heterosexual household in the US, on average, is Asian woman, white man. Interestingly, Asian-Asian and White-White lag significantly behind both. Almost paradoxically, from a purely financial outcome perspective a white man is expected to be better off marrying an asian woman, while an asian man is expected to be better off marrying a white woman. I didn't realize there was a pair like that where both male and female are statistically better off financially marrying the complement, but it seems white/asian pair is the winning combination for maximum expected income?
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - notch656a 5y ago
    >Highly doubt these averages indicate causation. More likely these pairs formed because the women are choosing men with certain financial attributes. Either way correlation doesn't indicate causation, and I believe you are mistakenly assuming such a connection. I think you are mistaken about what 'expected' means. Expected value doesn't imply causation [0]. Sorry for not being more clear here, I was using the word as it's used in probability theory. Since there is no weighting here, expected basically means average, not some causative assertion. >white women will only choose an Asian who's so financially well off that race no longer matters This is just straight up racist. You can say what white woman will do on average or what white woman is expected to do, but you can't possibly know white women will 'only' choose an Asian when they're financially well off. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value
    - deltaonefour 5y ago
      - notch656a 5y ago
        deltaonefour 5y ago
        >Being married implies some marrying happen. You're just playing semantic games. I'm not playing fucking semantic games. I'm telling you your sentence is straight up wrong. I already get what you mean. We can end it here. But your usage of the term marriage HEAVILY implies causation and that's what I thought your meaning was when I read your language. Obviously you meant different. BUT my technical guideline will help you prevent future misunderstandings. If your logic and technical language is bulletproof then your entire argument will be as well. >Sure, you can backtrack and it becomes a population observation rather than a racist rant about what white women will ONLY choose. What's wrong with backtracking? I don't understand. You use imprecise language and you backtrack and I can't? All the fuck we're doing here is trying to communicate and clarify communication. When I attempt to clarify you accuse me of backtracking and try to paint me as a racist? It is 100% true that as a generality white women are not interested in asian men due to status. Even Asian women in the US aren't as interested in Asian men as a result of the same perception. This is a VERY real phenomenon. It is not racist to describe reality. Do you know who I am? I'm asian. I grew up facing some of the most racist white people in existence. Do not call me a racist, not after what the white race did to my people and others. Let me be absolutely clear. I am not racist. Neither are you, but if you choose to call me a racist EVEN though I clearly am not then you are no worse then them. "Are you white? Why are you backtracking on all the people your race enslaved and killed?" It would be wrong if I used the previous sentence on you. I'm not. Just throwing it in here as an example to show you how ludicrous your backtracking bs is.
        notch656a 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

Shockingly, I found the same study, and you are correct. Factoid: the second richest kind of heterosexual household in the US, on average, is Asian woman, white man. Interestingly, Asian-Asian and White-White lag significantly behind both. Almost paradoxically, from a purely financial outcome perspective a white man is expected to be better off marrying an asian woman, while an asian man is expected to be better off marrying a white woman. I didn't realize there was a pair like that where both male and female are statistically better off financially marrying the complement, but it seems white/asian pair is the winning combination for maximum expected income?

deltaonefour 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- notch656a 5y ago
  >Highly doubt these averages indicate causation. More likely these pairs formed because the women are choosing men with certain financial attributes. Either way correlation doesn't indicate causation, and I believe you are mistakenly assuming such a connection. I think you are mistaken about what 'expected' means. Expected value doesn't imply causation [0]. Sorry for not being more clear here, I was using the word as it's used in probability theory. Since there is no weighting here, expected basically means average, not some causative assertion. >white women will only choose an Asian who's so financially well off that race no longer matters This is just straight up racist. You can say what white woman will do on average or what white woman is expected to do, but you can't possibly know white women will 'only' choose an Asian when they're financially well off. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value
  - deltaonefour 5y ago
    - notch656a 5y ago
      - deltaonefour 5y ago
        >Being married implies some marrying happen. You're just playing semantic games. I'm not playing fucking semantic games. I'm telling you your sentence is straight up wrong. I already get what you mean. We can end it here. But your usage of the term marriage HEAVILY implies causation and that's what I thought your meaning was when I read your language. Obviously you meant different. BUT my technical guideline will help you prevent future misunderstandings. If your logic and technical language is bulletproof then your entire argument will be as well. >Sure, you can backtrack and it becomes a population observation rather than a racist rant about what white women will ONLY choose. What's wrong with backtracking? I don't understand. You use imprecise language and you backtrack and I can't? All the fuck we're doing here is trying to communicate and clarify communication. When I attempt to clarify you accuse me of backtracking and try to paint me as a racist? It is 100% true that as a generality white women are not interested in asian men due to status. Even Asian women in the US aren't as interested in Asian men as a result of the same perception. This is a VERY real phenomenon. It is not racist to describe reality. Do you know who I am? I'm asian. I grew up facing some of the most racist white people in existence. Do not call me a racist, not after what the white race did to my people and others. Let me be absolutely clear. I am not racist. Neither are you, but if you choose to call me a racist EVEN though I clearly am not then you are no worse then them. "Are you white? Why are you backtracking on all the people your race enslaved and killed?" It would be wrong if I used the previous sentence on you. I'm not. Just throwing it in here as an example to show you how ludicrous your backtracking bs is.
        notch656a 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]