RSS
A press release from the U. of Toronto:
Infants show racial bias toward members of own race and against those of other races
April 11, 2017
Two studies by researchers at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) at the University of Toronto and their collaborators from the US, UK, France and China, show that six- to nine-month-old infants demonstrate racial bias in favour of members of their own race and racial bias against those of other races.
In the first study, “Older but not younger infants associate own-race faces with happy music and other-race faces with sad music”, published in Developmental Science, results showed that after six months of age, infants begin to associate own-race faces with happy music and other-race faces with sad music.
In the second study, “Infants rely more on gaze cues from own-race than other-race adults for learning under uncertainty”, published in Child Development, researchers found that six- to eight-month-old infants were more inclined to learn information from an adult of his or her own race than from an adult of a different race.
(In both studies, infants less than six months of age were not found to show such biases).
So there’s hope for humanity after all: we just have to keep human beings perpetually at a mental age of five months.
Racial bias begins at younger age, without experience with other-race individuals
“The findings of these studies are significant for many reasons,” said Dr. Kang Lee, professor at OISE’s Jackman Institute of Child Study, a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair and lead author of the studies. “The results show that race-based bias already exists around the second half of a child’s first year. This challenges the popular view that race-based bias first emerges only during the preschool years.”
Researchers say these findings are also important because they offer a new perspective on the cause of race-based bias.
“When we consider why someone has a racial bias, we often think of negative experiences he or she may have had with other-race individuals. But, these findings suggest that a race-based bias emerges without experience with other-race individuals,” said Dr. Naiqi (Gabriel) Xiao, first author of the two papers and postdoctoral fellow at Princeton University.
This can be inferred because prior studies from other labs have indicated that many infants typically experience over 90 per cent own-race faces. Following this pattern, the current studies involved babies who had little to no prior experience with other-race individuals.
“These findings thus point to the possibility that aspects of racial bias later in life may arise from our lack of exposure to other-race individuals in infancy,” Dr. Lee said.
Study results could be significant in prevention of racial bias
He continued to explain that overall, the results of these studies are critically important given the issues of wide-spread racial bias and racism around the world.
“If we can pinpoint the starting point of racial bias, which we may have done here, we can start to find ways to prevent racial biases from happening,” he said.
We must prevent babies from being born to people of the babies’ own ancestry.
That may, however, prove challenging to implement.
“An important finding is that infants will learn from people they are most exposed to,” added Dr. Xiao, indicating that parents can help prevent racial bias by, for example, introducing their children to people from a variety of races.
As conveyed in the second study’s title, the bias was only observed in an uncertain context in which adults provided partially reliable information. As explained by Dr. Paul Quinn, an additional co-author, and Francis Alison Professor at the University of Delaware, “It’s as if the infants trust the own-race adult more than the other-race adult when both adults are unreliable.”
Racial bias can ‘permeate almost all of our social interactions’
Dr. Lee said it’s important to be mindful of the impact that racial bias has on our everyday lives, stressing that not only is explicit bias a concern, but so too are implicit forms.
“Implicit racial biases tend to be subconscious, pernicious, and insidious. It permeates almost all of our social interactions, from health care to commerce, employment, politics, and dating. Because of that, it’s very important to study where these kinds of biases come from and use that information to try and prevent racial biases from developing,” he said.
The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward Lazy Susan random baby distribution.
I was the only true race-ist baby.
* at which point, I was also snugly superior too.
At the rate we’re going, we’ll be there soon.
What happens with biracial babies (such as BHO once was)? I would guess that they display some (but not as much) preference for both parents’ races and the same degree of preference against those of other races as monoracial babies – but that is only a guess.
That's a really good question. I wouldn't be surprised if it's been at least somewhat studied.
Well, Toronto, the “world’s most diverse city”, is the perfect place to start.
Nobody outside Canada has any preconceptions about Torontonians, or any ideas about them at all. Compare that with other diverse cities like Paris, London, and New York.
Google “are babies racist” and similar studies have said the same thing with similar MSM coverage.
I love pointing this out when people say that they hate racists: Even babies? Babies are racist, so do you really hate babies?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S2MIqgI-ic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZVbrvfAn_Q
I remember walking down a busy Vancouver street with my now ex-wife and our newborn. An elderly Chinese lady stuck her head in the stroller and said:
/virtue signalling
A black nanny with good references should be able to leverage this study into a 20% salary increase from liberal families.
One of the unspoken but obvious benefits of immigration to the right sort of white people, is that they can again have servants, without any of them being black.
They
a) don't really want to have blacks and their problems and confrontational attitudes around
and
b) don't feel comfortable--being good "liberals"--ordering blacks around.
Cheap Hispanic labor solves all these problems. People without black attitudes, who you can order about freely without guilt. And you get to pat yourself--vigorously--on your back for providing employment to the huddled masses and providing a "multicultural" experience to your children.
Race Reality. Blacks are more aggressive and tougher(due to more fast-twitch muscle) and cause trouble all over.
You have to train the not noticing faculty to the level of a conditioned reflex.Which ties in with Steve’s definition of political correctness as a war on noticing.
Some of us don’t have that faculty.
The egalitarian fallacy is to push the idea that babies represent the purest form of humanity without prejudice, and therefore non-discrimination is the default state of man.
This is wrong and contradictory. Not only do underdeveloped humans fail to represent humanity as a whole, it also solidifies the fact that bigotry and mental maturity go hand in hand.
Cartoonish racism aside, it is the lack of prejudice in all things that create serious social problems, and holds modern societies back from discovering and categorizing the full hierarchies, and therefore potential, of man.
although one has to admit that scientific antiracism makes some good points, too. For example maybe children of white people with large noses dislike white people with small noses, the same could go with any physical feature. But only the reaction on different races is looked on. This is a bias, as long as reaction on nose size or other physical features is not examined. In a way race is really socially constructed.
That of course still does not mean that it is a coincidence that blacks make up a huge share of NBA stars or convicted murderers.
I'd argue race is socially constructed in terms of where you draw the major categories, but human differences aren't. I.E., you can have huge differences between subgroups of whites (Italians and Swedes are pretty different), but also make large generalizations about, say, whites versus Asians that hold up.
As an aside, you probably picked the wrong 'neutral facial feature' for this crowd. ;)
Stupid racist babies.
Solution is to expand busing to include daycare centers.
Steve King, call your office
Steve, get your stuff together!
This is is some of the laziest writing I’ve seen you submit.
1. “Science Discovers” is a weasel term. “Science Indicates” may be more accurate
2. It seems all you did was quote from ScienceDaily, with four sentences of your own dispersed throughout the text, one of which was used simply to point to someone else’s work
3. You could have at least pointed to the half-dozen or so most cited cited studies and experiements regarding natal, infant, and toddler racial preference, besides this one.
That of course still does not mean that it is a coincidence that blacks make up a huge share of NBA stars or convicted murderers.
Sure, it’s just familiarity bias. They’ll argue you need to expose babies to babies of different races (and this probably would do it for the faces-at-five-months reaction).
I’d argue race is socially constructed in terms of where you draw the major categories, but human differences aren’t. I.E., you can have huge differences between subgroups of whites (Italians and Swedes are pretty different), but also make large generalizations about, say, whites versus Asians that hold up.
As an aside, you probably picked the wrong ‘neutral facial feature’ for this crowd.
This sentence of yours is a good way to look at things that I had not heard expressed so concisely before (thanks):
Have you not hung out on campus recently? That’s just the plan, and it would have worked too, if it hadn’t been for you meddling bloggers!
This is is some of the laziest writing I've seen you submit.
1. "Science Discovers" is a weasel term. "Science Indicates" may be more accurate
2. It seems all you did was quote from ScienceDaily, with four sentences of your own dispersed throughout the text, one of which was used simply to point to someone else's work
3. You could have at least pointed to the half-dozen or so most cited cited studies and experiements regarding natal, infant, and toddler racial preference, besides this one.
As Virginia Heffernan observed in the New York Sunday Times Magazine in 2010:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2010/08/importance-of-being-parodic.html
I feel somehow smugly superior to you, Mr. Anon – I have on record that I never uttered any racist epithets until 18 months*, at which point I was no longer a baby, but a toddler. Of course, boys start later. We all know toddlers are pretty racist, so ….
* at which point, I was also snugly superior too.
Later I saw it on TV and became among my fav movies. But that initial reaction made me freak out totally.
It's funny cuz my dad has been pretty libby dib on racial issues. And my sister turned out that way too. And because of public education and pop culture(stuff like ROOTS which I saw many times), I also leaned that way... until I realize reality is just too different from PC crap.
WTF are you doing up so early (or late, as the case may be)?
Steve, if you’re still up, I’d like to correct Jack D’s info on the airline pilot situation, but did not get to read your 2nd Republic Airlines “incident” thread till it was too late to matter. I am very familiar with this subject and wrote a reply to that very comment of his in that 1st thread. He’s not wrong, albeit slightly exaggerated, but he’s not current either, put it that way. What he wrote would have all been very applicable to the deal for regional pilots from mid-1990′s until 3 years back.
If you want to add an addendum, I’ll write more. If not, I’ll say no more about it. I know it’s hard to skim, much less read, through all the comments from your readers, but my quick reply to Jack D was pertinent (amongst my silly ones), as again, that is all an old story – circa 2013 and back. (not about the airline business re: treatment of passenger bookings, etc, but about the pilots)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1G7gr-GTas
K-selected and r-selected populations are immiscible.
I'd argue race is socially constructed in terms of where you draw the major categories, but human differences aren't. I.E., you can have huge differences between subgroups of whites (Italians and Swedes are pretty different), but also make large generalizations about, say, whites versus Asians that hold up.
As an aside, you probably picked the wrong 'neutral facial feature' for this crowd. ;)
Don’t you mean (((neutral facial feature)))?
I thought is was just white babies that were racist ,now it’s babies the world over? sounds like an adaptive advance in there somewhere
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1G7gr-GTas
“Fast twitch” = tachykinin
Even the New York Times knows that, but, of course, they go to the edge of the precipice and turn back.
Also look up “substance P” (which is a related neuropeptide).
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/04/science/to-study-aggression-a-fight-club-for-flies.html
Dr. Kang Lee and Dr. Naiqi (Gabriel) Xiao. Somebody needs to send these Asian researchers — working at Western universities, of course — the memo that this subject area is verboten.
Dr. Lee said, “It’s very important to study where these kinds of biases come from and use that information to try and prevent racial biases from developing.”
Oh never mind, he clearly did get the memo.
This is is some of the laziest writing I've seen you submit.
1. "Science Discovers" is a weasel term. "Science Indicates" may be more accurate
2. It seems all you did was quote from ScienceDaily, with four sentences of your own dispersed throughout the text, one of which was used simply to point to someone else's work
3. You could have at least pointed to the half-dozen or so most cited cited studies and experiements regarding natal, infant, and toddler racial preference, besides this one.
The story is not the “discovery”, the story is the researchers’ conclusions.
In other words, racism is perfectly natural (presumably because people have an evolutionary imperative to transmit their own genes to the next generation, and select a partner whose genes are similar to their own).
But then, observe the move from objective scientist to moral tutor, where the objective scientist posits a value-driven analysis that we must welcome miscegenation:
Cue dramatic hopelessness music:
Think of the racist babies, programmed in the womb for racism like “The White Dog”, only worse.
Implicit racial biases tend to be subconscious, pernicious, and insidious. It permeates almost all of our social interactions, from health care…
I am courteous to everyone I meet, of whatever race. At the same time, my racial biases are conscious. For example, when speaking with the black aides that work at my mother’s nursing home, I have learned not to ask questions the answers to which would require abstract reasoning. It creates an awkward moment. To meet my goal of being courteous to everyone, I have to consciously factor race into the situation.
This is as good a summation of "reality based living" as I have heard. MOST of the African-Americans I meet are of lower than 100 IQ and have limited abstract reasoning and a poor ability to actively see future consequences, as compared to at least a fair percentage of whites and orientals. At the same time, most are not especially violent, nor are they malevolent. Many have many good qualities as human beings. And a few are quite intelligent and will perceive an attempt to "dumb things down" as what it exactly is and will be at least inwardly offended.
Therefore, tact and courtesy are important, as is a willingness and some ability to size up who exactly we are dealing with.
This also applies to some whites. I knew a girl in high school who was quite pretty, a natural blonde with an attractive figure, who was descended from Swedish Lutheran Minnesotans, and both of whose parents were quite smart. Unfortunately, she had been somewhat oxygen deprived at birth and had (I later discovered from finding some school paperwork of hers when helping her move) an IQ of about 90. She was a D student in high school and graduated about six up from the anchorwoman in a class of perhaps 500. Unlike most of the rest of those who didn't do well in (our) high school because they made no effort or didn't care, she worked very hard at her studies. She just never got anywhere with any but the lowest tier of classes, so she was in with mostly vo-tech track guys, and got a reputation-partly deserved and partly not-for being promiscuous. I still occasionally talk to her when visiting the city she still lives in, 35+ years later, and she is a very decent person who has had to struggle a lot in life. (She has one child, a son, who is a successful NCO in the military and in a MOS requiring quite high intelligence. She never married, raised her son alone, and did eventually figure out that by the time he was ten or eleven he could out-think her in most ways, and that caused a lot of trouble for both.) But I have to think about what I say when we talk-abstract concepts go over her head pretty quickly. She is a perpetual woman-child, and still physically quite attractive, and has been taken advantage of more than once. Fortunately, she has family in the area, primarily her sister, who manage her affairs and provided needed guidance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1G7gr-GTas
Ok, that’s not the whole story. Why were Blacks better behaved 60 years ago? Stricter laws and policing, Whites fighting back and Jim Crow. See? We can all get along provided the right measures are in place.
Of course Mr. Sailer’s title is typical over the top Coalition of the Fringes fare.
The researchers from what I gathered did not indicate whether the results of the study are due to nature or nurture. The authors stated a race-bias bias emerges due to a lack of interaction with other races, given that past, similar studies have demonstrated that children under the age of one typically bear witness to over 90% of their own-race faces. That would lead one to believe there is are environmental factors in play. Stated another way—the authors indicate the findings are due to result of the overwhelming exposure infants have to their own race—nurture—and that parents may choose to introduce their infants to people from a variety of races at a young age through educational means. It is other than surprising for infants to be more inclined to take cues from adults of their race than other races due to their surroundings.
It does not mean babies are born racists, or that SJW’s will be kidnapping kids and reprogramming them. The study is pointing out to us how infants are not necessarily a “blank slate” and that their preferences can be encoded. Infants can predisposed to be wary of other races—just like they could be wary of certain animals or foods—because of a lack of consistent exposure to such things. Furthermore, the authors of the second study explained that the bias was observed “in an uncertain context in which adults provided partially reliable information…it’s as if the infants trust the own-race adult more than the other-race adult when both adults are unreliable.”
“We must prevent babies from being born to people of the babies’ own ancestry.”
Exactly what the researchers attitudes conveyed. All white infants must be kidnapped from their parents, put in liberal indoctrination camps, and properly taught how to view other races. Damn Sesame Street and their multi-colored puppets! Damn Mr. Hooper and Gordon for getting along so well!
“That may, however, prove challenging to implement.”
Not really.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-08-reverse-children-racial-stereotyping.html#nRlv
“New research by a University of Delaware psychological scientist and his collaborators across the globe has found a simple exercise that can undo the unconscious racial biases that young children have—biases that may begin to develop as early as infancy.”
Now, perhaps infants have an “in-born trigger” to prefer members of their own race, but it is also likely that they are “taught” to have biases and prejudices. So it is not necessarily and exclusively nature or nurture, but a combination.
But then the rest of your post is just a demonstration of the *uber* point:People liking like minded neighbors. Religion. Nearby neighborhood schools. Building their own organizations. Golfing with the boys. Guys liking girls and girls liking guys. Men and women having different occupational preferences. Marriage. Preferring their own customs and culture. Not wanted to send Junior into the woods with some queers. Wanting people around them to speak the common language. Christmas. Male and female bathrooms.
Kids are naturally around their family members more, and so find family like faces "normative" and more comforting. Completely natural and utterly innocuous. So some liberals will want to wreck it--even if it's just subjecting them to machine generated diversity propaganda like the experiment you cite--because it's "in the way of our glorious diverse future". Just typical of he anti-human meddling b.s. that totalitarian liberalism continually rams down our throats. And makes us normals think\feel\say "Just 'ef off."
The point, you and lefties don't seem to get is this wouldn't do anything at all. American kids are already pickled 24-7 365 in diversity propaganda--schools, everything Hollyweird pumps out. The problem with diversity propganda isn't that it's insufficient ... it's that it's a lie.
Despite all the indoctrination, people still figure out what's going on--i.e. develop "stereotypes". That's because the stereotypes are *true*.
To take the most obvious example, whites don't hold the various stereotypes of blacks, because of the school\media progranda, but in spite of it. The diversity progranda does cause some extra whites to be murdered, many thousands of extra rapes and robberies and tens of thousands of ill advised hookups and half-breed bastard children. (It is a shameful and evil thing.) But despite the propaganda most whites stumble to a mental model of mean black behavior--i.e. stereotypes--that is more or less true. This comes from the *reality* of black behavior, not insufficient diversity programming of infants. Furthermore, black problems do not stem in any large degree from whites holding these stereotypes, but rather from ... the actual black behavior that generates the stereotypes.
All this "liberal"--we-aren't-beating-them-hard-enough!--desire to find the magic bullet to "fix" white people's "racism" with more and more reprogramming, is not just totalitarian evil, it's also just a futile exercise. You might as well just schedule the cattle cars and pre-heat the ovens for us, because no amount of diversity brainwashing can eliminate the actual cause of our "racism"--reality.
I recently, for the first time in my life, got engaged-in my mid-50s. My fiancee is a few years younger, divorced, with two adult children and a small grandchild. We've decided that I will be selling my main house and moving in with her into her house, a nice 1950s two story on a largish lot in a community I'd never heard of before I met her. Every one of the original owners was in the airline business, and they were all white. It's still all white except if you consider Lebanese Maronites nonwhite, there are one or two of them. They cunningly incorporated the subdivision in a way that is nonracial de jure but puts a substantial challenge on anyone wanting to buy a house the HOA doesn't preapprove of. (Buyers have to have "an active interest in aviation", meaning either a pilot's or mechanic's license, and should either own an airplane or be employed in the manufacture, maintenance or flying of them.) It's small enough they can't prove racial bias statistically in a convincing way, and the surrounding open land is a city park on one side (that no one can easily get to except on foot) and has a small airport (protected by an easement against developers) on the other.
They saw the future and acted on it.
But for most people, joining an explicitly homogenous community is not an option.
If people all had the opportunity to choose between heterogenous and homogenous communities, that would be free choice. Some whites would prefer heterogenous communities, to be sure. But what you are supporting is not that.
So in time most likely the nature will win over nurture. Given that's the result of adoption studies, why think that this kind of "training" will persist any more than say transmitting respect to law, attitude towards pornography (near 100% heritable) or education or intelligence? As one psychologist put it, "adopted children are no more similar to biological children of the parents than two random strangers on the street". There's no reason to presume this trait would be any different.
Also, as others pointed out, that result (of study exposing babies to different races) would also have to be solidly replicated at least several times by different teams before we could conclude that it actually works.
What happens with biracial babies (such as BHO once was)? I would guess that they display some (but not as much) preference for both parents’ races and the same degree of preference against those of other races as monoracial babies – but that is only a guess.
That’s a really good question. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s been at least somewhat studied.
There are basically zero black nannies.
One of the unspoken but obvious benefits of immigration to the right sort of white people, is that they can again have servants, without any of them being black.
They
a) don’t really want to have blacks and their problems and confrontational attitudes around
and
b) don’t feel comfortable–being good “liberals”–ordering blacks around.
Cheap Hispanic labor solves all these problems. People without black attitudes, who you can order about freely without guilt. And you get to pat yourself–vigorously–on your back for providing employment to the huddled masses and providing a “multicultural” experience to your children.
Probably because Mexican-origin mothers, for example, offer better supportive home environments, tend not to argue with their husband, and are less depressed compared to white mothers, according to a 2012 study conducted by researchers at the University of California-Berkley. Tell me, is that nature or nurture?
If you pass by any one of NYC's exclusive preschools during dismissal you will see at least a third of the waiting nannies/parents are Carribean blacks. Racist that I am, I arbitrarily assign the Carribeans to the nanny group rather than the parent group.
Imagine if instead Dr. Lee had said this: “Homosexuality tends to be subconscious, pernicious, and insidious. It permeates all of our social interactions………………. Because of that, it’s very important to study where homosexuality comes from and use that information to try and prevent homosexuality from developing.”
If racial bias is part of our natural complement of traits, why is it illegitimate? Why must it be stamped out?
One of the unspoken but obvious benefits of immigration to the right sort of white people, is that they can again have servants, without any of them being black.
They
a) don't really want to have blacks and their problems and confrontational attitudes around
and
b) don't feel comfortable--being good "liberals"--ordering blacks around.
Cheap Hispanic labor solves all these problems. People without black attitudes, who you can order about freely without guilt. And you get to pat yourself--vigorously--on your back for providing employment to the huddled masses and providing a "multicultural" experience to your children.
Exactly. A new helot class, without the baggage of the old one.
One of the unspoken but obvious benefits of immigration to the right sort of white people, is that they can again have servants, without any of them being black.
They
a) don't really want to have blacks and their problems and confrontational attitudes around
and
b) don't feel comfortable--being good "liberals"--ordering blacks around.
Cheap Hispanic labor solves all these problems. People without black attitudes, who you can order about freely without guilt. And you get to pat yourself--vigorously--on your back for providing employment to the huddled masses and providing a "multicultural" experience to your children.
Well then… looks like Guatemalan nannies and black mammies help with racial justice
Ya mean you don’t have to be carefully taught?
One of the unspoken but obvious benefits of immigration to the right sort of white people, is that they can again have servants, without any of them being black.
They
a) don't really want to have blacks and their problems and confrontational attitudes around
and
b) don't feel comfortable--being good "liberals"--ordering blacks around.
Cheap Hispanic labor solves all these problems. People without black attitudes, who you can order about freely without guilt. And you get to pat yourself--vigorously--on your back for providing employment to the huddled masses and providing a "multicultural" experience to your children.
There are plenty of black Caribbean ones, though they are usually the last resort.
This is is some of the laziest writing I've seen you submit.
1. "Science Discovers" is a weasel term. "Science Indicates" may be more accurate
2. It seems all you did was quote from ScienceDaily, with four sentences of your own dispersed throughout the text, one of which was used simply to point to someone else's work
3. You could have at least pointed to the half-dozen or so most cited cited studies and experiements regarding natal, infant, and toddler racial preference, besides this one.
You have to admit that “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward Lazy Susan random baby distribution.” is one of the great closing sentences in Steve’s oeuvre.
One of the unspoken but obvious benefits of immigration to the right sort of white people, is that they can again have servants, without any of them being black.
They
a) don't really want to have blacks and their problems and confrontational attitudes around
and
b) don't feel comfortable--being good "liberals"--ordering blacks around.
Cheap Hispanic labor solves all these problems. People without black attitudes, who you can order about freely without guilt. And you get to pat yourself--vigorously--on your back for providing employment to the huddled masses and providing a "multicultural" experience to your children.
“Cheap Hispanic labor solves all these problems.”
Probably because Mexican-origin mothers, for example, offer better supportive home environments, tend not to argue with their husband, and are less depressed compared to white mothers, according to a 2012 study conducted by researchers at the University of California-Berkley. Tell me, is that nature or nurture?
My guess is that there is a genetic tendency coming in from the Native Americans that is a bit more stoic, less twitchy. And also lower IQ enters into the picture.
One thing to all HBD folks understand is that male and female selection is often in *competition* (or “conflict”). The traits that male selection are increasing in a given era may well not be ones that are beneficial to female success\reproduction and vice versa. Simple example: there may be male selection for aggressiveness\violence that is anti-selected by female selection. Other course to the extent possible evolution will favor divergent selection that can be shunted off onto the sex chromosomes or (better) managed during development with sex selective switches (hormones, etc.). But it’s not perfect, there is antagonistic “competition” between the two sexes’ selection.
My rough guess is that some of the recent “Greg Clarkian” selection in Euro-whites–for example for cooperation–is beneficial to both. But some selection for IQ and other mental aptitudes that was\is extremely beneficial in males, has probably made some Euro-white females less happy–or easy to convince themselves to be less happy–as homemakers. Jewish women–cue stereotypes–would be the canonical example of this. A bunch of the strong selection that occurred basically on Jewish men, that doesn’t necessarily make Jewish women the happiest (nor the most pleasant) wives and mothers.
However, it seems pretty clear that most of this is nurture. We’ve had a 50 year campaign to essentially convince white women (esp. educated white women) to be unhappy as wives and mothers. (And a corresponding campaign to undermine the status and earnings of white men and hence their ability to fulfill the role that would make white women happy with them as husbands.) So it’s not surprising that Mexican women–less exposed to this cancerous campaign–are more happy doing what comes naturally.
~~~
But none of this BTW is what i was saying. It’s not that Mexican nannies are world beaters that is the issue here–though i have no doubt they are better than black women on average. It’s the social needs of the right sort of white people–cheap and compliant labor that they can boss around and still be PC.
Forgot that. There ya go.
One of the unspoken but obvious benefits of immigration to the right sort of white people, is that they can again have servants, without any of them being black.
They
a) don't really want to have blacks and their problems and confrontational attitudes around
and
b) don't feel comfortable--being good "liberals"--ordering blacks around.
Cheap Hispanic labor solves all these problems. People without black attitudes, who you can order about freely without guilt. And you get to pat yourself--vigorously--on your back for providing employment to the huddled masses and providing a "multicultural" experience to your children.
“There are basically zero black nannies.”
If you pass by any one of NYC’s exclusive preschools during dismissal you will see at least a third of the waiting nannies/parents are Carribean blacks. Racist that I am, I arbitrarily assign the Carribeans to the nanny group rather than the parent group.
One of the unspoken but obvious benefits of immigration to the right sort of white people, is that they can again have servants, without any of them being black.
They
a) don't really want to have blacks and their problems and confrontational attitudes around
and
b) don't feel comfortable--being good "liberals"--ordering blacks around.
Cheap Hispanic labor solves all these problems. People without black attitudes, who you can order about freely without guilt. And you get to pat yourself--vigorously--on your back for providing employment to the huddled masses and providing a "multicultural" experience to your children.
They don’t want to order White people around either. And perhaps more important, they don’t want White servants to observe them in their day to day lives either. They feel that nonwhites “don’t count”, they aren’t embarrassed to do or say embarrassing things in front Consuela the way they would be in front of Becky.
Other than accurate. Wealthy people say what they want to say when they want to say it regardless of a person's race or ethnicity. Rich moms will take to task their nannies if certain tasks are not achieved in the manner prescribed. It's about class and social standing here, not race.
Where is the data that clearly demonstrates that affluent white mothers are generally embarrassed to order their paid white help? That they have dire concerns about being observed by their paid white help?
It is absolutely amazing the things some people will say in the name of HbD.
You should probably add a disclaimer stating MORE UNREPEATABLE SOCIAL SCIENCE CRAP. VOODOO HAS MORE REPEATABILITY.
Worried about baby racism vs. Putting people back on the moon.
Probably because Mexican-origin mothers, for example, offer better supportive home environments, tend not to argue with their husband, and are less depressed compared to white mothers, according to a 2012 study conducted by researchers at the University of California-Berkley. Tell me, is that nature or nurture?
My guess is “both”.
My guess is that there is a genetic tendency coming in from the Native Americans that is a bit more stoic, less twitchy. And also lower IQ enters into the picture.
One thing to all HBD folks understand is that male and female selection is often in *competition* (or “conflict”). The traits that male selection are increasing in a given era may well not be ones that are beneficial to female success\reproduction and vice versa. Simple example: there may be male selection for aggressiveness\violence that is anti-selected by female selection. Other course to the extent possible evolution will favor divergent selection that can be shunted off onto the sex chromosomes or (better) managed during development with sex selective switches (hormones, etc.). But it’s not perfect, there is antagonistic “competition” between the two sexes’ selection.
My rough guess is that some of the recent “Greg Clarkian” selection in Euro-whites–for example for cooperation–is beneficial to both. But some selection for IQ and other mental aptitudes that was\is extremely beneficial in males, has probably made some Euro-white females less happy–or easy to convince themselves to be less happy–as homemakers. Jewish women–cue stereotypes–would be the canonical example of this. A bunch of the strong selection that occurred basically on Jewish men, that doesn’t necessarily make Jewish women the happiest (nor the most pleasant) wives and mothers.
However, it seems pretty clear that most of this is nurture. We’ve had a 50 year campaign to essentially convince white women (esp. educated white women) to be unhappy as wives and mothers. (And a corresponding campaign to undermine the status and earnings of white men and hence their ability to fulfill the role that would make white women happy with them as husbands.) So it’s not surprising that Mexican women–less exposed to this cancerous campaign–are more happy doing what comes naturally.
~~~
But none of this BTW is what i was saying. It’s not that Mexican nannies are world beaters that is the issue here–though i have no doubt they are better than black women on average. It’s the social needs of the right sort of white people–cheap and compliant labor that they can boss around and still be PC.
Good observation. This is no doubt part of it too.
OT
Did anyone notice this nice piece about how white males should be denied the franchise?
We’ve got a 5 month old, and she’s wary of anyone outside her own family. We live in Brooklyn, so that’s a good thing at any age.
“Implicit racial biases tend to be subconscious, pernicious, and insidious.”
Gee, pernicious AND insidious. ‘The Pernicious AND Insidious Plot of Dr Fu Manchu.’
“It permeates almost all of our social interactions, from health care to commerce, employment, politics, and dating.”
Oh, okay. A long way to go to try and get a ‘date,’ Dr Manchu. Dr Lee, rather.
Can’t these social justice warriors who do these sorts of studies take a hint from their own findings. They consistently think that they can change people’s innate natures by simply forcing them into seminars and such group activities. Why is it their duty to take disparate peoples and cultures mash them into one ungodly mess. It can’t be for the betterment of humankind. I dare say if they could do so, the IQ of the human race would plummet noticeably. Seems like more of the rich stock versus the peasant stock.
The researchers did NOT note that their findings is exclusively driven by biology.
"Why is it their duty to take disparate peoples and cultures mash them into one ungodly mess?
Manufactured outrage. It's not for breakfast anymore.
"It can’t be for the betterment of humankind. I dare say if they could do so, the IQ of the human race would plummet noticeably."
Right, because high IQ is the end all and be all of our existence as people. And how dare people race mix. Because lead to stupidity.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3146070/Mixed-race-relationships-making-taller-smarter-Children-born-genetically-diverse-parents-intelligent-ancestors.html
Probably because Mexican-origin mothers, for example, offer better supportive home environments, tend not to argue with their husband, and are less depressed compared to white mothers, according to a 2012 study conducted by researchers at the University of California-Berkley. Tell me, is that nature or nurture?
*according to a study that was never repeated with heavily massaged metrics.
Forgot that. There ya go.
I'd argue race is socially constructed in terms of where you draw the major categories, but human differences aren't. I.E., you can have huge differences between subgroups of whites (Italians and Swedes are pretty different), but also make large generalizations about, say, whites versus Asians that hold up.
As an aside, you probably picked the wrong 'neutral facial feature' for this crowd. ;)
Yeah. The Spectrum Fallacy is at least a somewhat interesting anti-racist ploy. Chartreuse exists; therefore, green does not.
Out-marriage between groups remains a marginal phenomenon after millenia of co-existence. Put them in the same place and they develop parallel societies, a fact realtors exploit to make money. Eventually, the groups re-arrange things after 250 years, average.
Is this anything more than stranger anxiety, which also peaks in months 6-12?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stranger_anxiety
But I guess nothing is understood until we see how it contributes to racism, the Fundamental Force of the Universe.
“They don’t want to order White people around either. And perhaps more important, they don’t want White servants to observe them in their day to day lives either.”
Other than accurate. Wealthy people say what they want to say when they want to say it regardless of a person’s race or ethnicity. Rich moms will take to task their nannies if certain tasks are not achieved in the manner prescribed. It’s about class and social standing here, not race.
Where is the data that clearly demonstrates that affluent white mothers are generally embarrassed to order their paid white help? That they have dire concerns about being observed by their paid white help?
It is absolutely amazing the things some people will say in the name of HbD.
Did anyone notice this nice piece about how white males should be denied the franchise?
Will never happen, but God I wish it would… I’d be laughing my ass off all the way to Galts’s Gulch.
The researchers from what I gathered did not indicate whether the results of the study are due to nature or nurture. The authors stated a race-bias bias emerges due to a lack of interaction with other races, given that past, similar studies have demonstrated that children under the age of one typically bear witness to over 90% of their own-race faces. That would lead one to believe there is are environmental factors in play. Stated another way—the authors indicate the findings are due to result of the overwhelming exposure infants have to their own race—nurture—and that parents may choose to introduce their infants to people from a variety of races at a young age through educational means. It is other than surprising for infants to be more inclined to take cues from adults of their race than other races due to their surroundings.
It does not mean babies are born racists, or that SJW's will be kidnapping kids and reprogramming them. The study is pointing out to us how infants are not necessarily a "blank slate" and that their preferences can be encoded. Infants can predisposed to be wary of other races—just like they could be wary of certain animals or foods—because of a lack of consistent exposure to such things. Furthermore, the authors of the second study explained that the bias was observed “in an uncertain context in which adults provided partially reliable information…it's as if the infants trust the own-race adult more than the other-race adult when both adults are unreliable.”
“We must prevent babies from being born to people of the babies’ own ancestry.”
Exactly what the researchers attitudes conveyed. All white infants must be kidnapped from their parents, put in liberal indoctrination camps, and properly taught how to view other races. Damn Sesame Street and their multi-colored puppets! Damn Mr. Hooper and Gordon for getting along so well!
“That may, however, prove challenging to implement.”
Not really.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-08-reverse-children-racial-stereotyping.html#nRlv
“New research by a University of Delaware psychological scientist and his collaborators across the globe has found a simple exercise that can undo the unconscious racial biases that young children have—biases that may begin to develop as early as infancy.”
Now, perhaps infants have an “in-born trigger” to prefer members of their own race, but it is also likely that they are “taught” to have biases and prejudices. So it is not necessarily and exclusively nature or nurture, but a combination.
I wonder what would happen if the black faces were accompanied by recordings of senseless screaming, and the babies were beaten while looking at them?
Indeed, because your proposals for inclusion in the study would be ethical. (rolling of eyes)
So much for Rogers and Hammerstein’s theory that “You have to be carefully taught.”
“Is it “racist” if it is inborn human nature? If “racism” is a moral category then this makes in like Original Sin: part of the ineradicable depraved nature of man.”
“If” being the operative word.
“For those less inclined to condemn the whole human race the only solution is obvious: steer clear of multi-racial societies.”
The only solution to YOU, assuredly.
“In the United States that might lead to the voluntary segregation of races by state: the Southwest for Hispanics, the Northwest for Asians, the Deep South for African-Americans, etc.. Or perhaps it could be done more finely grained than that: at the county level.”
Those days have past. There isn’t going to be this magical transformation by the majority of white people in particular to demand that specific regions of our great land must be racially homogenous or face their collective wrath. Feel free to live in communities where whites dominate the landscape.
But if present trends continue what we will have instead is a racially-stratified class society ruled by a new Brahmin caste.
I do not see why we need to force anyone to tolerate our presence.
Because your compatriots have set up circumstances for an ugly, bloody, Hobbesian solution. And there was no need to do so. Everyone could have been treated as individuals. But that would not have enabled you and yours to retain power.
When the dam breaks, recall that not only was it not inevitable, it was not even likely. Instead, it was what you and yours demanded, and worked so hard and so relentlessly for, and with the emphatic furor of a drug-addled zealot. So when it happens be sure to congratulate you, yourself and your buds.
You and your fellow-travellers have sown the wind. You don't seem to understand this.
Laboratory work continues on discovery of the non-race recognition gene and applicable splicing techniques. Funding from disparate sources in the media and Silicon Valley shows promising results at the mezzanine level. Pending pre-commercialization alpha and beta testing.
Enhanced lab security measures have been necessary due to initial contra-indicated results.
“Can’t these social justice warriors who do these sorts of studies take a hint from their own findings. They consistently think that they can change people’s innate natures by simply forcing them into seminars and such group activities.
The researchers did NOT note that their findings is exclusively driven by biology.
“Why is it their duty to take disparate peoples and cultures mash them into one ungodly mess?
Manufactured outrage. It’s not for breakfast anymore.
“It can’t be for the betterment of humankind. I dare say if they could do so, the IQ of the human race would plummet noticeably.”
Right, because high IQ is the end all and be all of our existence as people. And how dare people race mix. Because lead to stupidity.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3146070/Mixed-race-relationships-making-taller-smarter-Children-born-genetically-diverse-parents-intelligent-ancestors.html
I'd argue race is socially constructed in terms of where you draw the major categories, but human differences aren't. I.E., you can have huge differences between subgroups of whites (Italians and Swedes are pretty different), but also make large generalizations about, say, whites versus Asians that hold up.
As an aside, you probably picked the wrong 'neutral facial feature' for this crowd. ;)
Agreed about familiarity bias. I’m amazed they get paid to come up with things like:
Of course they left out a key point: is the effect uniform between the different races? If not, how does it vary?
This sentence of yours is a good way to look at things that I had not heard expressed so concisely before (thanks):
I wonder if perception of racial differences is roughly logarithmic based on distance from oneself? Many human senses are logarithmic (e.g. sight, hearing) and some argue that human perception intrinsically is: http://spectrum.ieee.org/podcast/biomedical/bionics/does-the-brain-work-logarithmically
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weber%E2%80%93Fechner_law
This matches some common sense observations (e.g. "the narcissism of small differences", "they all look alike"). An interesting aspect is trying to come up with measures of difference (e.g. genetic distance, phenotypic difference) and seeing how well they align with this hypothesis.
Thoughts?
P.S. An interesting secondary hypothesis is how related is discriminatory power to one's own race vs. the race(s) most often exposed to. I think that would cast some light on the race is a social vs. biological construct debate.
“I wonder what would happen if the black faces were accompanied by recordings of senseless screaming, and the babies were beaten while looking at them?”
Indeed, because your proposals for inclusion in the study would be ethical. (rolling of eyes)
The researchers from what I gathered did not indicate whether the results of the study are due to nature or nurture. The authors stated a race-bias bias emerges due to a lack of interaction with other races, given that past, similar studies have demonstrated that children under the age of one typically bear witness to over 90% of their own-race faces. That would lead one to believe there is are environmental factors in play. Stated another way—the authors indicate the findings are due to result of the overwhelming exposure infants have to their own race—nurture—and that parents may choose to introduce their infants to people from a variety of races at a young age through educational means. It is other than surprising for infants to be more inclined to take cues from adults of their race than other races due to their surroundings.
It does not mean babies are born racists, or that SJW's will be kidnapping kids and reprogramming them. The study is pointing out to us how infants are not necessarily a "blank slate" and that their preferences can be encoded. Infants can predisposed to be wary of other races—just like they could be wary of certain animals or foods—because of a lack of consistent exposure to such things. Furthermore, the authors of the second study explained that the bias was observed “in an uncertain context in which adults provided partially reliable information…it's as if the infants trust the own-race adult more than the other-race adult when both adults are unreliable.”
“We must prevent babies from being born to people of the babies’ own ancestry.”
Exactly what the researchers attitudes conveyed. All white infants must be kidnapped from their parents, put in liberal indoctrination camps, and properly taught how to view other races. Damn Sesame Street and their multi-colored puppets! Damn Mr. Hooper and Gordon for getting along so well!
“That may, however, prove challenging to implement.”
Not really.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-08-reverse-children-racial-stereotyping.html#nRlv
“New research by a University of Delaware psychological scientist and his collaborators across the globe has found a simple exercise that can undo the unconscious racial biases that young children have—biases that may begin to develop as early as infancy.”
Now, perhaps infants have an “in-born trigger” to prefer members of their own race, but it is also likely that they are “taught” to have biases and prejudices. So it is not necessarily and exclusively nature or nurture, but a combination.
Corvinus, you’re not really doing a number on Steve here. In part, you’re restating the obvious point. Steve isn’t saying that this is all or even primarily “nature” if you mean by “nature” that white babies have a fully pre-programmed face picture. Obviously babies see their family’s faces–primarily their mothers–and that becomes normative. It’s nature and nurture operating together.
But then the rest of your post is just a demonstration of the *uber* point:
People liking like minded neighbors. Religion. Nearby neighborhood schools. Building their own organizations. Golfing with the boys. Guys liking girls and girls liking guys. Men and women having different occupational preferences. Marriage. Preferring their own customs and culture. Not wanted to send Junior into the woods with some queers. Wanting people around them to speak the common language. Christmas. Male and female bathrooms.
Kids are naturally around their family members more, and so find family like faces “normative” and more comforting. Completely natural and utterly innocuous. So some liberals will want to wreck it–even if it’s just subjecting them to machine generated diversity propaganda like the experiment you cite–because it’s “in the way of our glorious diverse future”. Just typical of he anti-human meddling b.s. that totalitarian liberalism continually rams down our throats. And makes us normals think\feel\say “Just ‘ef off.”
The point, you and lefties don’t seem to get is this wouldn’t do anything at all. American kids are already pickled 24-7 365 in diversity propaganda–schools, everything Hollyweird pumps out. The problem with diversity propganda isn’t that it’s insufficient … it’s that it’s a lie.
Despite all the indoctrination, people still figure out what’s going on–i.e. develop “stereotypes”. That’s because the stereotypes are *true*.
To take the most obvious example, whites don’t hold the various stereotypes of blacks, because of the school\media progranda, but in spite of it. The diversity progranda does cause some extra whites to be murdered, many thousands of extra rapes and robberies and tens of thousands of ill advised hookups and half-breed bastard children. (It is a shameful and evil thing.) But despite the propaganda most whites stumble to a mental model of mean black behavior–i.e. stereotypes–that is more or less true. This comes from the *reality* of black behavior, not insufficient diversity programming of infants. Furthermore, black problems do not stem in any large degree from whites holding these stereotypes, but rather from … the actual black behavior that generates the stereotypes.
All this “liberal”–we-aren’t-beating-them-hard-enough!–desire to find the magic bullet to “fix” white people’s “racism” with more and more reprogramming, is not just totalitarian evil, it’s also just a futile exercise. You might as well just schedule the cattle cars and pre-heat the ovens for us, because no amount of diversity brainwashing can eliminate the actual cause of our “racism”–reality.
This sentence of yours is a good way to look at things that I had not heard expressed so concisely before (thanks):
Geeking out on the idea of perception of racial differences a bit…
I wonder if perception of racial differences is roughly logarithmic based on distance from oneself? Many human senses are logarithmic (e.g. sight, hearing) and some argue that human perception intrinsically is: http://spectrum.ieee.org/podcast/biomedical/bionics/does-the-brain-work-logarithmically
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weber%E2%80%93Fechner_law
This matches some common sense observations (e.g. “the narcissism of small differences”, “they all look alike”). An interesting aspect is trying to come up with measures of difference (e.g. genetic distance, phenotypic difference) and seeing how well they align with this hypothesis.
Thoughts?
P.S. An interesting secondary hypothesis is how related is discriminatory power to one’s own race vs. the race(s) most often exposed to. I think that would cast some light on the race is a social vs. biological construct debate.
I wonder how accurately use of that construct predicts age and nationality?
I love pointing this out when people say that they hate racists: Even babies? Babies are racist, so do you really hate babies?
Yes, they do.
Assumes the (widely debunked) Blank Slate theory of human development. Also, assumes a preference for one’s self-same, e.g. parent caregivers, is itself bias–that babies should prefer the “other.” Apparently an evolutionary explanation for the exhibited preference has escaped notice.
But then the rest of your post is just a demonstration of the *uber* point:People liking like minded neighbors. Religion. Nearby neighborhood schools. Building their own organizations. Golfing with the boys. Guys liking girls and girls liking guys. Men and women having different occupational preferences. Marriage. Preferring their own customs and culture. Not wanted to send Junior into the woods with some queers. Wanting people around them to speak the common language. Christmas. Male and female bathrooms.
Kids are naturally around their family members more, and so find family like faces "normative" and more comforting. Completely natural and utterly innocuous. So some liberals will want to wreck it--even if it's just subjecting them to machine generated diversity propaganda like the experiment you cite--because it's "in the way of our glorious diverse future". Just typical of he anti-human meddling b.s. that totalitarian liberalism continually rams down our throats. And makes us normals think\feel\say "Just 'ef off."
The point, you and lefties don't seem to get is this wouldn't do anything at all. American kids are already pickled 24-7 365 in diversity propaganda--schools, everything Hollyweird pumps out. The problem with diversity propganda isn't that it's insufficient ... it's that it's a lie.
Despite all the indoctrination, people still figure out what's going on--i.e. develop "stereotypes". That's because the stereotypes are *true*.
To take the most obvious example, whites don't hold the various stereotypes of blacks, because of the school\media progranda, but in spite of it. The diversity progranda does cause some extra whites to be murdered, many thousands of extra rapes and robberies and tens of thousands of ill advised hookups and half-breed bastard children. (It is a shameful and evil thing.) But despite the propaganda most whites stumble to a mental model of mean black behavior--i.e. stereotypes--that is more or less true. This comes from the *reality* of black behavior, not insufficient diversity programming of infants. Furthermore, black problems do not stem in any large degree from whites holding these stereotypes, but rather from ... the actual black behavior that generates the stereotypes.
All this "liberal"--we-aren't-beating-them-hard-enough!--desire to find the magic bullet to "fix" white people's "racism" with more and more reprogramming, is not just totalitarian evil, it's also just a futile exercise. You might as well just schedule the cattle cars and pre-heat the ovens for us, because no amount of diversity brainwashing can eliminate the actual cause of our "racism"--reality.
“Steve isn’t saying that this is all or even primarily “nature” if you mean by “nature” that white babies have a fully pre-programmed face picture.”
Mr. Sailer as an HbD fanatic is making the implication that it is an in-born trait for infants to be drawn to their own race and that it is other than natural for them to be coerced by outside forces to embrace diversity.
“People liking like minded neighbors. Religion. Nearby neighborhood schools. Building their own organizations. Golfing with the boys. Guys liking girls and girls liking guys. Men and women having different occupational preferences. Marriage. Preferring their own customs and culture.”
Exactly. Each individual makes their own determination as to what are those preferences based on their experiences. White people may actually enjoy being around non-white people. They may (gasp) even marry and have children.
“Kids are naturally around their family members more, and so find family like faces “normative” and more comforting. Completely natural and utterly innocuous.”
Until parents intervene and say that “Them darkies are scary creatures, so stay away from them”, or “Those Muzzies, well, there menfolk all rape young girls” or “Them white dudes, they all be raciss”. Then that natural inclination to be around “like minded” people is driven by the prejudices held by their parents, rather than enabling their children to discover for themselves to what extent are those generalizations accurate. The confirmation biases of their parents serves to reinforce a desired world view.
“So some liberals will want to wreck it–even if it’s just subjecting them to machine generated diversity propaganda like the experiment you cite–because it’s “in the way of our glorious diverse future”. Just typical of he anti-human meddling b.s. that totalitarian liberalism continually rams down our throats. And makes us normals think\feel\say “Just ‘ef off.”
And would you feel the same way if scientists conducted a study to goad kids with “machine generated race realist information” to believing that the races ought not to mix—because such conduct serves as a barrier to white progress?
If you want to prove that the study is fundamentally flawed, provide an argument rather than virtue signaling and engaging in victimization.
“Just typical of he anti-human meddling b.s. that totalitarian liberalism continually rams down our throats. And makes us normals think\feel\say “Just ‘ef off.”
Now that’s a phrase for the ages—anti-human meddling. What on earth does it all entail? Seriously, I want to know more.
“The point, you and lefties don’t seem to get is this wouldn’t do anything at all. American kids are already pickled 24-7 365 in diversity propaganda–schools, everything Hollyweird pumps out. The problem with diversity propganda isn’t that it’s insufficient … it’s that it’s a lie.”
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again, I’m not a lefty, just an educated white man married with kids who makes his own decisions about race and society.
“To take the most obvious example, whites don’t hold the various stereotypes of blacks, because of the school\media progranda, but in spite of it. The diversity progranda does cause some extra whites to be murdered, many thousands of extra rapes and robberies and tens of thousands of ill advised hookups and half-breed bastard children. (It is a shameful and evil thing.)”
Talk about being hoodwinked and bamboozled. Ok, so how is it “shameful and evil” for a white and a non-white to breed? How do you take into account the conservative value of freedom of association in this situation? That is, do not people have the liberty to date and mate whom they want to?
I'll be HAPPY with the liberty of people to date and marry who they want. As soon as all legal prohibitions based on Disparate Impact are eliminated, Freedom to NOT associate is restored and Affirmative Action of all kinds is ended. If a woman wants to date and make kids with a man who is less inclined to support her, let the costs be on her. Let people enjoy 100% of the costs and benefits of their own choices. What a world!
Your ability to date and marry who you want shall not include coercing others to in any way support it or tolerate its proximity.
OTOH, why do I bother. All this will go away soon enough. This trend is clearly at apogee and all I await is the end to the illusion of unlimited resources. With that will go tolerance of intolerable coercion over "diversity."
If racial bias is part of our natural complement of traits, why is it illegitimate? Why must it be stamped out?
The parable of Chesterton’s fence comes to mind– the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood.
They should expand this study to include biological sex. Do babies prefer faces that correspond to their own sex or is there a general preference for female faces among babies? If babies of both sexes do prefer female faces then we have a serious problem on our hands that must be corrected quickly by any means necessary!
the solution is obvious
http://conservativetribune.com/libs-plan-end-racism-baby-kidding/
Of course, you’re not a lefty. You only espouse all of their positions and attitudes.
And I also like how you conveniently ignored the statement about propaganda. Propaganda does have its effect. Familiarity bias is indeed an inborn trait, and so is the halo effect; what is argued is that obsessively trying to make humans being in anti-human ways is neither healthy nor conducive to society.
Does confirmation bias from parents matter too? Sure. But all in all, it probably better to have information coming from parents who have the genuine interests of their children, than from a do-gooder elite.
And notably, I don’t think that the SS audience is trying to shut down liberal speech as “hate speech.”
If you want to argue freedom of association, then apartments should be able to ban anyone they want too. You’re just being disingenuous.
Not quite. I'm pro-gun and anti-abortion. So your assessment is way off base.
"Familiarity bias is indeed an inborn trait and so is the halo effect"
They are cognitive processes. Studying these phenomenon involves empirical research--the means of direct and indirect observation or experience. In other words, scientists look at correlations. Now, feel free to offer specific findings that indeed they are inborn traits.
Regarding the halo effect...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect#Further_research_findings
"what is argued is that obsessively trying to make humans being in anti-human ways is neither healthy nor conducive to society."
What on earth is "anti-human ways"? Please be specific.
"But all in all, it probably better to have information coming from parents who have the genuine interests of their children, than from a do-gooder elite."
Insert "accurate" before "information" and you are onto something.
"If you want to argue freedom of association, then apartments should be able to ban anyone they want too. You’re just being disingenuous."
Blame southrons. They had their day in the sun with "separate but equal". Unfortunately, they took matters too far by not adhering to this simple request by the Supreme Court. As a result, American citizens decided that Jim Crow laws violated freedom of association and subsequently ripped them from their roots. Remember, there had been white southerners who preferred to interact, marry, and have children with black southerners. They wanted to openly engage in these activities in their own communities, but were forced by state statutes that restricted their constitutional liberties. Too bad southrons messed everything up. Now, white people today are free to live away from non-whites. There are a number of communities in the States.
"I can think of plenty of whites who would be happy to live in racially homogenous communities."
I can think of plenty of whites who would be and are happy to live in racially heterogenous communities.
"I do not see why we need to force anyone to tolerate our presence."
There is no "force" or "coercion" here. Communities are subject to the will of the people, who decide what they want collectively. Individual localities have always been subject to state and national "rules". That's the essence of representative democracy. Remember, black people in Jim Crow America were unable to legally vote and participate in society. Thankfully, white southerners along with their northern counterparts destroyed legalized segregation. Again, you do have the opportunity to live in neighborhoods that are white or non-white.
Yep, Corry, if Not All Pitbulls Are Like That (dangerous), there should be legal prohibitions to prevent discriminating against them.
I’ll be HAPPY with the liberty of people to date and marry who they want. As soon as all legal prohibitions based on Disparate Impact are eliminated, Freedom to NOT associate is restored and Affirmative Action of all kinds is ended. If a woman wants to date and make kids with a man who is less inclined to support her, let the costs be on her. Let people enjoy 100% of the costs and benefits of their own choices. What a world!
Your ability to date and marry who you want shall not include coercing others to in any way support it or tolerate its proximity.
OTOH, why do I bother. All this will go away soon enough. This trend is clearly at apogee and all I await is the end to the illusion of unlimited resources. With that will go tolerance of intolerable coercion over “diversity.”
The, with the caveats you offered, you are other than supportive of people to date and marry who they want. Good to know.
"Your ability to date and marry who you want shall not include coercing others to in any way support it or tolerate its proximity."
Again, blame southrons. They had it good. "Separate but equal"--until they ensured that society would be tilted toward one particular group. Then they got their just desserts. Had they simply met the criteria set forth by the Supreme Court, maybe today you would have your utopia. One can dream...
And if it was a young black male who looked into the carriage,would you have been similarly sanguine?
Imagine that: young who recognize their own species and their own kind.
To think there are those asking “Why?” is mighty scary.
Asians doing the jobs Americans won’t do. Anybody want to bet me that grant/tax money funded this BS?
Speaking of racism; Not even trying to hide it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/shelley-garland/could-it-be-time-to-deny-white-men-the-franchise_a_22036640/
It’s from Scooby Doo. I don’t know how old Scooby was. His nationality was part Irish (setter) and part mutt.
Perhaps I overestimate the age thing. I did not realize it was still going strong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooby-Doo
Though wikipedia only mentions that catchphrase in the context of the 1969-75 incarnation.
This is “research” reaching the point of insanity. Next, they’ll espouse state nurseries, of wait, the Nazis did that with “lebensborn” and produced children with severe emotional attachment issues. What about shades of color within the same race, say American blacks and the “paper bag test”? Considering that some of the researchers are Chinese, and that China is the center of the universe, the “Celestial Kingdom”, aren’t they themselves racist?
Fallacy of continuum, checked.
Complete random and pointless non-sequitor, checked.
Not a bad troll post, though.
Nobody outside Canada has any preconceptions about Torontonians, or any ideas about them at all. Compare that with other diverse cities like Paris, London, and New York.
… thats very true – think about Toronto and the mental image is of Grey Fog …
We don’t have any of those in Vancouver.
I am the least racist person on earth. I loathe everyone without taking into account race, creed, or national origin. This explains my handle, a sobriquet provided by my wife.
For a valuable and understandable scientific explanation/context of these “discoveries” consult Wiki at:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_(psychology)
"If" being the operative word.
"For those less inclined to condemn the whole human race the only solution is obvious: steer clear of multi-racial societies."
The only solution to YOU, assuredly.
"In the United States that might lead to the voluntary segregation of races by state: the Southwest for Hispanics, the Northwest for Asians, the Deep South for African-Americans, etc.. Or perhaps it could be done more finely grained than that: at the county level."
Those days have past. There isn't going to be this magical transformation by the majority of white people in particular to demand that specific regions of our great land must be racially homogenous or face their collective wrath. Feel free to live in communities where whites dominate the landscape.
That was supposed to be more of a prediction than a recommendation, assuming the premise is correct (that people are born racist) and that what we all want is a society without racism.
But if present trends continue what we will have instead is a racially-stratified class society ruled by a new Brahmin caste.
Well, the first thing to understand is that there is only one race—the human race. Second, all human beings are equally created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27), and that he laid His life for everyone (John 3:16). Why would God not want a society without racism? Obviously, it is an ideal, and other than realistic, but should not we as His people work to carry out His word?
"But if present trends continue what we will have instead is a racially-stratified class society ruled by a new Brahmin caste."
You've been reading WAY too much of the tripe over at Return Of Kings.
If racial bias is part of our natural complement of traits, why is it illegitimate? Why must it be stamped out?
If he had said that, he would have been guilty of speaking the truth.
Nazi reference, checked.
Fallacy of continuum, checked.
Complete random and pointless non-sequitor, checked.
Not a bad troll post, though.
"If" being the operative word.
"For those less inclined to condemn the whole human race the only solution is obvious: steer clear of multi-racial societies."
The only solution to YOU, assuredly.
"In the United States that might lead to the voluntary segregation of races by state: the Southwest for Hispanics, the Northwest for Asians, the Deep South for African-Americans, etc.. Or perhaps it could be done more finely grained than that: at the county level."
Those days have past. There isn't going to be this magical transformation by the majority of white people in particular to demand that specific regions of our great land must be racially homogenous or face their collective wrath. Feel free to live in communities where whites dominate the landscape.
I can think of plenty of whites who would be happy to live in racially homogenous communities. I don’t see why I need to inflict my presence as a nonwhite, for example, upon them. Same thing including my white wife, if they wish to blam her as a nondesirable for her choices, I don’t think she ultimately cares.
I do not see why we need to force anyone to tolerate our presence.
Nobody outside Canada has any preconceptions about Torontonians, or any ideas about them at all. Compare that with other diverse cities like Paris, London, and New York.
Reg, here in WNY we see the old Torontonians, that is the white ones, who come over the border to shop at the Malls, cheaper prices, less tax and attend Bills games and Sabres games. Maple Leaf tickets impossible to obtain. But when you travel up to Toronto you think you are at a UN convention. Not the Toronto I remember from my youth.
Strange that babies tend to be happier with people that look like them when babies have no idea of how they look. Need a study of this study.
Worried about baby racism vs. Putting people back on the moon.
Given that it is heavily leaning toward familiarity bias, I’m pretty sure that this is indeed repeatable.
This research means little unless it’s first demonstrated that the racial preference (which I strongly suspect is just familiarity with appearance) persists. Development of children is about losing traits and behaviors just as much as gaining them.
“Of course, you’re not a lefty. You only espouse all of their positions and attitudes.”
Not quite. I’m pro-gun and anti-abortion. So your assessment is way off base.
“Familiarity bias is indeed an inborn trait and so is the halo effect”
They are cognitive processes. Studying these phenomenon involves empirical research–the means of direct and indirect observation or experience. In other words, scientists look at correlations. Now, feel free to offer specific findings that indeed they are inborn traits.
Regarding the halo effect…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect#Further_research_findings
“what is argued is that obsessively trying to make humans being in anti-human ways is neither healthy nor conducive to society.”
What on earth is “anti-human ways”? Please be specific.
“But all in all, it probably better to have information coming from parents who have the genuine interests of their children, than from a do-gooder elite.”
Insert “accurate” before “information” and you are onto something.
“If you want to argue freedom of association, then apartments should be able to ban anyone they want too. You’re just being disingenuous.”
Blame southrons. They had their day in the sun with “separate but equal”. Unfortunately, they took matters too far by not adhering to this simple request by the Supreme Court. As a result, American citizens decided that Jim Crow laws violated freedom of association and subsequently ripped them from their roots. Remember, there had been white southerners who preferred to interact, marry, and have children with black southerners. They wanted to openly engage in these activities in their own communities, but were forced by state statutes that restricted their constitutional liberties. Too bad southrons messed everything up. Now, white people today are free to live away from non-whites. There are a number of communities in the States.
“I can think of plenty of whites who would be happy to live in racially homogenous communities.”
I can think of plenty of whites who would be and are happy to live in racially heterogenous communities.
“I do not see why we need to force anyone to tolerate our presence.”
There is no “force” or “coercion” here. Communities are subject to the will of the people, who decide what they want collectively. Individual localities have always been subject to state and national “rules”. That’s the essence of representative democracy. Remember, black people in Jim Crow America were unable to legally vote and participate in society. Thankfully, white southerners along with their northern counterparts destroyed legalized segregation. Again, you do have the opportunity to live in neighborhoods that are white or non-white.
But if present trends continue what we will have instead is a racially-stratified class society ruled by a new Brahmin caste.
“…assuming the premise is correct (that people are born racist) and that what we all want is a society without racism.”
Well, the first thing to understand is that there is only one race—the human race. Second, all human beings are equally created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27), and that he laid His life for everyone (John 3:16). Why would God not want a society without racism? Obviously, it is an ideal, and other than realistic, but should not we as His people work to carry out His word?
“But if present trends continue what we will have instead is a racially-stratified class society ruled by a new Brahmin caste.”
You’ve been reading WAY too much of the tripe over at Return Of Kings.
I'll be HAPPY with the liberty of people to date and marry who they want. As soon as all legal prohibitions based on Disparate Impact are eliminated, Freedom to NOT associate is restored and Affirmative Action of all kinds is ended. If a woman wants to date and make kids with a man who is less inclined to support her, let the costs be on her. Let people enjoy 100% of the costs and benefits of their own choices. What a world!
Your ability to date and marry who you want shall not include coercing others to in any way support it or tolerate its proximity.
OTOH, why do I bother. All this will go away soon enough. This trend is clearly at apogee and all I await is the end to the illusion of unlimited resources. With that will go tolerance of intolerable coercion over "diversity."
“I’ll be HAPPY with the liberty of people to date and marry who they want. As soon as all legal prohibitions based on Disparate Impact are eliminated, Freedom to NOT associate is restored and Affirmative Action of all kinds is ended.”
The, with the caveats you offered, you are other than supportive of people to date and marry who they want. Good to know.
“Your ability to date and marry who you want shall not include coercing others to in any way support it or tolerate its proximity.”
Again, blame southrons. They had it good. “Separate but equal”–until they ensured that society would be tilted toward one particular group. Then they got their just desserts. Had they simply met the criteria set forth by the Supreme Court, maybe today you would have your utopia. One can dream…
Not quite. I'm pro-gun and anti-abortion. So your assessment is way off base.
"Familiarity bias is indeed an inborn trait and so is the halo effect"
They are cognitive processes. Studying these phenomenon involves empirical research--the means of direct and indirect observation or experience. In other words, scientists look at correlations. Now, feel free to offer specific findings that indeed they are inborn traits.
Regarding the halo effect...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect#Further_research_findings
"what is argued is that obsessively trying to make humans being in anti-human ways is neither healthy nor conducive to society."
What on earth is "anti-human ways"? Please be specific.
"But all in all, it probably better to have information coming from parents who have the genuine interests of their children, than from a do-gooder elite."
Insert "accurate" before "information" and you are onto something.
"If you want to argue freedom of association, then apartments should be able to ban anyone they want too. You’re just being disingenuous."
Blame southrons. They had their day in the sun with "separate but equal". Unfortunately, they took matters too far by not adhering to this simple request by the Supreme Court. As a result, American citizens decided that Jim Crow laws violated freedom of association and subsequently ripped them from their roots. Remember, there had been white southerners who preferred to interact, marry, and have children with black southerners. They wanted to openly engage in these activities in their own communities, but were forced by state statutes that restricted their constitutional liberties. Too bad southrons messed everything up. Now, white people today are free to live away from non-whites. There are a number of communities in the States.
"I can think of plenty of whites who would be happy to live in racially homogenous communities."
I can think of plenty of whites who would be and are happy to live in racially heterogenous communities.
"I do not see why we need to force anyone to tolerate our presence."
There is no "force" or "coercion" here. Communities are subject to the will of the people, who decide what they want collectively. Individual localities have always been subject to state and national "rules". That's the essence of representative democracy. Remember, black people in Jim Crow America were unable to legally vote and participate in society. Thankfully, white southerners along with their northern counterparts destroyed legalized segregation. Again, you do have the opportunity to live in neighborhoods that are white or non-white.
From your rambles about cognition, its clear that you don’t understand how the brain works. Neural shortcuts are for all practical purposes, as natural as having five fingers; for any meaningful definition, they are inborn.
And your desire to find a something, anything wrong with the halo effect is almost hilariously contradicted by the amount of branding done. That is, in fact, one of my fields of expertise. It works.
Largely nonsense. It was simple scope creep over disparate impact that led to the destructive and continuing demand for equality of outcome, which was frankly impossible then or now. There’s plenty of research that shows by and large, Southern companies and communities did indeed practice more or less equality of opportunity when presented with appropriate candidates.
What they did not want, did not need, and frankly which no one needs, is to be forced to integrate against their wishes. What else was bussing? “Temporary” affirmative action? Ever increasing civil rights organizations? Victimization as holiness?
Please.
"You have cats? Just so you know, I hate cats and would rent to anybody but you, as long as they don't have cats"
So that was that!
I blame all this kerfuffle over babies on Steve King
Sigh. I hope you are joking. The point was that having watched Scooby Doo enough to pick up that catchphrase tends to be limited in terms of age/nationality.
Perhaps I overestimate the age thing. I did not realize it was still going strong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooby-Doo
Though wikipedia only mentions that catchphrase in the context of the 1969-75 incarnation.
Heuristics are procedures, or “rules of thumb”. They are cognitively based. The procedure in and of itself is not inborn; the process by which a person forms beliefs, judgements, or decisions is inborn. The procedure was studied and specifically labeled by researchers. How the process for that procedure is developed relies on a person’s level of cognitive ability (nature) and the learned skills by which they undertake that process (nurture). A person learns how those mental shortcuts operates and employs logic. To what extent is that logic simplistic in nature or complex indeed relies on their innate ability to quickly evaluate information. Yet, some people are able to use mental shortcuts because they learned “tricks” or “strategies”. As a result, they are equipped to “use a readily available facet to base their beliefs about a comparably distant concept”.
“And your desire to find a something, anything wrong with the halo effect…”
Had you read the citation, the researchers offered insight into how it operates and cautioned how it is applied. Cannot a procedure be scrutinized by scientists? Are you the cognitive police?
” There’s plenty of research that shows by and large, Southern companies and communities did indeed practice more or less equality of opportunity when presented with appropriate candidates.”
During Jim Crow? Well, it was common practice for landowners to refuse to allow black tenant farmers to market their own crops. It was common practice when blacks tried to organize unions, they would be subject to violence.
But, you have your research. Please offer citations and examples.
What’s the probability that this is even a replicatable result?
“Is your unborn baby a racist?”
Steve Allen did a comedy skit back in the 1960s mocking the John Birch Society. In it he posed this question: “Is your unborn baby a Communist?”
P.S. All the liberals of those days somehow missed the fact that the JBS was anti-interventionist and opposed the Vietnam War.
Years ago, I read about a study conducted on schoolyards, wherein children were found to voluntarily separate by gender and not by race. Gender was the primary deciding factor of association. Gender completely superceded race! Of course, no boy wants to get girl cooties and vice versa. At least until after puberty, that is.
I am courteous to everyone I meet, of whatever race. At the same time, my racial biases are conscious. For example, when speaking with the black aides that work at my mother's nursing home, I have learned not to ask questions the answers to which would require abstract reasoning. It creates an awkward moment. To meet my goal of being courteous to everyone, I have to consciously factor race into the situation.
Fantastic! And as long as you don’t write for National Review, you will do well.
The researchers from what I gathered did not indicate whether the results of the study are due to nature or nurture. The authors stated a race-bias bias emerges due to a lack of interaction with other races, given that past, similar studies have demonstrated that children under the age of one typically bear witness to over 90% of their own-race faces. That would lead one to believe there is are environmental factors in play. Stated another way—the authors indicate the findings are due to result of the overwhelming exposure infants have to their own race—nurture—and that parents may choose to introduce their infants to people from a variety of races at a young age through educational means. It is other than surprising for infants to be more inclined to take cues from adults of their race than other races due to their surroundings.
It does not mean babies are born racists, or that SJW's will be kidnapping kids and reprogramming them. The study is pointing out to us how infants are not necessarily a "blank slate" and that their preferences can be encoded. Infants can predisposed to be wary of other races—just like they could be wary of certain animals or foods—because of a lack of consistent exposure to such things. Furthermore, the authors of the second study explained that the bias was observed “in an uncertain context in which adults provided partially reliable information…it's as if the infants trust the own-race adult more than the other-race adult when both adults are unreliable.”
“We must prevent babies from being born to people of the babies’ own ancestry.”
Exactly what the researchers attitudes conveyed. All white infants must be kidnapped from their parents, put in liberal indoctrination camps, and properly taught how to view other races. Damn Sesame Street and their multi-colored puppets! Damn Mr. Hooper and Gordon for getting along so well!
“That may, however, prove challenging to implement.”
Not really.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-08-reverse-children-racial-stereotyping.html#nRlv
“New research by a University of Delaware psychological scientist and his collaborators across the globe has found a simple exercise that can undo the unconscious racial biases that young children have—biases that may begin to develop as early as infancy.”
Now, perhaps infants have an “in-born trigger” to prefer members of their own race, but it is also likely that they are “taught” to have biases and prejudices. So it is not necessarily and exclusively nature or nurture, but a combination.
Project much Corvinus?
Just stating a hate fact.
"Thanks for explaining yourself."
Certainly, about Anti-Gnostic.
Thanks for explaining yourself.
"If" being the operative word.
"For those less inclined to condemn the whole human race the only solution is obvious: steer clear of multi-racial societies."
The only solution to YOU, assuredly.
"In the United States that might lead to the voluntary segregation of races by state: the Southwest for Hispanics, the Northwest for Asians, the Deep South for African-Americans, etc.. Or perhaps it could be done more finely grained than that: at the county level."
Those days have past. There isn't going to be this magical transformation by the majority of white people in particular to demand that specific regions of our great land must be racially homogenous or face their collective wrath. Feel free to live in communities where whites dominate the landscape.
What is your solution?
Because your compatriots have set up circumstances for an ugly, bloody, Hobbesian solution. And there was no need to do so. Everyone could have been treated as individuals. But that would not have enabled you and yours to retain power.
When the dam breaks, recall that not only was it not inevitable, it was not even likely. Instead, it was what you and yours demanded, and worked so hard and so relentlessly for, and with the emphatic furor of a drug-addled zealot. So when it happens be sure to congratulate you, yourself and your buds.
You and your fellow-travellers have sown the wind. You don’t seem to understand this.
“Project much Corvinus?”
Just stating a hate fact.
“Thanks for explaining yourself.”
Certainly, about Anti-Gnostic.
There’s important information missing about methodology. Infants imprint on their parents. This imprinting possibly gets stronger with time. So people with features (including coloration) similar to their parents would get a positive response whereas those with dissimilar features would get a negative response. In other words, a black infant adopted by whites from birth would have a positive response to white faces, and a white infant adopted by blacks would have a positive response to black faces.
This sentence of yours is a good way to look at things that I had not heard expressed so concisely before (thanks):
Heh, no problem. It was another commenter who pointed out the fallacy to me in the first place, so I like to think I’m paying it back around or whatever the appropriate simile is.
I wonder if perception of racial differences is roughly logarithmic based on distance from oneself? Many human senses are logarithmic (e.g. sight, hearing) and some argue that human perception intrinsically is: http://spectrum.ieee.org/podcast/biomedical/bionics/does-the-brain-work-logarithmically
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weber%E2%80%93Fechner_law
This matches some common sense observations (e.g. "the narcissism of small differences", "they all look alike"). An interesting aspect is trying to come up with measures of difference (e.g. genetic distance, phenotypic difference) and seeing how well they align with this hypothesis.
Thoughts?
P.S. An interesting secondary hypothesis is how related is discriminatory power to one's own race vs. the race(s) most often exposed to. I think that would cast some light on the race is a social vs. biological construct debate.
You’re probably right. The problem is that coming up with the metric you’re calculating the logarithm of. It’s certainly true in a colloquial sense in that we notice, as you say, smaller differences in people closer to us. (After all, all human differences are small compared to those between us and a chimpanzee.) I’m not sure if you could describe logarithmic differences in the precise mathematical sense of the word, though.
Let’s be honest: discrimination evolved to help us solve social problems. Is person X a member of my tribe,or the enemy tribe? So the black-white distinction becomes all-important to Americans for historical reasons and we can’t tell the differences between, say, Koreans and Japanese that are so important to Koreans and Japanese.
Interesting points, all…
Genetic distance can be fairly well defined (e.g. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_distance ), but phenotypic distance is harder (there are some approaches if you look). I suspect a form of genetic distance limited to high frequency SNPs which vary in frequency between races would do a good job. Defining genetic distance in terms of these would (I think) also allow comparison with racial groups (rather than using 1 or 0 for SNPs use the racial frequencies).
An alternative would be using a selection of principal components. That increases the ability to visualize groups graphically, but decreases the connection to actual SNPs and their specific phenotypic effects.
The work we see with principal component analysis on the genomes of racial groups serves as partial proof of concept IMO (e.g. look at the gradient of mixed race black/white individuals on those plots). A problem is that the large scale (major race) variations overwhelm the smaller scale variations there. But perhaps a logarithmic effect applies to PC1 by itself? Looking at photos of individuals on the w/b gradient would be interesting.
Of course there will probably be corner cases which show discordant genetic/phenotypic distance (e.g. lots of genetic similarity, but a few very different alleles of large phenotypic effect). The question is how good would the approach be overall?
Also agreed about perhaps not being exactly logarithmic, but as long as there is a large range of variation (this is a key assumption I am uncertain about meeting, compare to sound/light levels which vary across many orders of magnitude) logarithmic variation is very distinct (e.g. see computability theory) from other forms.
P.S. Hope this wasn't too rambling. Thanks for your response.
I am courteous to everyone I meet, of whatever race. At the same time, my racial biases are conscious. For example, when speaking with the black aides that work at my mother's nursing home, I have learned not to ask questions the answers to which would require abstract reasoning. It creates an awkward moment. To meet my goal of being courteous to everyone, I have to consciously factor race into the situation.
You are actually factoring intelligence into the situation.
That's a really good question. I wouldn't be surprised if it's been at least somewhat studied.
I would imagine that exposure to both parents’ faces would imprint. Of course, in cases like Obama’s, that second face has to be around to be seen.
* at which point, I was also snugly superior too.
My dad took my sister and I to a rerun of Planet of the Apes in 73, and when the apes first appeared I began screaming so loud that people complained and we had to leave the theater.
Later I saw it on TV and became among my fav movies. But that initial reaction made me freak out totally.
It’s funny cuz my dad has been pretty libby dib on racial issues. And my sister turned out that way too. And because of public education and pop culture(stuff like ROOTS which I saw many times), I also leaned that way… until I realize reality is just too different from PC crap.
I am courteous to everyone I meet, of whatever race. At the same time, my racial biases are conscious. For example, when speaking with the black aides that work at my mother's nursing home, I have learned not to ask questions the answers to which would require abstract reasoning. It creates an awkward moment. To meet my goal of being courteous to everyone, I have to consciously factor race into the situation.
You just made my quote file.
This is as good a summation of “reality based living” as I have heard. MOST of the African-Americans I meet are of lower than 100 IQ and have limited abstract reasoning and a poor ability to actively see future consequences, as compared to at least a fair percentage of whites and orientals. At the same time, most are not especially violent, nor are they malevolent. Many have many good qualities as human beings. And a few are quite intelligent and will perceive an attempt to “dumb things down” as what it exactly is and will be at least inwardly offended.
Therefore, tact and courtesy are important, as is a willingness and some ability to size up who exactly we are dealing with.
This also applies to some whites. I knew a girl in high school who was quite pretty, a natural blonde with an attractive figure, who was descended from Swedish Lutheran Minnesotans, and both of whose parents were quite smart. Unfortunately, she had been somewhat oxygen deprived at birth and had (I later discovered from finding some school paperwork of hers when helping her move) an IQ of about 90. She was a D student in high school and graduated about six up from the anchorwoman in a class of perhaps 500. Unlike most of the rest of those who didn’t do well in (our) high school because they made no effort or didn’t care, she worked very hard at her studies. She just never got anywhere with any but the lowest tier of classes, so she was in with mostly vo-tech track guys, and got a reputation-partly deserved and partly not-for being promiscuous. I still occasionally talk to her when visiting the city she still lives in, 35+ years later, and she is a very decent person who has had to struggle a lot in life. (She has one child, a son, who is a successful NCO in the military and in a MOS requiring quite high intelligence. She never married, raised her son alone, and did eventually figure out that by the time he was ten or eleven he could out-think her in most ways, and that caused a lot of trouble for both.) But I have to think about what I say when we talk-abstract concepts go over her head pretty quickly. She is a perpetual woman-child, and still physically quite attractive, and has been taken advantage of more than once. Fortunately, she has family in the area, primarily her sister, who manage her affairs and provided needed guidance.
IMHO this also belongs in the quote file: "Therefore, tact and courtesy are important, as is a willingness and some ability to size up who exactly we are dealing with."
The researchers from what I gathered did not indicate whether the results of the study are due to nature or nurture. The authors stated a race-bias bias emerges due to a lack of interaction with other races, given that past, similar studies have demonstrated that children under the age of one typically bear witness to over 90% of their own-race faces. That would lead one to believe there is are environmental factors in play. Stated another way—the authors indicate the findings are due to result of the overwhelming exposure infants have to their own race—nurture—and that parents may choose to introduce their infants to people from a variety of races at a young age through educational means. It is other than surprising for infants to be more inclined to take cues from adults of their race than other races due to their surroundings.
It does not mean babies are born racists, or that SJW's will be kidnapping kids and reprogramming them. The study is pointing out to us how infants are not necessarily a "blank slate" and that their preferences can be encoded. Infants can predisposed to be wary of other races—just like they could be wary of certain animals or foods—because of a lack of consistent exposure to such things. Furthermore, the authors of the second study explained that the bias was observed “in an uncertain context in which adults provided partially reliable information…it's as if the infants trust the own-race adult more than the other-race adult when both adults are unreliable.”
“We must prevent babies from being born to people of the babies’ own ancestry.”
Exactly what the researchers attitudes conveyed. All white infants must be kidnapped from their parents, put in liberal indoctrination camps, and properly taught how to view other races. Damn Sesame Street and their multi-colored puppets! Damn Mr. Hooper and Gordon for getting along so well!
“That may, however, prove challenging to implement.”
Not really.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-08-reverse-children-racial-stereotyping.html#nRlv
“New research by a University of Delaware psychological scientist and his collaborators across the globe has found a simple exercise that can undo the unconscious racial biases that young children have—biases that may begin to develop as early as infancy.”
Now, perhaps infants have an “in-born trigger” to prefer members of their own race, but it is also likely that they are “taught” to have biases and prejudices. So it is not necessarily and exclusively nature or nurture, but a combination.
De facto racially homogenous communities do exist, but most are either very poor and dangerous or very very expensive. And there is not only no guarantee that they will stay that way, but indeed, if they are homogenous and white, you can bet there are groups trying to dehomogenize them by any means they can dream up.
I recently, for the first time in my life, got engaged-in my mid-50s. My fiancee is a few years younger, divorced, with two adult children and a small grandchild. We’ve decided that I will be selling my main house and moving in with her into her house, a nice 1950s two story on a largish lot in a community I’d never heard of before I met her. Every one of the original owners was in the airline business, and they were all white. It’s still all white except if you consider Lebanese Maronites nonwhite, there are one or two of them. They cunningly incorporated the subdivision in a way that is nonracial de jure but puts a substantial challenge on anyone wanting to buy a house the HOA doesn’t preapprove of. (Buyers have to have “an active interest in aviation”, meaning either a pilot’s or mechanic’s license, and should either own an airplane or be employed in the manufacture, maintenance or flying of them.) It’s small enough they can’t prove racial bias statistically in a convincing way, and the surrounding open land is a city park on one side (that no one can easily get to except on foot) and has a small airport (protected by an easement against developers) on the other.
They saw the future and acted on it.
But for most people, joining an explicitly homogenous community is not an option.
If people all had the opportunity to choose between heterogenous and homogenous communities, that would be free choice. Some whites would prefer heterogenous communities, to be sure. But what you are supporting is not that.
Bad move, buddy! Sorry for intruding, but take this piece of advice from a divorced man: never burn down your ships, Cortez - style! Best of luck!
Affinity based communities (classic cars?) based on expensive interests might have potential for communities of like minded people regardless of race. Not to mention the economy of scale benefits for expensive hobbies (their own personal airport?! cool!). I guess that's the idea behind golf course communities. It's a variation on the theme of just pricing the riff-raff out, but the price premium for the house probably is smaller and comes with tangible benefits for the target audience.
Any more examples like this out there?
P.S. Is a subscription to Air & Space magazine enough to indicate “an active interest in aviation”? ; )
I recently, for the first time in my life, got engaged-in my mid-50s. My fiancee is a few years younger, divorced, with two adult children and a small grandchild. We've decided that I will be selling my main house and moving in with her into her house, a nice 1950s two story on a largish lot in a community I'd never heard of before I met her. Every one of the original owners was in the airline business, and they were all white. It's still all white except if you consider Lebanese Maronites nonwhite, there are one or two of them. They cunningly incorporated the subdivision in a way that is nonracial de jure but puts a substantial challenge on anyone wanting to buy a house the HOA doesn't preapprove of. (Buyers have to have "an active interest in aviation", meaning either a pilot's or mechanic's license, and should either own an airplane or be employed in the manufacture, maintenance or flying of them.) It's small enough they can't prove racial bias statistically in a convincing way, and the surrounding open land is a city park on one side (that no one can easily get to except on foot) and has a small airport (protected by an easement against developers) on the other.
They saw the future and acted on it.
But for most people, joining an explicitly homogenous community is not an option.
If people all had the opportunity to choose between heterogenous and homogenous communities, that would be free choice. Some whites would prefer heterogenous communities, to be sure. But what you are supporting is not that.
That’s great!
“When we considel why someone has a laciar bias, we often think of negative expeliences he ol she may have had with othel-lace individuars. But, these findings suggest that a lace-based bias emelges without expelience with othel-lace individuars,” said Dr. Naiqi (Gablier) Xiao.
¡Jajajaja-ja!
I recently, for the first time in my life, got engaged-in my mid-50s. My fiancee is a few years younger, divorced, with two adult children and a small grandchild. We've decided that I will be selling my main house and moving in with her into her house, a nice 1950s two story on a largish lot in a community I'd never heard of before I met her. Every one of the original owners was in the airline business, and they were all white. It's still all white except if you consider Lebanese Maronites nonwhite, there are one or two of them. They cunningly incorporated the subdivision in a way that is nonracial de jure but puts a substantial challenge on anyone wanting to buy a house the HOA doesn't preapprove of. (Buyers have to have "an active interest in aviation", meaning either a pilot's or mechanic's license, and should either own an airplane or be employed in the manufacture, maintenance or flying of them.) It's small enough they can't prove racial bias statistically in a convincing way, and the surrounding open land is a city park on one side (that no one can easily get to except on foot) and has a small airport (protected by an easement against developers) on the other.
They saw the future and acted on it.
But for most people, joining an explicitly homogenous community is not an option.
If people all had the opportunity to choose between heterogenous and homogenous communities, that would be free choice. Some whites would prefer heterogenous communities, to be sure. But what you are supporting is not that.
“De facto racially homogenous communities do exist, but most are either very poor and dangerous or very very expensive.”
That’s patently false. There are numerous communities here that are affordable.
http://www.newser.com/story/223330/10-us-states-are-more-than-90-white.html
“And there is not only no guarantee that they will stay that way.”
Indeed, nothing in life is guaranteed, except death and taxes.
Every one of the original owners was in the airline business, and they were all white. It’s still all white except if you consider Lebanese Maronites nonwhite, there are one or two of them. They cunningly incorporated the subdivision in a way that is nonracial de jure but puts a substantial challenge on anyone wanting to buy a house the HOA doesn’t preapprove of. (Buyers have to have “an active interest in aviation”, meaning either a pilot’s or mechanic’s license, and should either own an airplane or be employed in the manufacture, maintenance or flying of them.)”
Zangger Vintage Airpark, situated in the Southwest Quarter (SW¼) of Section Twenty Eight (28) in Township one hundred (100) North, range forty seven (47) West of the 5th Prime Meridian, in Lyon County, Iowa, according to the plat recorded in Book 15, page 43, document 3036 of records of Lyon County, Iowa.
Congratulations, you live in an all-white area whose covenant is restricted to only certain whites who share your same interests. Now, EVERY white there must demonstrate evidence that they meet the guidelines. As soon as you deny a white person the opportunity to live there, or enable a white family to move there who fails to meet the criteria, you are in violation of your own covenant.
Moreover, what happens when the individual owner of the house prefers to sell their own personal property to a non-white? Is this situation not a violation of freedom of association? Which liberty is more important here–the homeowner’s right to do what they want with their land or the association’s right to do what they want with the land?
“They saw the future and acted on it.”
A future for a limited group of white people.
“But for most people, joining an explicitly homogenous community is not an option.”
No, there are a plethora of options to choose from.
“If people all had the opportunity to choose between heterogenous and homogenous communities, that would be free choice.”
Again, people have that opportunity. Blame southrons. They had it REALLY good–”separate but equal” according to the ruling in the Plessy case (1896). Then they got greedy. Disparate funding for schools, manipulations to deny blacks political rights. Even white southerners who wanted to freely interact with blacks by marrying and having children with them were put in harm’s way. As a result, people living in the larger body, called the United States, through their consent put forth legislation that destroyed Jim Crow…forever.
Communities and states are able to make their laws under the 10th Amendment. But certain legislation, like legal segregation, has been determined by the body politic to be an exception to “freedom of association”, in particular given the southron machinations of yesteryear. Freedom has never been “free”, there are always choices and consequences involved. When living in a larger society like a nation, there will always be “coercion” because people exercise their individual liberty by forming groups, who work to ensure legislation that codifies into law their preferences at the expense of other preferences.
I recently, for the first time in my life, got engaged-in my mid-50s. My fiancee is a few years younger, divorced, with two adult children and a small grandchild. We've decided that I will be selling my main house and moving in with her into her house, a nice 1950s two story on a largish lot in a community I'd never heard of before I met her. Every one of the original owners was in the airline business, and they were all white. It's still all white except if you consider Lebanese Maronites nonwhite, there are one or two of them. They cunningly incorporated the subdivision in a way that is nonracial de jure but puts a substantial challenge on anyone wanting to buy a house the HOA doesn't preapprove of. (Buyers have to have "an active interest in aviation", meaning either a pilot's or mechanic's license, and should either own an airplane or be employed in the manufacture, maintenance or flying of them.) It's small enough they can't prove racial bias statistically in a convincing way, and the surrounding open land is a city park on one side (that no one can easily get to except on foot) and has a small airport (protected by an easement against developers) on the other.
They saw the future and acted on it.
But for most people, joining an explicitly homogenous community is not an option.
If people all had the opportunity to choose between heterogenous and homogenous communities, that would be free choice. Some whites would prefer heterogenous communities, to be sure. But what you are supporting is not that.
“We’ve decided that I will be selling my main house and moving in with her into her house,”
Bad move, buddy! Sorry for intruding, but take this piece of advice from a divorced man: never burn down your ships, Cortez – style! Best of luck!
Later I saw it on TV and became among my fav movies. But that initial reaction made me freak out totally.
It's funny cuz my dad has been pretty libby dib on racial issues. And my sister turned out that way too. And because of public education and pop culture(stuff like ROOTS which I saw many times), I also leaned that way... until I realize reality is just too different from PC crap.
Haha, how old were you then (if you don’t mind saying)?
The idea of projection is an amazing tool for understanding people. Not always correct of course (that’s why we use multiple tools), but remarkably effective when it is.
Agreed about evolution of discrimination. One question is how much is discrimination driven by self vs. environment (in historical tribes with biological parents these are incredibly well aligned of course). I’m guessing it’s driven more by environment, but as long as there is a critical mass of “us” (e.g. a nuclear family) I suspect that is indistinguishable from self-driven. The obvious test case would be an adopted baby of one race brought up in an environment where they were unique.
Genetic distance can be fairly well defined (e.g. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_distance ), but phenotypic distance is harder (there are some approaches if you look). I suspect a form of genetic distance limited to high frequency SNPs which vary in frequency between races would do a good job. Defining genetic distance in terms of these would (I think) also allow comparison with racial groups (rather than using 1 or 0 for SNPs use the racial frequencies).
An alternative would be using a selection of principal components. That increases the ability to visualize groups graphically, but decreases the connection to actual SNPs and their specific phenotypic effects.
The work we see with principal component analysis on the genomes of racial groups serves as partial proof of concept IMO (e.g. look at the gradient of mixed race black/white individuals on those plots). A problem is that the large scale (major race) variations overwhelm the smaller scale variations there. But perhaps a logarithmic effect applies to PC1 by itself? Looking at photos of individuals on the w/b gradient would be interesting.
Of course there will probably be corner cases which show discordant genetic/phenotypic distance (e.g. lots of genetic similarity, but a few very different alleles of large phenotypic effect). The question is how good would the approach be overall?
Also agreed about perhaps not being exactly logarithmic, but as long as there is a large range of variation (this is a key assumption I am uncertain about meeting, compare to sound/light levels which vary across many orders of magnitude) logarithmic variation is very distinct (e.g. see computability theory) from other forms.
P.S. Hope this wasn’t too rambling. Thanks for your response.
This is as good a summation of "reality based living" as I have heard. MOST of the African-Americans I meet are of lower than 100 IQ and have limited abstract reasoning and a poor ability to actively see future consequences, as compared to at least a fair percentage of whites and orientals. At the same time, most are not especially violent, nor are they malevolent. Many have many good qualities as human beings. And a few are quite intelligent and will perceive an attempt to "dumb things down" as what it exactly is and will be at least inwardly offended.
Therefore, tact and courtesy are important, as is a willingness and some ability to size up who exactly we are dealing with.
This also applies to some whites. I knew a girl in high school who was quite pretty, a natural blonde with an attractive figure, who was descended from Swedish Lutheran Minnesotans, and both of whose parents were quite smart. Unfortunately, she had been somewhat oxygen deprived at birth and had (I later discovered from finding some school paperwork of hers when helping her move) an IQ of about 90. She was a D student in high school and graduated about six up from the anchorwoman in a class of perhaps 500. Unlike most of the rest of those who didn't do well in (our) high school because they made no effort or didn't care, she worked very hard at her studies. She just never got anywhere with any but the lowest tier of classes, so she was in with mostly vo-tech track guys, and got a reputation-partly deserved and partly not-for being promiscuous. I still occasionally talk to her when visiting the city she still lives in, 35+ years later, and she is a very decent person who has had to struggle a lot in life. (She has one child, a son, who is a successful NCO in the military and in a MOS requiring quite high intelligence. She never married, raised her son alone, and did eventually figure out that by the time he was ten or eleven he could out-think her in most ways, and that caused a lot of trouble for both.) But I have to think about what I say when we talk-abstract concepts go over her head pretty quickly. She is a perpetual woman-child, and still physically quite attractive, and has been taken advantage of more than once. Fortunately, she has family in the area, primarily her sister, who manage her affairs and provided needed guidance.
That was an interesting anecdote. Thanks. It’s amazing to me that IQ could be affected that much without much (any?) visible impact. Do you know any of her siblings well? Aside from IQ are they similar? If they (or just her sister?) were close in age I can see that causing some strange dynamics in high school.
IMHO this also belongs in the quote file: “Therefore, tact and courtesy are important, as is a willingness and some ability to size up who exactly we are dealing with.”
I recently, for the first time in my life, got engaged-in my mid-50s. My fiancee is a few years younger, divorced, with two adult children and a small grandchild. We've decided that I will be selling my main house and moving in with her into her house, a nice 1950s two story on a largish lot in a community I'd never heard of before I met her. Every one of the original owners was in the airline business, and they were all white. It's still all white except if you consider Lebanese Maronites nonwhite, there are one or two of them. They cunningly incorporated the subdivision in a way that is nonracial de jure but puts a substantial challenge on anyone wanting to buy a house the HOA doesn't preapprove of. (Buyers have to have "an active interest in aviation", meaning either a pilot's or mechanic's license, and should either own an airplane or be employed in the manufacture, maintenance or flying of them.) It's small enough they can't prove racial bias statistically in a convincing way, and the surrounding open land is a city park on one side (that no one can easily get to except on foot) and has a small airport (protected by an easement against developers) on the other.
They saw the future and acted on it.
But for most people, joining an explicitly homogenous community is not an option.
If people all had the opportunity to choose between heterogenous and homogenous communities, that would be free choice. Some whites would prefer heterogenous communities, to be sure. But what you are supporting is not that.
Good post that is remarkable for the incredibly divergent responses so far. I wonder if anyone here will take the aviation HOA etc. idea and run with it?
Affinity based communities (classic cars?) based on expensive interests might have potential for communities of like minded people regardless of race. Not to mention the economy of scale benefits for expensive hobbies (their own personal airport?! cool!). I guess that’s the idea behind golf course communities. It’s a variation on the theme of just pricing the riff-raff out, but the price premium for the house probably is smaller and comes with tangible benefits for the target audience.
Any more examples like this out there?
P.S. Is a subscription to Air & Space magazine enough to indicate “an active interest in aviation”? ; )
Eugenics, anyone?
The picture at the top of the original article “Infants show racial bias toward members of own race and against those of other races” suggests that these are the white infants who exhibit racial bias.
It appears that this study aims at finding ways to re-engineer the white race so that it no longer is capable to engage in any racial discrimination, like the reluctance to be displaced by highly fertile non-whites. I am sure the authors will deny it, but such a conclusion must be obvious to those with enough IQ and cognitive curiosity.
How about fixing other “birth defects” of (some) white babies, like propensity to seek individual freedom, and disdain towards collectivism? That would ultimately eliminate the last standing obstacles for the construction of a neo-Marxian world of racial justice and the redistributive political system (based on the dictatorship of “minorities”) that it will require.
And, if nothing else works well, how about lobotomy?
Anyway, for those who remember eugenics research, the article “Infants show racial bias toward members of own race and against those of other races” may be disturbing.
An ex of mine and I were looking for an apartment to rent together. We went to look at a nice one. The owner was himself working on the heater when we walked in and mostly ignored our presence. Looking around, we must have mentioned something about how our 2 cats would enjoy some feature. The owner perked up at that.
“You have cats? Just so you know, I hate cats and would rent to anybody but you, as long as they don’t have cats”
So that was that!
“[T]he second half of a child’s first year” is part of the pre-school years. These people are idiots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1G7gr-GTas
For the millionth time, Blacks are not tougher. They value life (including their own) less, which means that 99% of the time they win the game of chicken because they’re willing to risk their lives to have dominion over a basketball court or some such.
I don’t appreciate the facile equivalence of toughness with “fast-twitch” muscles, either. Fight smart, not fast, I say.
It’s unlikely for that “training” to persist since trait heritability increases with age: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/10-replicants-in-search-of-fame/
So in time most likely the nature will win over nurture. Given that’s the result of adoption studies, why think that this kind of “training” will persist any more than say transmitting respect to law, attitude towards pornography (near 100% heritable) or education or intelligence? As one psychologist put it, “adopted children are no more similar to biological children of the parents than two random strangers on the street”. There’s no reason to presume this trait would be any different.
Also, as others pointed out, that result (of study exposing babies to different races) would also have to be solidly replicated at least several times by different teams before we could conclude that it actually works.
[…] they came for babies, because babies are racist. So is your optic nerve, and your sub-conscience. I guess they’ll […]