"We tend to want our children to look more similar to us than not"
We do?

Where do we find similar-looking partners more often, well obviously in racially homegenous communities.

Yes, we do. There's research on that.

Cool. Is it good research? Is the effect particularly strong?

Can't say how strong it is, I'm not researching this stuff myself, so I have to trust other people's research and that will always mean there's a strong chance for error, especially in the humanities.

What I do know is that the dating preferences are strong.

Like, I understand that fathers like to feel like their kid is really theirs for parental certainty reasons

but beyond that, it seems odd

Ok, but dating preferences can totally be culturally ingrained. It's hard to control for stuff like htat

It's just a general trend, individuals are different.

There's no doubt that it's true, we have tons of data on racial preferences.

Whether it's because we want our off-spring to look relatively similar to ourselves, that's a different question and doesn't even need to be considered as part of the argument.

The thing is, we seem to pick our mate mainly for biological features. Height is one of the biggest factors. Skin color is another. I actually did a self-test for this, and at least for me it's true.

I'm not even sure what the argument is? If it's that racial discrimination is natural then this means nothing because you cannot control for cultural factors with this.

I have much higher standards for black women than white women, as I strongly prefer whites over blacks out of an equal number of picks.

I know this is just me, but it never hurts to confirm my own bias 😉

TFW you miss a majority of the discussion and now feel alienated <:konatacry:351776320134447115>

Well, there's absolutely no doubt that whites and blacks self-degregate in the US

self-segregate*

Anyways, my only point in this entire matter is that it's not racial discrimination, it's just profiling. A white person can't racially discriminate against a white person I think(? I have second thoughts on this so if someone could counter that please) so the entire matter revolves around profiling instead which can have a subset of profiling that is based on race

The reason why the US is such a good place for this type of research is because so many other factors are equal, like language.

Well we're also really fucking big

Also we have a diverse set of test subjects to choose from that all come from various backgrounds, and enviroments

Well, the chance of it not being true is tiny, I mean. Sure you can bet on that small chance, but I don't.

My argument is that it's important to accept racial discrimination as part of human nature, otherwise we'll never be able to move forward. The ideological stance that it can be eliminated is just that - ideological. It will not work, and it can make things worse.

1) Racial discrimination is probably indeed part of human nature
2) The US is a God awful place for this research for the reasons I outlined in my wall'o'text. It's got way too much cultural noise surrounding this shit basically.

I don't agree that it's a bad place for this research. There's only bad research, bad methodology, bad standards, bad conclusions, not bad places.

If accounting for all factors and probabilities, it should be very valuable.

Ok, lemme rephrase it then: it's a place where measuring this shit is FAR harder then in many other places and measuring accurately to begin with is probably rather hard outside of doing so around non-contacted tribes anyway.

"If accounting for all factors and probabilities"
Yeah, ***IF***

Yeah I'd agree with that. The research in some other places would likely provide cleaner data.

The humanities are notoriously prone for error anyway, it's extremely hard to get conclusive research.

Add to that the bias of the researchers and reviewers.

I would agree that it's natural, but as per your original statement, i disagree that racial discrimination **on its own** is not beneficial
```ETBrooDLast Monday at 19:00
Racial discrimination is natural and evolutionarily beneficial, change my mind```

if you make that racial discrimination choice based on profiling then it might prove beneficial, but if you just say 'he's white, therefore X' or 'he's black therefore y' it's not

For example, a lot of dems are doing the former, where they look at someone see he is white and assume right off the bat that he's evil, despite the overwhelming evidence that disproves that. They aren't profiling, they are discriminating, which isn't beneficial

I was arguing for evolution, not for large-scale societal cohesion

Humans have not lived like this for 99.99...% of its existence

Rough estimate, could be quite wrong, but I hope you get my point

Basically, we're still cavemen, nothing has changed about us. Only our culture has changed, and with it our technological progress. That's about it.

We still bash each other's heads in, and we enjoy it