In his magisterial work,Race,John Baker suggests that certain racial groups are already so different from each other that they are not, technically speaking, the same species. Certain matings between extremely unrelated stocks—Bushmen and Europeans, for example—are thought to have produced only female children, or in some cases hybrids that could not mate successfully among themselves. These are well-known signs of an unrelatedness that is so vast as to be verging on separation into different species.
Indeed, according to Dr. Baker, in the prehistoric past different races and sub-races probably avoided cross-breeding and behaved as if they were different species. He points out that in nature, animals that are no more different from each other than northern Europeans and southern Europeans never breed with each other. It is only in domestication that a horse, for example, can be made to mate with a donkey. Man is, of course, the most domesticated of animals. As the French anthropologist Paul Broca remarked, “Man, especially civilized man, is of all the animals the least exclusive in his amours.”
Separate development is, to use Charles Darwin’s phrase, the origin of species. Apes and humans once had a common ancestor but are now distinct species. Likewise, racial differences are nature’s first steps towards the creation of new species. Left to themselves for long enough, the different races of man would have become so different that they could no longer produce fertile young. This might well have happened if the domesticating effects of civilization had come later, or if discovery and travel had not brought isolated peoples into contact with each other.
Sounds G00D In Theory, Brian! But In Practice It's Improbable And Impossible! I Salute Your Attempt Tho, B!
"U Gotta Keep 'Em Separated" - White Boy
The universality of ethnocentrism gives it the aspect of a genetically based trait, and it has been hypothesized as such by many observers. Yet apart from the universality itself - always suggestive of a biological predisposition - there is little evidence one way or the other. Studies of infant twins suggest substantial genetic influence on the development and intensity of fear, but the links between this phenomenon and xenophobia in adults are conjectural. Still, one can conceive of evolutionary scenarios in which the genetic roots of ethnocentrism would be adaptive (though, as always in just-so stories, adaption must be seen as selectively biased but morally neutral - sensitive to the calculus of survival and reproduction but numb to accompanying questions of right and wrong). Throughout our history, the attention-surprise-fear-continuum must have served well as a mechanism for warily assimilating the new. For infants especially, flight to the mother at the sight or sound of something strange but not readily assimilated must have been an effective protection against danger. It is possible that this is the whole adaptive story - that the adult form of xenophobia is simply an epiphenomenon of the infant adaptation, that the advantages in infancy may have out weighed any disadvantages in adult tolerance. But it is equally possible that the adult form was independently adaptive and, with a kind of morbid elegance, made use of an existing neurological mechanism well suited to its expression. As protohumans evolved, with their increasing sense of group identity and their willingness to behave, in concert, in ways especially damaging to outsiders(one can see such tribal hostility even among chimpanzees), xenophobic responses must have grown in value on the evolutionary marketplace. Xenophobia in adjacent groups would have been mutually reinforcing, both in the short run (by eliciting hostile responses) and in the long run (by favoring the natural selection of underlying genetic predispositions). Increasingly, the risks inherent in dividing the world into "us" and "them" would have become preferable to the risks accompanying compromise. Add to this the general human tendency to perceive the world - inanimate, social, or spiritual - in terms of dualities, and you have a cognitive infrastructure on which ethnocentrism can readily build. (Why The Reckless Survive)
https://twitter.com/Eurohoopsnet/status/875416609816535042 Europe Of All Places, Huh, My Niggas? Of Course Europe, My Niggas! It's Less Racially Diverse (Less Niggers) And Less Politically Correct There! So What You Hear This President Saying Is What Most Other Presidents Believe! Why? because Racism Is Innate!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150429104813.htm You Live In A Neighborhood Predominately Composed Of Crackers And Thus Do Not Like Niggers, Nor Do You Like To Help Them (Crackers Don't Like The Help Either). In Fact, You're Suspicious Of Them (Niggers), Fearful Of Them, Hostile Toward Them, And Disinclined To Help Them (Crackers Don't Like The Help Either). Why? Because They Are Not Like You (Not Like You In Genetic Makeup; Mindset, Personality, Behavior, Looks), Nor Are They Like The Rest Of The People In Your Cracker Community Or The Other Crackers You've Solely Been Exposed To All Of Your Cracker Life (The Crackers You've Grown Up With And Grown To LOVE Are Nothing Like The Niggers).
1:50 Married To A White WomanWhy Do Many Of These Black Activists Who Preach All Of This Anti-White Shit Have Sexual Relationships With White Mens And White Womens And Have Half White Kids? Don't You Find That Contradictory? I Mean, That's The Exact Definition Of Being A Hypocrite! Like, They're Saying One Thing, But Doing Another. I Think This Is Part Of Human Nature. I Think This Is Attributable To Our Evolved Psychology (Mental Makeup). We Evolved To Be Inherently Contradictory (To Hold Conflicting Views). Why? because It's A Result Of Both Group Selection And Sexual Selection. We Say Things That Appeal To Certain Groups Of People (That Appeal To Blacks In Van Jones's Case) So That We're Accepted By Them, But We Do Things That Appeal Only To Us (Have Sex With White Womens In Van Jones's Case). This Way He Can Be 2 Things At Once: The Champion Of The Black Man And Black Cause And The Lover Of The Blonde Haired, Blue Eyed, White Skinned Devil!). UNDERSTAND? I'll Explain It Further At A Later Date. In The Meantime, Read Below To Get A Better Idea Of What I'm Talking About Because The Story Below Illustrates The Point I Make.
Around the same time that Lewontin's essay was published, obituaries announced the death of Essie Mae Washington-Williams, who was born in 1925 in Aiken, South Carolina. In 2003 Washington-Williams announced at a press conference that she was the illegitimate daughter of Strom Thurmond, a white American congressman, and Carrie Butler, an African American teen who worked as a maid in the Thurmond household. By the time Washington-Williams was in her early twenties, Thurmond was governor of South Carolina. Later he became a long-standing senator in the U.S. Congress and at one time ran for the office of U.S. president. A strict segregationist, he said: "All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the negro into our homes, our schools, our churches and our places of recreation and amusement." Washington-Williams waited until Thurmond died before she publicly revealed that he was her father. "My children deserve the right to know from whom, where and what they come from," she said. "I am committed in teaching them and helping them to learn about their past. It is their right to know and understand the rich history of their ancestry, black and white." Washington-Williams was a mother of four by the time she wrote her memoir in 2005. It's hard to imagine her descendants feeling nothing as they think about her past. When she finished her historic announcement, the elegant and assured Washington-Williams spoke of the "great sense of peace" that came over her when she decided to share the details of her family's history. For some, no doubt for many, the details of their own lineage, and certainly that of others, may be banal. But when those details are lost or suppressed, they can take on an enormous power. (The Invisible History Of The Human Race)
You Have Unconscious Biases That Influence Your Thoughts, Decisions, And Behaviors. One Of These Biases Is To Fear The Dark, Especially The Darky (Especially The Dark Darky In The Dark (The Darker Skinned Niggers In An Area With Little To No Light))!
The White Girl Does Not Like The Nigger When She's Most Fertile! (No She Doesn't!)
4. Women become more racist when they're ovulating.At least white American ovulating women do when it comes to thinking about black American men. Those are the jaw-dropping,politically incorrect findingsof Michigan State University's Carlos Navarrete and colleagues. White, undergraduate females were evaluated for race bias using several variants of animplicit association test, which asks participants to perform a word-matching task that indicates the relative accessibility of certain stereotypes. The women who happened to be ovulating scored especially high when it came to fear of black (as opposed to white) men, a fact that the authors interpret as reflecting an evolved disposition to avoid so-called "out-group males," who "may not have been subject to thesame social controls as in-group members and would have constituted a threat in antagonistic situations." In this case, skin color serves as a convenient marker of group identity. (The authors concede that people of different skin colors came into contact with one another only in recent times,evolutionarily speaking, but propose that any physical trait that serves to demarcate an out-group member would be processed by ovulating females as a sort of "hazard heuristic.") Stereotypes about the particular out-group being prone to violence may also play a role,so, at least in American society, cultural transmission works alongside evolutionary biology in promoting racism. It remains unclear if the same race bias occurs in ovulating women from other races:Do black women show heightened fear of white men?
McDonald on evolutionary hypotheses of sex differences in discrimination
men more race biased overall
women biased agnst dating other races (To Sum It Up, My White Wife In Academia Is Saying "SHE DON'T LIKE NIGGERS!")
https://www.instagram.com/p/BF4LO6SrnDq/?taken-by=iambarondavis&hl=en But
Look At How That White Grandfather Looks At That Dark Child! He Looks
At Him As Though He's A Stranger. He Looks At That Dark Child As Though
He's A Foreign Being. He Looks At That Nigger As Though He's An Outsider
And Unlike Him Because He Is An Outsider To The White Clan And
Genetically Unlike The White Grandfather! So What The White Grandfather
Is Doing Is Natural. He's Inspecting And Rejecting Something That Is
Genetically Different Than Him, Genetically Distant From Him, And
Genetically Disgusting To Him!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2566511/ Hey, Nigger, Don't Look At The Babee Cuz You're Scaring It With Your Negroid Looks (Negroid Facial Features, Which Are Not The Same As The Babee's). BABEE!
This
finding — that people are reflexively prone to “intergroup bias” in
punishment — is consistent with what many scientists believe about
humans’ evolutionary heritage. Homo sapiens spent thousands of years in
close-knit communities competing for scarce resources on the African
savanna. Members of the in-group were presumably sources of help,
comfort and cooperation; members of opposing groups, by contrast, were
sources of threat and violence. As a result, the tendency to
instinctively treat in-group members with care and foreigners with
caution may be etched into our DNA.
Our
finding sheds some light on the nature of implicit racial bias. Because
people frequently form group memberships on the basis of race, the same
biases that emerge along group lines may underlie many instances of
racial discrimination. This human tendency is almost certainly inflamed
when different racial groups are exposed to racial stereotyping and
institutional discrimination, but it may start with common instincts
driven by the pressures of evolution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9vJgoPsg4
Humans Evolved To See Race (Racial Differences), Favor Members Of Their Own Race, And Be Weary, Fearful, And Denigrating Of Members Of Other Races. This Is How Our Mind (The Human Mind) Has Been Genetically Programmed By Millions Of Years Of Evolution. In Other Words, All Of Us Are Evolved To Be Racist (Some Are More So Than Others Based On The Social And Cultural Environment In Which They Were Raised Or Social Circumstances They Currently Find Themselves In). So When People Make Race Related Comments Like The Ones Donald Sterling Made I'm Not Surprised, Nor Am I Offended And Outraged By Them Because We're Innately Inclined To Think And Say* Similar Things And We've All Thought Or Said Similar Things Whether We'd Like To Admit It Or Not (And Most Of Us Wouldn't Like To Admit It). I Think A Lot Of You Act Dismayed And Disturbed By Such Comments Because We've Created Such A Guilt-Ridden, Hyper-Sensitive, Overly Politically Correct American Society And If You Don't Act Disturbed And Dismayed By Such Comments You Yourself May Be Labeled A Racist! ("You're Not Offended By That? What Is Wrong With You, You Racist!") And No One Wants To Be Labeled A Racist! That's Bad For Business, Bad For Your Image, Bad For Your Social Life, And All Other Selfish, Self-Centered Reasons. Reasons, Reasons That We're Here!
*Many Of You May Not Say The Racist Things You Think Because It's Socially Unacceptable In America, But That Doesn't Make You Any Less Of A Racist! In Fact, Your Racist Thoughts And Actions Are Worse Than Your Racist Words.
STICK AND STONES MAY BREAK MY BONES, BUT THE WOODS WILL NEVER HURT ME!
Here's My Racism Litmus Test. If You're Willing To Let A Big Black Nigger Fuck Your Pure, Innocent, White Daughter Or Hispanic Daughter Or Asian Daughter You Are NOT A Racist! Since Most Of You Would Be Repulsed, Jealous, And Terrified By The Thought Of Your Daughter Fucking A Nigger And Would Thus Never Allow It You Are Racist!
That Nigger Fucked All 3 Of Them At The Same Damn Time In That White Guys Home And Hotel! How Does That Make You Feel White And Indian/Sri Lankan/Nepalese/Bangladeshi Man? If It Makes You Feel G00D Vote For Hillary! If It Upsets You And Makes You Want To Kill That Nigger Vote For Donald! In Other Words, White And Indian/Sri Lankan/Nepalese/Bangladeshi Man You'll Get More Of This Going On In America (Some Nigger Fucking Your White Or Indian/Sri Lankan/Nepalese/Bangladeshi Daughter Or Girlfriend) If You Vote For Hillary!
However, Pinker pledges allegiance to some of the central theories and
data in evolutionary biology while nevertheless vitiating their importance for
understanding the world we live in. Pinker's central claim is as
follows:
The same arithmetic that makes an individual's pedigree collapse
onto itself also makes everyone's pedigree collapse into everyone else's. We are
all related — not just in the obvious sense that we are all descended from the
same population of the first humans, but also because everyone's ancestors mated
with everyone else's at many points since that dawn of humanity.
This claim
fails to acknowledge that people's pedigrees don't collapse into everyone else's
for the simple reason that populations did not interbreed for thousands of
years. This led to distinct races and to distinct ethnic groups within races.
(See, e.g., V. Sarich & F. Miele, Race:
The Reality of Human Differences.) Particularly egregious
is that there is no appreciation of the work of Frank Salter (On
Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity, and Humanity in an Age of Mass
Migration). Salter shows that when world populations are
sampled, genetic variance between groups is about .125—equivalent to the kinship
between grandparent and grandchild. Think of it this way: A grandfather has
about .125 more genetic overlap with his grandchild than with a person taken at
random from his ethnic group; similarly, I have about .125 more genetic overlap
with a person taken at random from within my ethnic group compared to a randomly
chosen person from outside my ethnic group. And there is a gradient of genetic
similarity among ethnic groups: Swedes are more closely related to Poles than
they are to sub-Saharan Africans.
The result is that humans have an enormous
genetic interest in their ethnic groups. Just as with genealogical kinship where
people with larger families have a higher inclusive fitness, this genetic
interest becomes enormous because it is tied to the actual number of ethnic
group members which, in the modern world, can total in the millions, or, I
suppose billions, in the case of the Chinese.
Pinker creates an imaginary world in which family ties are
"biologically tenuous" because of the exponential decay of relatedness as one
goes back in time. But for a European, say, going back for a very long time
still means finding ancestors that were also from the European gene pool. And
it's a very different gene pool than the Chinese or Africans find when they look
into their past. And, as Salter's work implies, individual Europeans have a very
large genetic interest in furthering the numbers and influence of their groups,
just as other peoples do. This implies that ethnic and racial interests are
real, not illusory.
HOW DID RACISM COME ABOUT, MATT? PEOPLE WERE TAUGHT TO BE RACIST? (THAT'S HIS LIKELY ANSWER!) SEE HOW DELUSIONAL AND DECEIVED THESE UNEDUCATED PEOPLE ARE? THEY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT GENETICS AND EVOLUTIONARY THEORY AS THEY APPLY TO THE HUMAN SPECIES, YET THEY SPEAK ABOUT THE HUMAN SPECIES AS THOUGH THEY HAVE SOME ACADEMIC AUTHORITY (AS IF THEY KNOW WHAT THE FUCK THEY TALKIN' 'BOUT WHEN THEY TALK 'BOUT THE HUMAN SPECIES)! (HOW COULD THEY EVER MAKE ANY ACCURATE, CREDIBLE CLAIM ABOUT HUMAN NATURE WHEN THEY HAVE NO BACKGROUND IN HUMAN GENETICS AND EVOLUTIONARY THEORY? I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY EVER COULD! THE LIL WEENIE THAT COULD!)
http://velesova-sloboda.vho.org/antrop/macdonald-foreword-to-raciology.html
The psychological traits attributed to Nordics are principled moral
behavior and idealism, high intellect, inventiveness, and, in the words
of Gustav Friedrich Klemm, a proclivity to “constant progress” and
science. “Members of that race most often strive for the unknown, for
the sake of a pure idea, driven by the thirst of knowledge, and not
self-seeking interest.”
My view is that there is a strong empirical basis for this suite of
traits, and that ultimately, these traits, particularly moral idealism
and science, are the psychological manifestation of individualism as a
response to selection pressures in the far north. Avdeyev notes that the
“the home of the Nordic race may be located in the zone of a cool and
moist climate, abundant with clouds of fog, in which water vapor is
retained in the air [absorbing ultra-violet rays.] In this climate there
should be strong and frequent fluctuations of temperature.”
I first became aware of the idea that natural selection in the
north was responsible for the unique traits of Europeans by reading
Fritz Lenz, whose work is reviewed in Raciology. As do several modern theorists,[5] Lenz gives major weight to the selective pressures of the Ice Age on northern peoples.[6]
He proposed that the intellectual abilities of these peoples are due to
a great need to master the natural environment, resulting in selection
for traits related to mechanical ability, structural design, and
inventiveness in problem solving (what psychologists term ‘performance
IQ’), whereas he argued that Jewish intelligence was the result of
intensive social living (what psychologists term ‘verbal IQ’). There is
in fact good evidence that intelligence in general is linked to
mastering the natural environment,[7] and this is particularly the case among Northern peoples.
Lenz argued that over the course of their recent evolution,
Europeans were less subjected to between-group natural selection than
Jews and other Middle Eastern populations. Because of the harsh
environment of the Ice Age, the Nordic peoples evolved in small groups
and have a tendency toward social isolation rather than cohesive groups.
This perspective does not imply that Northern Europeans lack
collectivist mechanisms for group competition, but only that these
mechanisms are relatively less elaborated and/or require a higher level
of group conflict to trigger their expression.
Under ecologically adverse circumstances like the Ice Age,
adaptations are directed more at coping with the adverse physical
environment, than at competing with other groups, and in such an
environment, there would be less pressure for selection for extended
kinship networks and highly collectivist groups. Evolutionary
conceptualizations of ethnocentrism emphasize the utility of
ethnocentrism in group competition. Ethnocentrism would thus be of no
importance at all in combating the physical environment, and such an
environment would not support large competing groups.
Europeans are therefore less ethnocentric than other groups, which
makes them susceptible to being subverted by groups with a strong sense
of ingroup solidarity. Individualist cultures show relatively little
emotional attachment to ingroups. Personal goals are paramount, and
socialization emphasizes the importance of self-reliance, independence,
individual responsibility, and “finding yourself.” Individualists have
more positive attitudes toward strangers and outgroup members, and are
more likely to behave in a pro-social, altruistic manner toward
strangers. People in individualist cultures are less aware of
ingroup/outgroup boundaries and thus do not have highly negative
attitudes toward outgroup members. They often disagree with ingroup
policy, show little emotional commitment or loyalty to ingroups, and do
not have a sense of common fate with other ingroup members. Opposition
to outgroups occurs in individualist societies, but the opposition is
more 'rational' in the sense that there is less of a tendency to suppose
that all of the outgroup members are culpable. Individualists form mild
attachments to many groups, while collectivists have an intense
attachment and identification to a few ingroups.[8]
Individualists are therefore relatively ill-prepared for the
between-group competition so characteristic of the history of Judaism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a29guLgQ3qs
Paul Bloom on the Psychology of Prejudice
Listen To Paul Speak At The 2:33 Mark. He'll Explain To You How Your Thought Process Works And What You're Really Thinking. Here, Let ME Try. You Have Conscious Thoughts And Beliefs That Are A Product Of Liberal, Politically Correct, Mainstream American Culture (They Influence You To Think And Believe The Politically Correct, Socially Acceptable Things You Think And Believe). Then You Have Your Unconscious Mind Telling You What You Really Think And Believe And Unconsciously Influencing You To Base Your Decisions On Those Thoughts And Beliefs (And Those Thoughts And Beliefs Are Typically Politically Incorrect And Socially Unacceptable). So, Your Conscious, Politically Correct, Socially Acceptable Thought Is To Regard Both Men As American, But Unconsciously You're Thinking Tony Blair's The American (Because He's White) And If You Were Put In A Situation In Which You'd Have To Select, Accept, And Treat One As An American You'd Select Tony! Here's A Better Example. Imagine Your Cracker Ass Was Walking Down A Poorly Lit Street Late At Night And You Saw That Nigger Approaching you From The Opposite Direction (You're Heading South, He's Heading North, And You're About To Cross-Paths With That Nigger!) Now Imagine You Were Walking Down That Same Street At The Same Time Of Day, And Saw A Pale Skinned, Light Eyed, Cracker Like Yourself Approaching You From The Opposite Direction. Which One Of These Guys Would You Be Most Fearful Of And Which One Of These Guys Would Make You Cross The Street So You'd Avoid Him? The Nigger, Right?! Yeah, The Nigger! So Please Don't Tell ME That You Don't Recognize Race And Base Your Thoughts And Action On Race, MothaFucca!
Is it possible to achieve the cooperative advantages of a small group without having the group reflexively view outsiders as the Other? One often encounters pessimism in response to this question, based on the notion that humans, as primates, are hardwired for xenophobia. Some brain-imaging studies have appeared to support this view in a particularly discouraging way. There is a structure deep inside the brain called the amygdala that plays a key role in fear and aggression, and experiments have shown that when subjects are presented with a face of someone from a different race, the amygdala gets metabolically active - aroused, alert, ready for action. This happens even when the face is presented subliminally, which is to say, so rapidly that the subject does not consciously see it. (Peace Among Primates)
YOUR
UNCONSCIOUS MIND DICTATES YOUR THOUGHTS AND BEHAVIOR AND YOUR
UNCONSCIOUS MIND IS COMPOSED OF MANY, MANY MENTAL MODULES THAT ARE IN
CONFLICT WITH ONE ANOTHER. ULTIMATELY, THE WAY YOU THINK AND BEHAVE IN A
GIVEN SITUATION IS A RESULT OF ONE OF THESE MENTAL MODULES
OUT-COMPETING OTHER MENTAL MODULES LEADING YOU TO THINK AND BEHAVE THE
WAY THE WINNING MENTAL MODULE WANTS YOU TO THINK AND BEHAVE. AND THIS
WHOLE PROCESS PLAYS OUT BELOW THE LEVEL OF CONSCIENCE!
(THE WHITE MIND OPERATES THIS WAY ON INSTINCT! IT OPERATES THIS WAY BY DEFAULT! THIS ISN'T SOMETHING MY FATHER TAUGHT AND ME I'M BEING SARCASTIC, BUT THEIR MAY BE A GRAIN OF TRUTH TO IT. READ BELOW!)
Jerome Kagan, a Harvard psychologist, leading a team of researchers studying shyness or confidence in children, found that he could identify unusually 'inhibited' types as early as four months of age - and fourteen years later could predict how shy or confident those same human beings would be as adults. Upbringing mattered a good deal. But intrinsic personality played just as big a role...it turned out that the same personality traits correlated with some unexpected other features. Shy adolescents were more likely to be blue-eyed(all the subjects were of European descent), susceptible to allergies, tall and thin, narrow-faced, to have more heat-generating activity under the right forehead and a faster heartbeat, than the less shy individuals. All of these features are under the control of a particular set of cells in the embryo called the neural crest, from which a particular part of the brain, the amygdala, derives. They also use the same neurotransmitter, called norepinephrine, a substance very like dopamine. All these features are also characteristic of northern Europeans, Nordic types for the most part. Kagan's argument goes that the Ice Age selected those better able to withstand cold in these parts: people with high metabolic rates. But a high metabolic rate is produced by an active norepinephrine system in the amygdala, and brings with it lots of different baggage - a phlegmatic and shy personality being one aspect and a pale appearance being another. Just as in foxes and rats, shy and suspicious types are paler than bold types. (Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters)
Given no other information at all, a White person is likely to
perceive a Black man as a possible physical threat. Studies by
Elizabeth Phelps and Carlos Navarrete and their colleagues find that
White people condition fear
more easily to Black men than to either Black women or Whites. Jon
Maner and his colleagues find that White people who are frightened
(after watching a scary movie like Silence of the Lambs) perceive a
Black man with an otherwise neutral facial expression to be angry (even
though the same face is not judged angry when the subjects are not
frightened, and even though frightened people do not project anger
onto the faces of Whites, or of Black women). Mark Schaller and his
colleagues find that White and Asian Canadian students judge Black men
to be more dangerous (but only when those subjects are in a dark room,
and when they chronically think of the world as a dangerous place).
What the research I presented the other day suggests is that some of
this implicit fear is associated with an assumption that a Black man
comes from a desperate environment, and that the stereotypes can be
overridden by information suggesting that the man is from a hopeful
ecology. Conversely, a White man from a desperate ecology is perceived
to have some of the same characteristics normally attributed, by
default, to Black men.
"You Can Tell By The Way That I Walk Imma Threat Nigga!" - Da Gunman
ALL OF YOU KNOW HOW TO USE GOOGLE PLUS AND YOU'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH MY
GOOGLE PLUS PAGES WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE IN HAND. I'M JUST NOW FIGURING
OUT HOW TO USE IT (BECAUSE I'M NOT TECHNOLOGICALLY INCLINED, NOR
INTERESTED IN THE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA FOR SOCIAL PURPOSES), BUT I'M
HAVING TROUBLE FINDING ONE OF MY PEEGEE BEEDEE POSTS. IT WAS THE COMMENT
THAT I LEFT ON THIS PERSON'S PAGELisa SaysREGARDINGTHE COMMENT SHE LEFT HERE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a29guLgQ3qs&spfreload=5
. SO, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO KNOW HOW TO USE TECHNOLOGY, PLEASE GO TO YOUR PHONES AND GO THROUGH MY PEEGEE BEEDEE GOOGLE PLUS POSTS, IF THEY STILL EXIST, AND SEE
IF YOU CAN FIND THE COMMENT I DIRECTED TO HER BECAUSE IT APPLIES TO THE
COMMENT I WROTE BELOW AS WELL AS THIS ENTIRE BLOG POST. HEY, LOOK, I FOUND IT! IT'S WRITTEN ABOVE!
Colin, All Whites, Like All Other People, Are Innately Racist (Racially Bias, Prejudice, Discriminatory) And Their Racism (Their Racist Thoughts, Beliefs, And Behavior) Stem From Their UNCONSCIOUS MIND, But Because Of The Social And Political Climate That We Live In In The U.S. All Whites, Like All Other People, Have To Conceal This Innate, UNCONSCIOUS Racism And They Do This, Colin, By Using Their CONSCIOUS Mind To Either Suppress Their Racist Thoughts, Beliefs, And Behavior Or By Using Their CONSCIOUS Mind To RATIONALIZE* Their Racist Thoughts, Beliefs, And Behaviors. So, In Spite Of What Polite Society Wants To Think, Colin, All Whites Are Racist Just Like All Other Human Beings Are Racist And There's Ample Neuroscientific And Evolutionary Psychology Based Science To Support This Claim. (In Regard To The Above Video, Colin, They Didn't Have To Arrest The Black Boy For Walking Down The Street, But They Arrested Him Anyway Because He Was A Black Boy In A White Suburb And The Cracca Cops Were Influenced By Their UNCONSCIOUS Racism To Arrest Him).
"You Can Tell By The Way I Walk Imma Threat Wigga!" - P Da Man!
*All People Have UNCONSCIOUS Thoughts And Feelings About Other People And They Typically Make Decisions About Treating People Based On These UNCONSCIOUS Thoughts And Feelings, But After This Decision Is Made They Use Their CONSCIOUS Mind To Find A Socially Acceptable And Politically Correct Reason To Justify The Decision They Made About Treating That Person (Whether They Treated That Person Good Or Bad). "TREATING PEOPLE" IN THE NON-MEDICAL SENSE. I'm Headed To The Medical Marijuana Shop Down The Street In A Bit! You Need Anything?
We Gotta Caller Here!
The Darker Your Skin, The Longer Your Sentence! And That's The Way It Should Be, Darkie! (Don't Tell 'Em I'm Tanning!)
The scenario of course is designed to ward off the most common moral objections to incest, and in doing so demonstrate that much of moral reasoning is a post-hoc affair-a way of justifying judgments that you've already reached though an emotional gut response to a situation. Although we like to think of ourselves as arriving at our moral judgments after painstaking rational deliberation, or at least some kind of deliberation anyhow, Haidt's model-the "social intuititionist model"-sees the process as just the reverse. We judge and then we reason. Reason is the press secretary of the emotions, as Haidt is fond of saying, the ex post facto spin doctor of beliefs we've arrived at through a largely intuitive process. ... My thinking is as follows: We arrive at our judgments through our emotionally charged intuitions, intuitions that do not track any kind of objective moral truth, but instead are artifacts of our biological and cultural histories. Haidt's model reveals that there is quite a bit of self-deception bound up in moral beliefs and practice. The strength of these intuitions leads us to believe that the truth of our moral judgments is "self-evident"-think: declaration of independence-in other words, that they correspond to an objective moral reality of some kind. That is why we try so hard to justify them after the fact. But we have little to no reason to believe that this moral reality exists.
The Thicker A Nigger's Glasses The Less The White Girl Perceives Him As A Threat (The Less The White Girl Fears Him). In Other Words, To Be Considered Civilized And Not Criminally Inclined By The White Girl The Nigger Has To Wear Spectacles And The Larger The Spectacles The Better (The Bigger The Bifocals The Less White Girl Fears The Nigger And The Less White Girl's Inclined To Convict Him)!
D-FENCE! D-FENCE! D-FENCE! A Nigger Damn Near Has To Come Into Court With Binoculars Hanging From His Neck To Get A Fair Trial!
"BIG GLASSES ON...LIKE ERKLE..." - CAMARADA FROM THA AVA (CONRAD FROM THA MOTHAFUCCIN' AVE)
Can We Really Measure Implicit Bias? Maybe NoT
http://www.chronicle.com/article/Can-We-Really-Measure-Implicit/238807 That influence extends well beyond the academy. The findings come up
often in discussions of police shootings of black men, and the concept
of implicit bias circulated widely after Hillary Clinton mentioned it
during the presidential campaign . The test provides scientific
grounding for the idea that unacknowledged prejudice often lurks just
below society’s surface. "When we relax our active efforts to be
egalitarian, our implicit biases can lead to discriminatory behavior,"
according to the Project Implicit website, "so it is critical to be
mindful of this possibility if we want to avoid prejudice and
discrimination."
In other words, beware your inner bigot. ...
The test works by measuring how quickly people can, for instance,
associate African-American faces with positive words versus European
American faces with those same positive words. In one round of the test,
you’re instructed to press a particular key if a positive word like
"pleasure" or "wonderful" flashes on the screen and to press that same
key if a white face appears. Then, in another round, the program will
tell you to press the same key for darker faces and positive words. It
tracks how many mistakes you make and measures how quickly you press
those keys, right down to fractions of a second. The site also offers
tests that measure bias against other groups, including obese people,
the disabled, and the elderly, though it’s the race results that tend to
dominate the discussion.
It generally takes people longer to associate a positive word with an
African-American face than a European-American face. What’s uncanny is
that the test usually works even on people who, like me, know what’s
being measured ahead of time and are doing their best to answer at the
same speed so as not to be deemed biased. http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-racial-bias-heartbeats-20170117-story.html "FOLLOW YOUR HEART!" - LENNY BIAS
rebecca smith2 weeks ago Walters also should of asked who were the racist people telling Sterling about Stiviano's instagram pictures. These are board of directors and other team owners. Sterling is not the only racist owner in the NBA. Like he said it's a culture.
Beccman, I Agree With This Comment. He's Not The Only Person In American Professional Sports Or Throughout The History Of American Professional Sports To Be Overtly Racist. There Are Many Other Owners, CEOs, Managers, Etc., Both Past And Present, Who Have Said Similar Things As Donald And Even Acted On Those Things, But Their Comments And Actions Never Came To Light. Donald Had The MISfortune Of Having His Remarks Recorded And Disseminated Throughout The Media And World. That's The Difference.
By The Way, Beccman, I Disagree With Your Conspiracy Theory Comment About Barbara Walters Tip Toeing Around Questions Because She And Donald Sterling Are Both Jewish. She's To Much Of A Professional With Too Big Of A Name In Journalism, And Too Much Of A Spotlight On Her To Do Such A Thing. As A Side Note, Blacks In Position Of Power Tend To This (Cover Up For, Make Excuses For, Side With, Etc. Other Blacks) More So Than Other Races.
LoL,..don't
know why 've just saw this after all these months. Well,....you can
hope PeeGee. But I wouldn't hold my breath on that. There's no way to
stop interracial breeding because,..simply put,....we are a single
species that can mix with one another,..regardless of ethnicity.
So,..there will always be mixing of the races. So,..might as well go
along with the program. Just sayin'.
We
May All Be Of The Same Species (Homo Sapiens Sapiens), But Within This
Species Are Sub-Species (Races) Which Differ From One Another Culturally
(Especially In Regard To Mating Rituals), Genetically, Biologically,
Etc. And When These Sub-Species Interbreed They Lose Their
Distinctiveness And Uniqueness, Especially Their Distinctive And Unique
Genetic Traits, Which They've Evolved Over Thousands Of Years And Which
Separate Them From Other Races. Would You Want Black Facial Features,
Black Skin Tone, Black Hair Type, Black Body Type, Etc. To Be Lost For
Good (FOREVER) If Blacks Go Along With The Program And Keep Breeding
Outside Of Their Race (Keep Having Children With Non-Blacks, Especially Crackers And Beaners)?
P.S.
THERE IS A WAY TO STOP INTERRACIAL BREEDING. IT'S BY NOT PRACTICING IT
(NOT HAVING SEX AND ESPECIALLY NOT HAVING A CHILD WITH PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF
YOUR RACE) AND BY TELLING YOUR CHILDREN TO NOT PRACTICE IT, AND BY
TELLING EVERYONE ELSE YOU'RE RELATED TO NOT PRACTICE IT, AND BY
TELLING YOUR FRIENDS AND ACQUAINTANCES TO NOT PRACTICE IT, AND BY TELLING THE WORLD TO NOT PRACTICE IT. (LET THE WORLD NO!)
P.P.S. I DON'T GO ALONG WITH THE PROGRAM. I BUCK THE SYSTEM. I DO IT MY WAY. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, MY WAY HAS LED ME TO THE HIGHWAY (I LIVE UNDERNEATH AN OVERPASS).
BIG MANDINGO!
When You Liberal, White Crackers Is Off To Work, YO White Wife Is Getting Dick Down By Some BIG Barbaric, BIG Dicked, Black Nigga! That's What You Get For Being A Liberal And Voting Democratic. (If You Don't See The Connection Between Liberal Ideology, Liberal Voting, And Interracial Breeding Read My All The Single Ladies And Like Republicans And Democrats Posts!)
A general problem in crop development is that occasional mutant plant individuals are more useful to humans (for example, because of bigger or less bitter seeds) than are normal individuals. IF THOSE DESIRABLE MUTANTS PROCEEDED TO INTERBREED WITH NORMAL PLANTS, THE MUTATION WOULD IMMEDIATELY BE DILUTED OR LOST. Under what circumstances would it remain preserved for early farmers?...A third advantage of the Fertile Crescent flora is that it includes a high percentage of hermaphroditic "selfers" - that is, plants that usually pollinate themselves but that are regularly cross-pollinated hermaphrodites or consist of separate male and female individuals that inevitably depend on another individual for pollination. THOSE FACTS OF REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY VEXED EARLY FARMERS, BECAUSE, AS SOON AS THEY HAD LOCATED A PRODUCTIVE MUTANT PLANT, ITS OFFSPRING WOULD CROSS-BREED WITH OTHER PLANT INDIVIDUALS AND THEREBY LOSE THEIR INHERITED ADVANTAGE...
Now How Does The Above Excerpt Apply To Human Races? Well, Because The Same Genetic Principles That Apply To Plants Also Apply To Humans. When A Race Evolves Unique Genetic Traits (Genetic Mutations) Members Of That Race Can Maintain Those Genetic Traits Only By Breeding Amongst Themselves (With Other Members Of That Race Who Have The Same Genetic Mutations). But As Soon As Members Of That Race Begin Breeding Outside Of Their Race With People Who Don't Have These Same Genetic Traits (Genetic Mutations) The Unique Genetic Traits That They (That Race) Evolved Will Become Diluted Or Lost. Take For Instance, High Jumping Ability. All Of My Brothers Had Above Average Jumping Ability Which We Inherited From Our Father, But NONE Of My Brother's Sons Have This Unique Trait. Why Is That? Because My Brothers Bred With Women Who Don't Possess This Unique Genetic Mutation, So The Unique Genetic Mutation That They Have (Which Was Received From Their Father) Has Become Diluted After 3 Generations (My Father's Grandsons). See Post Here:Biologists have long thought that speciation occurs most often on the edge of a species' range, where a small group of animals could more easily become isolated from the larger group, perhaps by moving beyond a mountain range or river. Once isolated, this small group would evolve independently of the larger group. Over time the small group could become so different that it would no longer interbreed with its parent group, gaining evolutionary independence...one major objection must be addressed: how can a new species become biologically isolated right in the middle of an existing species' range? According to the usual understanding of speciation, the new species would begin interbreeding with the existing one and quickly lose its distinct identity*. This quandary has forced biologists to look more carefully at what they call reproductive isolating mechanisms. These mechanisms have a job much like that of the chaperones accompanying high school seniors on an overnight graduation trip: to prevent successful matings. Some reproductive isolating mechanisms depend on behavior. For example, the mating rituals of two species may be so different that sexual overtures end in a welter of mixed signals and inappropriate responses. Others are more visual. Primates, in particular, with their highly acute vision, often can identify suitable mating partners at a glance.(Mapping Human History: Genes, Race, and Our Common Origins)
Sista, That's Not What Dr. Levin Is Saying! Dr. Levin Is Saying That Black On Black Interaction (Speaking Style (Tone Pitch, Etc.), Vernacular, Body Language, Etc.) Is Construed By Whites As Being Hostile And Volatile And Thus An Interaction (A Communication Style) That They'd Rather Avoid! This Avoidance By Whites Then Leads Blacks To Feel Shunned By The White Mainstream Majority, Which Just Further Fuels Black Hostility And Volatility In The Hopes That Such Hostility And Volatility Is Rewarded (Rewarded In The Sense That The Hostility And Volatility Will Allow Them (Blacks) To Get Their Foot Into The White World's Door, So To Speak)! In Essence, Sista, Black-White Tension And Black-White Division Stems From A Simple Misunderstanding Of One Another (A Simple Miscommunication), Sista!
*MY OFFSPRING WOULD LOSE MY UNIQUENESS IF I WERE TO HAVE A CHILD WITH A NON-BLACK HISPANIC, ESPECIALLY A MEXICAN ONE. THAT'S WHY I WOULD NEVER EVER EVER HAVE A CHILD WITH A MEXICAN OR ANY OTHER HISPANIC. I'VE NEVER BEEN WITH ONE AND I NEVER WILL BE. WHY WOULDN'T I EVER HAVE A CHILD WITH ONE? BECAUSE THAT CHILD WOULDN'T HAVE AS MUCH OR MORE ATHLETICISM THAN ME, WOULDN'T BE AS SMART OR SMARTER THAN ME, AND WOULDN'T LOOK AS POLYNESIAN OR MORE POLYNESIAN THAN ME. DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M GETTING AT? IF I WERE TO HAVE A CHILD WITH A MEXICAN THAT CHILD WOULD BE 75% MEXICAN AND THE MORE MEXICAN DNA YOU HAVE THE LESS INTELLIGENCE YOU HAVE, THE LESS ATHLETICISM YOU HAVE, AND THE LESS POLYNESIAN YOU LOOK. AS YOU CAN SEE, I'M NOT TOO FOND OF MEXICANS OR HISPANICS IN GENERAL.
Thus Lowri Turneris a blonde British woman whose second marriage was to a man from India. She already had two blond children, and now got a new daughter. You would think it had occurred to her that this time around her children would not look like her, but no:
[W]hen I turn to the mirror in my bedroom to admire us together, I am shocked. She seems so alien…
I didn’t realize how much her looking different would matter and, on a rational level, I know it shouldn’t. But it does.
Evolution demands that we have children to pass on our genes, hence the sense of pride and validation we get when we see our features reappearing in the next generation.
People of other races are no different. Most black people want black children and Asians want Asian children. When people imagine what it would be like to be a parent they imagine children who look like them.
Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, is generally blamed for coining the term eugenics from the Greek term for "well-born."...As early as the 1880s , Galton promoted the concept of improving the human race by making sure the most talented and attractive men mate with the most talented and attractive women, while at the same time limiting the reproductive potential of the not-so-fortunate. It was a natural extension, he wrote, from the concepts of natural selection to a purposeful improvement of the human race. "What nature does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly, and kindly," he wrote.
Galton's theories were rediscovered along with the Mendelian principles of inheritance at the turn of the twentieth century. The theory was that if you could breed peas for height, seed texture, and leaf color, why shouldn't you attempt to breed people for beauty, brains, character, and courage? This is how genetics made its dubious debut in public consciousness, veiled by eugenicists as a science for the greater good.
There is no great invention, from fire to flying, that has not been hailed as an insult to some God.
Biochemist J.B.S. Haldane in Daedalus, or Science and the Future (New York: Dutton, 1923)
...
But eugenicists didn't just encourage the "best" to procreate. Soon, they began focusing their efforts on reducing the American population of "misfits and mongrels," the perceived worst of society. There were marriage prohibitions, human breeding programs, and, finally, the passage of sterilization laws in states across the country.
The Genomics Age: How DNA Technology Is Transforming The Way We Live And Who We Are. Smith, p. 195-196.
SEE MY POSTS ON THE GENETIC BASIS OF RACISM AND IN-GROUP (RACE) PREFERENCE IN THE LINKS BELOW.
My goodness. Just because Trayvon was black does NOT mean that Zimmerman killed him without cause.
WRONG, TOKO. Hey
Average IQ Tongan, Zimmerman Doesn't Like Niggers. Everything He Did
That Night* Was Based On His Dislike Of Niggers. He Knew What He Was Doing
When He Hunted The Black Boi Down And He Got The Exact Outcome That He
Was Hoping For (The Black Boi Attacked Him And That Gave Him A Reason To
Shoot Him, Which He Did). Understand? He Disguised His* True Intentions
By Provoking The Black Boi.
*His True
Intentions Were To Kill A NIGGER Because He's Racist. But He Killed The
NIGGER Under The Pretense That He Was Defending Himself (That The Savage
Black NIGGER Attacked Him Unexpectedly And Without Warrant). This Then
Gave Him The Excuse To Do What He Did (Kill The NIGGER), But Any
Non-Bias
Observer Knows That His True Intentions That Night Were To Kill A NIGGER
Because He's Racist, Was Under The Influence, And Wanted To Be Known As
A NIGGER Killer. Hey, Average IQ Tongan, Don't Speak About Social Or
Political Topics. You Don't Have The Intellect Or Worldliness To. So
Just Stick To Gossiping About Celebrities And Your Circle Of Friends And
Family.
@cwharlow Initiating conversation isn't a crime. Assault is. Bet your ass if someone attacks me, I'm shooting. :) Done, and done
This
Is The Exact Type Of Biased, ClosetED* Racist White Female That Was On The
Jury Of The Zimmerman Trial. Most White Females Have Been Socialized To
Fear And Distrust The Negroid And This Coupled With Their Innate Racist
Tendencies, Especially Towards Those Of Dark Color (The Negroid) Leads
Them To Hold The Prejudices, Stereotypes, And Misconceptions Of The
Negroid (It's Also Lead To Robin's Comments And The Not Guilty Verdict
That We Saw Today). Robin, Zimmerman Intentionally Murder A Black Boy,
Not Because He Was Defending Himself, But Because He's Racist And Wanted
To Kill A NIGGER (Other Psychological Factors Come Into Play As Well,
But It'll Take Too Long To Explain Them). Hey, Robin, If You're Ever In A
Fight With A Nigga Like ME You Won't Have The Opportunity To Shoot ME Because I'll Incapacitate You With A Solid Blow To The Noggin' (BINK) BeFOE You Have The Chance To Do Any Of That Shit You Talking About (LOVE TKO, Girl).
That's Rite AD And That's Because There's A Genetic Component To It. My Nigga A.D. Is An Athletic Director And Just Now Coming To Terms With The Fact That Racism Has A Genetic Basis And Going To Be With Humanity FOREVER.
The Minnesota Twin Study and other research projects have revealed genetic components to social attitudes, even political leanings...Other studies have indicated that genes may influence, not just overall political leanings, but also rigidly held positions on such controversial issues...A 1975 Australian study of 3,810 pairs of twins discovered a genetic component to a broad range of attitudes, everything from a liking for modern art to respect for divine law. Perhaps the most significant finding had to do with racial attitudes. Of three questions relating to this subject - belief in white superiority, acceptance of mixed marriages, and feelings about nonwhite immigration - all had a significant degree of heritability. These findings raise the intriguing possibility that the racists who reveled in The Bell Curve's genetic allegations about I.Q. winners and losers may themselves be in the genetic grip of some unattractive evolutionary residue...Should, for instance, a biochemical basis be clearly established in our attitudes toward such stubborn problems as racial hostilities or capital punishment, it might explain why the endless appeals to reason and fairness, from both sides, have historically had so little effect.Strong environmental influences - whether New York Times editorials, Pat Robertson sermons, or Aryan Nation propaganda - can, I suspect, reinforces the positions of those whose genes make them receptive to the ideology being pitched. I strongly doubt if such appeals can persuade people whose genes point them in a different ideological direction. (Born That Way)
To be racist in the present time is even more disturbing. That's a literal choice of hate, not something you were born into
FANTASY LAND, FLAT FACE! RACISM LIKE ETHNOCENTRISM IS INNATE. WE'RE ALL BORN RACISTS EVEN THOUGH THE SOCIAL CLIMATE WE LIVE IN DOESN'T WANT TO ACCEPT AND ADMIT TO THIS BIOLOGICAL REALITY!
When in experiments black and white Americans were flashed pictures of the other race, their amygdalas, the brain's center of fear and anger, were activated so quickly and subtly that the conscious centers of the brain were unaware of the response. The subject, in effect, could not help himself...Thus different parts of the brain have evolved by group selection to create groupishness. They mediate the hardwired propensity to downgrade other-group members...There is little or no guilt in the pleasure experienced from watching violent sporting events and war films, providing the amygdala rules the action and the story unwinds to a satisfying destruction of the enemy. (The Social Conquest Of Earth.)
The
elementary drive to form and take deep pleasure from in-group
membership easily translates at a higher level into tribalism. People
are prone to ethnocentrism. It is an uncomfortable fact that even when
given a guilt-free choice, individuals prefer the company of others of
the same race, nation, clan, and religion. They trust them more, relax
with them better in business and social events, and prefer them more
often than not as marriage partners. They are quicker to anger at
evidence that an out-group is behaving unfairly or receiving undeserved
rewards. And they grow hostile to any out-group encroaching upon the
territory or resources of their in-group. Literature and history are
strewn with accounts of what happens at the extreme, as in the following from Judges 12: 5-6 in the Old Testament:
The
Gileadites captured the fords of the Jordan leading to Ephraim, and
whenever a survivor of Ephraim said, "Let me go over," the men of Gilead
asked him, "All right, say 'Shibboleth.' " If he said, "Sibboleth,"
because he could not pronounce the word correctly, they seized him and
killed him at the fords of the Jordan. Forty-two thousand Ephraimites
were killed at that time.
Why do people judge others based on the outward appearance? You don't even know that person to make a call like that.
BECAUSE THE HUMAN MIND EVOLVED TO BE THAT WAY, KATELIN. KATELIN, THERE'S A MODULE (MENTAL ADAPTATION) IN THE HUMAN BRAIN THAT LEADS PEOPLE TO PERCEIVE OTHER PEOPLE'S RACE, SOCIAL STATUS, SOCIAL CLASS, PERSONALITY TRAITS, ETC. BASED ON PHYSICAL APPEARANCE (WITHOUT THE PEOPLE BEING PERCEIVED UTTERING A WORD) AND THEN JUDGING THEM (E.G. DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THEM OR FAVORING THEM OR BEING CAUTIOUS AND SUSPICIOUS OF THEM OR BEING INVITING, OPEN, AND CORDIAL TOWARDS THEM, ETC.) BASED ON THEIR PERCEIVED APPEARANCE. OUR BRAINS ARE INNATELY WIRED TO FUNCTION THIS WAY, KATELIN, AND, FOR THE MOST PART, IT'S BELOW THE DETECTION OF OUR CONSCIENCE (WE'RE NOT AWARE THAT WE'RE REASONING THIS WAY WHEN WE LOOK AT PEOPLE). THIS MENTAL ADAPTATION IS THE SAME ONE WE USE WHEN WE LOOK AT SOMEONE AND INFER THEIR RACE (RACE PERCEPTION) AND CATEGORIZE THEM BY RACE BASED ON THEIR PHYSICAL FEATURES. KATELIN, JUDGING SOMEONE BY THEIR APPEARANCE WILL NEVER GO AWAY. IT'LL BE WITH US FOREVER BECAUSE IT'S IN OUR GENES (OUR GENES WIRE OUR BRAINS TO BE THIS WAY).
Developmental psychologists have shown that infants have avisual preferencefor members of their own race and are better atrecognizing emotionsdisplayed on faces of members of their own ethnic group. Similarly,adults empathizemore with members of their own race and experiments show that people are more likely totrust othersif they are members of the same race.
These and other cognitive foundations of ethnic preferences explain why it is that people are more likely tobefriendandmarry members of their own race than they are members of other races. People also tend to live near members of their own race and, in fact,race is better than incomeat predicting what neighborhood someone will live in, and voluntary associations like churches tend to behighly racially segregated.
http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/paper-ethnicity.html Gil-White
(2001) argues that the human brain is biased toward viewing ethnic and
racial groups as biological kinds because they superficially resemble
animal species. This tendency is an evolutionary accident—an exaptation:
There was no natural selection for viewing ethnic groups or races as
biological kinds, but the brain is fooled into supposing that different
ethnic groups and races are biological kinds because they resemble
natural kinds in several ways, including normative endogamy,
descent-based membership, and the existence of culturally created
phenotypic markers (scarification, forms of dress) that make different
ethnic groups appear to be of a different kind. Ethnic groups become a
useful essentialist category supporting valid inferences not because of
any biological reality to ethnicity but because the cultural markers
peculiar to different ethnic groups lower the cost of interactions
within the group. Hirschfeld (1994, 1996) provides
several arguments against such analogical transfer models in which human
social categories are analogized from naïve biological categories (see
also commentary in Gil-White, 2001). Hirschfeld notes that developmental
data indicate that knowledge of race does not develop in coordination
with knowledge of animal species as predicted by the analogical transfer
model. Hirschfeld argues for a domain-specific module specific to human
social kinds. Children have a natural curiosity about groups that is
“shaped by a set of abstract principles that guide the child’s attention
toward information relevant to discovering the sorts of
intrinsicalities and naturally grounded commonalities that are
entrenched in his or her particular cultural environment” (1996:193).
Hirschfeld thus posits an interaction between an innate domain-specific
module of intrinsic human kinds combined with cultural input that race
is the type of human kind that is intrinsic—that it is inherited and
highly relevant to identity, more so even than other types of surface
physical characteristics like muscularity oroccupation. People cannot
voluntarily join or leave such a social category. Even 4-year-old
children view racial categories as essentialized and natural: “Young
children’s thinking about race encompasses the defining principles of
theorylike conceptual systems, namely an ontology, domain-specific
causality, and differentiation of concepts” (1996:88). “But racial kinds
are not natural kinds (at least, not as they have classically been
conceived), and they certainly are not kinds whose existence is
triggered by external reality” (1996:197). A third
possibility is that we have a human kinds module designed not simply to
categorize people in essentialist terms but to specifically categorize
people in different racial/ethnic groups in an essentialist manner—as
highly relevant to identity and not changeable by the person.
Hirschfeld’s results are consistent with such a model because they show
that even at very early ages children view race in more essentialist
terms than either occupation or body build, although of course they are
also consistent with his view that information about race is provided by
the culture. It is noteworthy that part of
Mongol folk psychology is that people from other nearby ethnic groups
look different and would continue to look different even if they had
adopted the culture of another group. Thus, Gil-White’s subjects suppose
that a Kazakh child adopted into a Mongol family would “not look or
behave anything like a Mongol” (Gil-White, 2001:523) even though
being reared in a Mongol culture. They suppose that there is something
“inside” that makes them different from outgroups despite enculturation
in the outgroup. Gil-White’s subjects may be correct
that at least some of the physical and even behavioral differences
between ethnic groups (e.g., differences in size, as between pygmies and
non-pygmies, or a reputation for fierceness or intelligence) would
occur even if individuals from those groups were reared in another
culture. Their essentializing tendencies may reflect an adaptation
sensitive to real genetically influenced differences between the
groups—an adaptive response to recurrent encounters with other human
groups that differed in observable, genetically influenced traits. From
this perspective, the process of essentializing groups that differ only
culturally from one’s own group is a misfiring of an adaptive mechanism
designed to respond to real genetic differences between groups. The
argument for an adaptation specific to ethnic outgroups is strengthened
by evidence showing information encapsulation (restriction to
particular types of input), rapid, unconscious processing, and
automaticity—characteristics notably absent from Gil-White’s analysis
(Rothbart and Taylor, 2001). Social psychology experiments show that
subjects respond differently to faces of racial ingroups and outgroups
(Fiske, 1998). For example, subjects are better able to recall the faces
of racial ingroup members (Platz and Hosch, 1988; Bothwell, Brigham,
and Malpass, 1989). Hart et al. (2000) found that both Blacks and Whites
showed differential amygdala responses to photographs of racial ingroup
and outgroup members as assessed by Functional Magnetic Resonance
Imaging recordings. The amygdala is known to respond subconsciously to
facial expressions of fear and evolutionarily prepared sources of fear
such as snakes and spiders (Le Doux, 1996; Öhmann and Mineka, 2001;
Whalen et al., 1998). The greater amygdala activation to outgroup faces
noted by Hart et al. (2000) occurred during later stimulus
presentations; subjects habituated to repeated presentations of ingroup
faces but not to outgroup faces. These findings are consistent with
Whalen’s (1998) proposal that the amygdala acts as a vigilance system
that monitors the environment for potentially threatening stimuli and
ceases responding when the stimulus is no longer viewed as threatening. It
is noteworthy that these results are specific to facial features rather
than the culturally-imposed ingroup/outgroup markers emphasized by
Gil-White (2001). As noted above, DeBruine (2002) found that subjects
showed greater trust of others in a two-person trust game if the other
person’s face resembled their own. Similarly, Heschl (1993) found that
politicians in the Soviet Union were more likely to support the party
leader if they showed facial resemblance to that leader. These results
suggest that people are sensitive to facial similarity as a marker for
genetic similarity. Implicit, unconscious, and rapid processing are hallmarks of evolved cognitive modules (Tooby and Cosmides, 1992). Hart
et al.’s subjects did not report any conscious differences in emotional
reaction to racial ingroups or outgroups. Moreover, subjects are
quicker to classify pictures of racial outgroup members than ingroup
members (Levin, 1996; Valentine and Endo, 1992). Nevertheless,
in the absence of similar data from crosscultural samples and from more
closely related but different looking ethnic groups, it is premature to
conclude that there is an evolved, domain specific module designed to
categorize people in different racial/ethnic groups in an essentialist
manner. Hart et al.’s (2000) results could also be explained by lower
levels of experience with the racial outgroup, since less experience
with a stimulus would be expected to result in greater ambiguity and
therefore increased monitoring by the amygdala vigilance system (see
Whalen, 1998). Nor is this system encapsulated, since conscious beliefs
and attitudes also influence responses to racial and ethnic outgroups
(e.g., van den Berghe, 1981). Similarly, the amygdala is known to react
to evolutionarily significant sources of fear in a modular, domain
specific manner, but is also known to respond to experiential
influences, as in the case of learned fears (LeDoux, 1996; Öhmann and
Mineka, 2001). Arguments that humans possess a
module for race and ethnicity as intrinsic natural kinds based solely on
genetically influenced physical features require that human groups had
repeated interaction with other races or ethnic groups differing in
their genetically influenced physical features in the EEA. Such
arguments also require that there be valid inferences about races or
ethnic groups that could have selected for an essentialist architecture
specific to race or ethnicity as a genetically influenced category, and
that inferences about ethnic groups or races had fitness consequences in
the EEA (see Barrett, 2001:12). Regarding the
first point, Harpending (2002) notes that long distance migrations have
easily occurred on foot and over several generations, bringing people
who look different for genetic reasons into contact with each other.
Examples include the Bantu in South Africa living close to the Khoisans,
or the pygmies living close to non-pygmies. The various groups in
Rwanda and Burundi look quite different and came into contact with each
other on foot. Harpending notes that it is “very likely” that such
encounters between peoples who look different for genetic reasons have
been common for the last 40,000 years of human history; the view that
humans were mostly sessile and living at a static carrying capacity is
contradicted by history and by archaeology. Harpending points instead to
“starbursts of population expansion.” For example, the Inuits settled
in the arctic and exterminated the Dorsets within a few hundred years;
the Bantu expansion into central and southern Africa happened in a
millennium or less, prior to which Africa was mostly the yellow (i.e.,
Khoisan) continent, not the black continent. Other examples include the
Han expansion in China, the Numic expansion in northern Africa, the Zulu
expansion in southern Africa during the last few centuries, and the
present day expansion of the Yanomamo in South America. There has also
been a long history of invasions of Europe from the east. “In the
starburst world people would have had plenty of contact with very
different looking people” (Harpending, 2002). Finally, there was
considerable overlap among various Homo species during human evolution,
as for Neanderthals and modern humans (e.g., Noble and Davidson, 1996) Would
such a mechanism have fitness consequences in the EEA? Population
genetic studies show measurable genetic distance even between closely
related groups, as between English and Danes (e.g., Salter, 2002).
Individuals have a greater genetic interest (inclusive fitness) in their
tribal and ethnic groups than outgroups, and would benefit by
mechanisms that fostered discrimination between ingroups and
outgroups—the same evolutionary logic underlying social identity theory
(see below) or, indeed, Gil-White’s exaptation model. A
putative evolved human kinds module would be expected to exacerbate
distrust and animosity between groups, because outgroups are viewed as
composed of people who are fundamentally and intrinsically different
(Boss Hogg and Dan Abrams, 1987). Social identity research has indicated that
social mobility (i.e., the extent to which group boundaries are
permeable) influences ingroup/outgroup attitudes. The perception of
permeability reduces perceptions of conflict of interest and reduces the
ability of the other group to act in a collective manner, while
perceptions of impermeability lead to group strategies involving
competition with the other group and negative evaluations of the
outgroup. Ethnic groups “tie their differences to affiliations that are
putatively ascriptive and therefore difficult or impossible to change”
(Horowitz, 1985:147). People are inclined to view those in outgroups as
“of a different kind” and therefore not potential members of one’s own
group, leading to greater conflict between groups.
The universality of ethnocentrism gives it the aspect of a genetically based trait, and it has been hypothesized as such by many observers. Yet apart from the universality itself - always suggestive of a biological predisposition - there is little evidence one way or the other. Studies of infant twins suggest substantial genetic influence on the development and intensity of fear, but the links between this phenomenon and xenophobia in adults are conjectural.
Geoffrey Miller
D-FENCE! D-FENCE! D-FENCE!
