Race and Attraction, 2009 – 2014 | Hacker News Reader

Race and Attraction, 2009 – 2014

blog.okcupid.com

173 pointsberkeleyjess165 comments

I think one factor they forgot to add is culture.

When you're firmly entrenched in a specific cultural background, often it can be difficult to relate to someone who grew up in a different culture.

That being said, I'm white, married to a Caribbean woman (who herself is mixed though very dark skinned). Her family still drives me insane though. To say there are cultural differences would be a major understatement... And things I consider normal behaviour are often perplexing to them as well.

I'm white and married to a Vietnamese. The different culture in her family is a big attraction to me, so much more interesting than boring same old.

Same here. Like you, the initial attraction was the difference, but after a good while, the differences have become much more annoying.

I wonder what this would look like adjusted for income. The same author wrote about how much income matters in online dating, especially when over 23 and making less than 100k.[1]. Other studies have shown that income is unequal by race, especially for high-paying jobs. (Unfortunately I'm struggling to find a source showing distribution rather than average, which is also lower[2].)

It'd also be interesting to see adjustments for height. I'd also think (see [1]) that that's where Asian men get lower response rates.

[1] http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-biggest-lies-in-online... [2] http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0882775.html

Unfortunately, not exactly what you're looking for, but here is the median combined income for various couples (both interracial and same):

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2012/02/sdt-2012-rise-o...

Wonder about this too.

"Race" is a proxy for social class.

I think (but don't know) that people would have less problems dating other people from another race who are of the same social class as themselves or above, than they would date people of the same race but from a lower social class.

>"Race" is a proxy for social class.

You mean, "social class" is a politically correct term used to explain the general differences between races.

Asian men tend to do very well in school and careers and typically have a higher than average income, yet they are considered less attractive than Latinos, who generally perform much lower in school, career, and have a lower income than Asian people.

I've never asked someone I liked what their family income is. Does anyone actually care what a prospective partner's net worth/income is? That seems bizarre.

From http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/single-female...

  For equal success with an African-American woman, a 
  Hispanic man needs to earn an extra $184,000; a white man 
  needs to earn an additional $220,000.

  For equal success with a white woman, an African-American 
  needs to earn an additional $154,000; a Hispanic man 
  needs $77,000; an Asian needs $247,000.

  For equal success with a Hispanic woman, an African-
  American man needs to earn an additional $30,000; a white 
  man needs to earn an additional $59,000.

  For equal success with an Asian woman, an African-
  American needs no additional income; a white man needs 
  $24,000 less than average; a Hispanic man needs $28,000 
  more than average.

> I wonder what this would look like adjusted for income. The same author wrote about how much income matters in online dating, especially when over 23 and making less than 100k[1]

It didn't make it into that post, but I can tell you that, when we ran the numbers[0], the relationship between the races did in fact remain even when adjusted for income.

As suggested by one of the other comments in this thread, income does mitigate the effect somewhat (a black man who earns $100K+ was more appealing on average than a black man who earned <$20K), but the intercepts were still different (the effects of race were non-zero), even though the slopes were positive (income could counteract this).

There were a few surprising quirks that did come out when we teased income out, but I'd have to go back and check. Sorry I can't be more specific - this was over four years ago, and I don't have the data in front of me anymore!

[0] (I did the income analysis for that post you linked)

Given that the racial categories used are American (White/Black/Asian/Latino) I'm guessing this is only or mostly American data. In which case it probably should say so. "Race" is a culturally mediated difference and the categories of prejudice in other cultures aren't going to map to this in any universal way.

Just a comment from someone not in the US :)

I'm actually curious if there are greater cultural differences between Americans of different races (say black-white) than between Europeans from different countries but same class.

As an American who has a decent amount of interaction with Europeans:

It's much easier to interact with Europeans of similar class to me than it is local people across class boundaries.

This is anecdotal, but as a knowledge worker and an atheist living in the American south, it just feels like there is often an "unbridgable gap" with less well-educated folk around here.

Which speaks to the fact that America is culturally balkanized. I mean, yes, "nigger" was a very popular search term right when Obama was elected... that's because there's a small, distinct group of Americans, say 5%, that are very ignorant racists.

>Which speaks to the fact that America is culturally balkanized.

If you think Europe isn't "culturally balkanized" ask the next European you meet what they think about "Gypsies", and "Travellers ".

Europe has plenty of their own class/cultural issues--they just happen just a bit different than America's.

I would expect it to be culturally balkanized. Didn't say otherwise. Just sharing my experiences. Seemed to be what someone was asking about.

"that are very ignorant racists"

I would say they are not ignorant racists rather they are deliberate racists. As in, they're perfectly aware.

It's probably based off of their users' self-identified information.

As an American who's spent the last ~10 years in Japan, the American idea of pan-Asian cultural/racial identity now feels extremely foreign to me.

As an Australian listening to a BBC interviewing a man about his Asian upbringing, it sounded weird. An unqualified 'asian' to Australian ears means South East Asian or Chinese. But to the British, it's apparently folks from the subcontinent. In neither case does it default to mean near/middle eastern or central asian.

As a black man, I'm proud to be the most egalitarian in romance. It really boils down to whoever smiles at me and tells me I'm smart.

So basically, you accept just about anybody, because you have either low standards or just want to be with as many woman as you can.

Not exactly classy, bro.

Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News.

This is what is called "projection." You definitely have issues and they were triggered by the GP post. Seek help.

I think the " whoever smiles at me and tells me I'm smart" was the sarcastic bit. What he was saying was he was open to other races, that's all.

Thanks, bro. You must think I live in a world of smiles and compliments. If only.

Classist and heterosexist. You're a real catch.

My guess is that being as open to love as you are probably leads to better outcomes in romance. Attitude matters more than race.

There are only two kinds of people - arseholes, and the rest of us :-)

Awesome - downvoted by racists :-(

Many of the comments here focus on whether or not an individual's preferences are racist or not, but generally an individual being racist isn't going to cause anyone much trouble (except for extreme or violent cases.)

The major issue this illuminates is that the aggregate preferences of many people confer an advantage to some and disadvantage to others based on race. The value in having this highlighted so clearly is that some (many) people think that racism is dead, and this gives us something to point to when we ask them to reconsider that opinion.

The problem with today's liberal attitudes is that such attitudes wrongheadedly assume that racism = violence, when in reality, racism usually just means separatism, which if anything, decreases violence, as good fences make good neighbors.

The problem comes when your so-called "separatism" causes me not to get a job, or an apartment, or a promotion, or when you donate money to a campaign to ban interracial marriages. If you can keep it in your own home then that's fine. But that's probably impossible due to human nature. You can't privately dislike a group of people and not have it manifest when you interact with the rest of society. Especially if you're in a position of power/authority.

Racism is violence. It is theft of wages and wealth. It is unjustified cruelty. It is justification and rationalization of literal murders. It hurts ever single person so targeted and attempting to justify that is part of that same dynamic.

Racism includes believing that your freedom from diversity is more important than other people's lives.

Personal preference, bias, prejudice, and common-sense (e.g., awareness of danger), are not the same thing, nor are interchangeable with systemic racism, nor hysterical racism.

Also, a person's life being more important than others is a basic product of consciousness.

> Racism includes believing that your freedom from diversity is more important than other people's lives.

So why haven't the liberals that promote the mentioned point-of-view moved from their 96.7% white communities into more diverse areas?

For racism == violence:

One particular racist doesn't have to commit violence. The effect is systemic, and as a result law enforcement can be used to enforce violence on people of color.

Picture yourself in a convenient store. A black male with a hoodie on is shopping. You decide you don't like him, and notice an officer outside. You tell the officer that the man is stealing items from the store.

What do you think is going to happen? What would happen with a white male? The outcome you know would happen is what defines privilege.

"You decide you don't like him, and notice an officer outside. You tell the officer that the man is stealing items from the store"

If I do that (with any "him") I'm a nut job, asylum material. Amn't I?

In my opinion that just does not happen by sane people.

My point is the fact that the situation outlined above is easily possible is a huge problem.

To be fair, I don't really understand how it would resolve to anything than an awkward scene.

However, I understand that americans are so trigger-happy that any confusion can turn into tragedy.

Something I just ran across that is similar to the situation I posed above:

http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/09/11/man-made-911-call-led...

I think that in a way this was a comforting article. When it comes to things we really care about, beneath the surface we are all equally shallow.

It only becomes problematic when this gets used as an excuse.

Yup, that's why it majorly sucks balls to be an Asian man in online dating.

Hey, black men don't have it easy either.

Hey, short and average-looking white guys don't have it easy either.

It sounds like only tall and attractive white men have it easy.

online dating is hard for everyone. you just will never know if it will work or not. All you really have are your stereotypes.

white guy here. over 7 feet tall. Not having an easy time.

Extreme height can also be severely limiting to a man such as yourself, so just look for a 6 foot tall White woman.

"just look for a 6 foot tall White woman" Those are likely in great demand and thus spoiled by attention.

I've also noticed that a lot of tall women end up with average height men.

Am I the only one who's short (and white) and has it way too easy?

Maybe? But the neat thing about romance is that you just need one to work.

I once complained to a friend that my failure rate is going to be 95% if the normal failure rate is 80%. She replied, "Good then you'll succeed." because a 95% failure rate means there will still be 5 women out of 100 who won't reject me and that number increases the more women I meet.

Another good friend of mine who can be best described as a womanizer told me that it's a huge numbers game. He confided to me that he gets rejected all the time and for all sorts of reasons, most of it has nothing to do with him. His word of advice to me was "You got ten fingers, ten toes. There is nothing wrong with you."

Sure, some women prefer one thing over another but you don't need all the women to like you. You just need one. I am sure in the universe of women there is at least one who likes Asian men who read Hacker News and you have a better chance of finding her(or them) with online dating.

Interesting way to look at things; but you need to like those 5% who may like you. If for some reason you're less desireable than average then you also need to be less picky, and that may be hard.

If he only like 5% of the women he meets and 5% women like him in general than actual number of women he needs to meet could be 400 before both like each other. If he goes on a one date per week (the best case scenario, at least in my case) it would take 7.2 years of non stop dating.

that would be exhausting, just get a cat.

One date a week isn't that bad. In fact, that would be great. 7.2 years to find that person isn't that long either. I mean that's 7.2 years of doing something I enjoy.

Hang on, we all enjoy the process of dating, right?

> Hang on, we all enjoy the process of dating, right?

Well, I don't know. Is there really nothing you'd rather do with that much time and money?

And if the relationship only lasts some 5 years... :x

And that's assuming those numbers are independent, which they may not be.

Groucho Marx said "I wouldn't join a club who would accept me as a member". You may be less attracted to people who are attracted to you.

BTW if any women are reading Hacker news right now and likes latin men send me a message ;)

> Sure, some women prefer one thing over another but you don't need all the women to like you. You just need one

i understand where you're coming from but let's be real. in order to retain the relationship(s) you are in, you need to understand what makes a man attractive to a woman. it has nothing to do with race but more to do with assertiveness, boundaries, ability to plan, get shit done, etc.

and if you have none of that, you better start working on it. "be yourself" is the worst dating advice ever. and "one out of a million will end up maybe liking you" is even worse.

I don't think we disagree on this. You should always work to improve yourself and love is a great motivator for doing that.

My point with the number is that to go on a date, to be given that chance to know someone better, isn't that hard even if the probabilities are low.

My 95% is actually crazy pessimistic. It actually ended up being closer to 50% success rate for first date. I am short, Asian, and introverted so I think most other men aren't going to do worse based on those attributes alone. Or maybe like you said, race doesn't matter as much.

That said, I don't really agree with that list of attributes you posted. Maybe on some level, yes those attributes matter but personal chemistry between two people matters much more, at least from my own limited experience.

> Maybe on some level, yes those attributes matter but personal chemistry between two people matters much more

personal chemistry is required, but not sufficient.

these are things you learn the hard way.

The best dating advice I've heard is "become the person you want to marry." It's a way of thinking about what makes someone a good partner and addressing personal weaknesses at the same time.

It's not just finding women who are into you; it's finding the ones who are single that matters. In the case of techie introverted people, there's usually a huge surplus of available men versus women.

The answer is Kungfu. I know a Vietnamese guy who is like 5"5 but practices Wing-chun with hot girls all the time. "An Asian Man who can't fight is like a Black Man who can't dance or a White Man who doesn't own an acoustic guitar, shameful display!"

nothing really shocking here, except that asian women rating asian men jumped from +10% to +25% in the last 5 years. this is somewhat surprising as it puts them at the same level that white women rate white men. (drag the slider all the way to the right).

in other words, at least on okcupid, asian women rate white men and asian men with roughly the same bias. that's a big swing in less than 10 years.

come to think of it, i haven't heard the familiar "i don't date asian guys" come from an asian girl in a very long time, possibly years.

Except in the opposite direction.

OK Cupid's white women's affinity for white men has decreased 6% since 2010; their female Asian customers' affinity for Asian men has increased 17%.

I suspect there are some serious issues with sample size in those early years.

I wonder how much of this is caused by OkCupid growing in Asia.

The study does not seem to be specific to the US...

that's a good point - curious as to what could possibly explain the drop in white/white ratings though.

I'm amazed to note that black women face negative scores from men of all races, including their own! That sounds really disturbing, at least to a non-American.

Asian men and Black women are similar in that they aren't married out to other races at the same rate as their gender opposites.

Source:

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2012/02/sdt-2012-rise-o...

http://imgur.com/V9w2k5m

That's because Asians are perceived as feminine, while blacks are seen as masculine. Feminine men and masculine women aren't as attractive as masculine men and feminine women.

I wonder why Black women aren't married out.

I would expect the opposite to be true (Black men not in demand, black women with more options)

> I wonder why Black women aren't married out.

There is in much of Black American culture a significant taboo against Black women marrying (or dating) "out", which I think is significantly influenced by a very long history of black women being viewed as acceptable for casual use, but not marriage, by white men, and the resulting accumulated history of experiences with "dating out". (There are other cultural factors that feed into this, as well.)

Those scores are relative - it means that men on average prefer women of other races.

This is a known phenomenon:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886910...

Not from Sir Mix-a-lot.

Indeed: active resistance to these cultural norms have range from Black is Beautiful to Baby Got Back. Anyone who is curious about these dynamics can find a rich history of stereotype and resistance to explore.

I'm an American white male who typically finds black women more attractive. You can be infinitesimally less disturbed.

As a European I'm surprised by the very stark black-white separation in US culture. Why do the two (almost) not mix, even after centuries?

During my student year in the US, I was friends with students of all colors - culturally they were really the same. So what is it? Peer pressure?

Most young black women I see (over here) are incredibly beautiful, but then in my country they're mostly fresh immigrants - the cultural difference would be much stronger than a couple of White and Black Americans.

From watching TV my impressions are that there's especially a taboo for white guys to date black women, and the prejudice that "vanilla" just isn't cool. Can anyone enlighten me?

As an American living in Europe I'm surprised you could think that black-white separation in the US is so stark in comparison to Europe. Racism always felt like a European invention to me that the US just executes very well because it's a country founded by a bunch of European rejects. By in large though latent racism seems to be much stronger in the EU. They just aren't as expressive about it because... 1. most EU cities are not diverse enough to warrant much thought on the topic or even present an opportunity for division. 2. Europeans "respect" authority or their place more so the racists keep their mouth shut. But when they do open their mouth, oh my

> From watching TV my impressions are that there's especially a taboo for white guys to date black women, and the prejudice that "vanilla" just isn't cool. Can anyone enlighten me?

For a European, or Northern European, black falls under exotic because it is something so rare. Look at how your countrymen react to turkish, roma or other migrant races of the EU and then you'll hopefully shed a bit of the elitism.

Well, we don't have that many black people, but every day on the train I see, and where I live, I'm surrounded by lots of Turkish people, Polish, Russians, a few blacks (I think the family a few houses down is of French origin), Spanish, Italians, lots of south/eastern Europeans whose language I can't identify...

Most seem to be hard-working families, or working/school youth, and generally seem more or less well-integrated. Of course on average they are less educated than the natives, there is more crime among them, but the same is true for natives from a poor/worker's origin compared to academics.

I've seen a few Roma (or whatever they are; looked like my stereotype of Roma) whose "job" it is to ride downtown and beg for money all day. I suppose (and hope) there are also more integrated ones among them.

Overall, sure there are also prejudices or racism, but the same is true in America regarding Mexican immigrants. As to elitism - I'm not sure what you mean by that. Yes, I'm a white, educated, good-looking guy; I'm lucky. Doesn't mean I think less of people from other backgrounds - on the contrary I respect them a lot if they don't just collect welfare.

There are prejudices and racism in Europe, indeed. Segregation is a much an issue in the EU as in the US but in very different ways. I can speak for Germany with some certainty where segregation can be found starkly in the education system to general social circles, in a manner that seems to come from a long ago era. Discrimination that is so clear and certain one might mistakenly assume it was institutionalised. Perhaps of interest is the Soros interviews from 2013 with teachers and students in Berlin and and General stats for Germany as a whole [1]. More disturbing is the arguments made by Gymnasium headmasters that argue immigrants would not benefit from being permitted in this higher "class" of school because it is dominated by a different culture (aka lets reaffirm our racist environments) and that they were not as capable academically. It's as if they never learned of research supporting the Pygmalion effect [2].

I know you are a modern open individual but just felt your method of using your experiences in Europe as measurement for the US just shows your lack of understanding of the actual situation in both places. This, is what I found to be elitist.

1: http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/st...

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect#Rosenthal.E2....

I don't think there's any simple answer to this.

On the most abstract level: it seems to come down to various related problems feeding into each other. People of color continue to be economically and socially disadvantaged, which plays into the negative perceptions that society might have toward them, which makes it more challenging to elevate oneself above such problems, which allows the cycle to repeat, generation after generation. So if a large portion of the population consciously or unconsciously sees a group as the lesser, then that perception reveals itself socially, legally, politically...that perception to some degree immutable on account of its existence. This simultaneously creates a counter-culture whereby the mainstream is rejected on account of the rejection it creates, which further feeds into the cycle of poor racial integration. In many ways, racial segregation is merely class segregation, it's just that blacks are disproportionately of lower socioeconomic class.

Without forcing oneself to be open-minded, one might immediately associate a black person with low income, poor education, "criminality" (I put that in quotes because laws don't practically apply to all races/classes equally [e.g. the war on drugs]), and then question "what will my friends/family think?" because even if one has abandoned his or her prejudices, he or she will still have to contend with everyone else.

It's overwhelming for me to even try paint a complete picture in a single comment. There's so many nuances to the situation that I feel like I'm already short-changing all of the relevant groups by being so general.

This article has a thorough overview of the history (and present) of race relations in the US: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-case...

Read, researched and took a break. The first impression of this being something quiet interesting and perhaps revealing obscure questions... faded into the impression that this is statistician hogwash.

    Q: All this data is from a dating site. What does that have to 
       do with my life?
    There are many situations that might not be explicitly romantic,
    but are nonetheless a lot like a first date. A job interview.
    Trying to rent an apartment. When you meet your freshman
    roommates. Anytime you’re trying to make an impression on a
    stranger.

Be careful about turning this data from a dating site into another form of craniology. What biases people utilise for sexual and/or life-partner preferences cannot and should not be interchanged with biases exhibited in interviews or the examples given. I'm sure there is overlap but one thing his data shows is that the sway of sexual preference is volatile enough over short spans of time that a huge margin of error should be assumed for any other forms of generalisation. Your time would be better spent figuring out what hollywood star of what race popularity peaked to create a sway in volatility, than to take this data too seriously. Anyway, the guy has to sell books i guess.

There was a lot of reassurance that people "not wanting to date [race]" are not racist. Can someone explain to me where the line for racism lies?

For one, I don't think preference has any bearing on this. By most accepted definitions, racism is the belief that one or more race is inherently better or worse in some regard.

So, unless you say "white women are inherently better at attracting me on dating sites" I'm not sure how it could be shoehorned into racism.

Right. But when you say

> racism is the belief that one or more race is inherently better or worse in some regard

does this mean that a belief is only racist if it is one that has been consciously considered? What about unconscious/subconscious thought (e.g., preference)? It seems difficult to completely reconcile human instinct with true egalitarianism.

Many people say yes it is racist:

  http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/04/okcupid_and_race_is_it_racist_to_date_only_people_of_your_own_race.html
  http://www.racialicious.com/2009/10/09/of-okcupid-and-denials-of-racism/
  http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/11/racial-preferences-are-racist/
  http://www.rolereboot.org/sex-and-relationships/details/2013-11-if-you-wont-date-people-of-a-certain-race-youre-raci

In some cases it is only yes if you are white.

Regarding that Slate article:

> In a somewhat similar vein, one of OkCupid’s questions reads as follows: “Would you strongly prefer to go out with someone of your own skin color/racial background?” I was struck by the not inconsiderable number of people who answered “yes”—including some people I know “in real life,” many of whom are hilariously self-righteous about their enlightened political views.

I don't see why that's surprising. Marriage stats in the U.S. still show that people (even minorities) generally marry those of the same race. Is it really surprising that people have a higher preference to connect with those with a similar culture and appearance?

All four of those articles go out of their way not to discuss any particular races at all, in the context of dating. Of the four, I think the one on everydayfeminism.com probably gets it the best: it's okay to have preferences, same as you might for hair or eye color or height or whatever else, but depending on the strictness of your adherence to your "rule" - yes it's racist.

So the articles you've linked are fine, IMO.

However I do get the sense and agree with you, that for a great many people it's only racist if you're white, and that for other ethnicities racially-exclusionary dating is fine. Mainly I think that's because most people haven't given it much thought.

then if you're not a racist in dating, you're still probably a racist in something else in terms of the degree they're thinking.

> In some cases it is only yes if you are white.

The reason that this can be true and decidedly not wrong is because of white privilege[0].

0: http://racismschool.tumblr.com/post/55307010922/what-is-whit...

By most accepted definitions, racism is the belief that one or more race is inherently better or worse in some regard.

What if that belief were true? Would it still be racist?

Concretely (since a reply brings up biology): I believe African women are "better" (taller, have larger asses, and less body hair) than White/Asian women. I believe these differences are primarily biological, likely genetic, in origin.

I do discriminate on the basis of traits correlated with race - I am more attracted to tall, dark women with larger asses. I've dated more women from Africa in the past 6 months than from any other continent.

Am I racist?

(Note: I'm not African, nor will I be offended if you call me racist, so don't hold back. I'm simply attempting to understand the viewpoint expressed.)

Only if you hold it to be due to biological differences rather than cultural.

Edit: You must also use it as a justification for discrimination.

No (at least based on this one hypothetical), unless you use that to justify institutionalised discrimination such as trying to prevent non black women from using dating websites because their asses are too small.

No, it's not racist.

But it doesn't matter. What does it matter to a 4'11" black woman that on average, black women are taller than women of other races? What does it matter to you? Unless you love a woman with a large ass and you have to pick a random woman out of a hat filled with the names of women from only one race, then your best chance might be to select from the hat for black women.

I think its racist. If you hold the belief for the group it means it can subconciously affect your beliefs about the individual in the group. i.e., prejudice.

To clarify, you believe I'm subconsciously believing certain individual black women are taller than they are in reality?

If I could persuade you that I were accurately measuring every woman's height (perhaps by making observations like "she's up to my shoulder" or "she's up to my jaw"), would you be convinced I am not racist?

It is obviously racist. But calling it such would trigger guilt in people who have such feelings yet have been conditioned to reflexively associate racism with evil.

I'm black. I don't think its like that at all.

I think its just years of living in a society that subtly signals x = attractive, and y = unnattractive. After a while you imbibe those ideals and lock them in and it can be really really really difficult to undo them in your brain.

I'm black and I've dated women of lots of different ethnicities, and I'm just going off fly-on-the-wall observations of their friends/family and even their behavior to other black guys.

It is pretty fascinating stuff ... albeit a bit depressing being black

Exactly.

It's funny, often on HN I'll see discussions about things or behaviors that push girls away from exploring STEM later in life.

Yet, how many times have I seen black women depicted in the media as boorish, unfeminine, annoying, unhealthy, or angry? Can I honestly say that it hasn't in some way affected my preferences as an adult? How can I say that my preferences are untouchable and mysteriously influenced when in fact it does fall in line with that of these statistics and the way that certain people are represented.

> I'm black. I don't think its like that at all.

I'd like to remind everyone this is one data point from someone who is black. I'm sure trustfundbaby didn't mean for what they said to be extrapolated to every black person in the world.

I don't see how that directly applies to what I've said. Racism in general is perpetuated by that kind of social conditioning. People incorporate the biases from their memetic environment and reference them as universal truths when it can benefit them.

We shouldn't corrupt a term by pretending it doesn't apply just to appease the consciences of shallow thinkers.

Are you racist if you aren't physically attracted to someone? I hope not.

I don't know. That's kind of what I'm asking. Is preference racist? Or are we scared to affirm that it might be?

I doubt it's racist. And who cares anyway. If someone doesn't "prefer" you, then what have you lost, and why would you want to be with them? There are plenty of other people.

You're attracted to some people, not to others, and one day you'll die. Be happy in the meantime.

Would you have said this to a black person in the 50s as comfort for their plight?

Would I have said something like that in the context of not many white people wanting to date them? Probably.

Would I have said something like that in the context of lynching? Hell no.

Are they the same thing? I don't think so, but it's definitely worth thinking about.

Am I racist because I prefer redheads but not blond? It's a mystery what sparks things in people. Am I homophobic because I only date women? I don't think so. But that's probably worth thinking about too.

Is a dating service fundamentally racist or sexist by enabling people to shop for or against people of a certain makeup, treating people like items on a menu? I don't think so, and I don't think it's wrong to acknowledge and be comfortable with attraction.

> "I doubt it's racist. And who cares anyway. If someone doesn't "prefer" you, then what have you lost, and why would you want to be with them? There are plenty of other people."

That's a fine opinion if we lived in a vacuum where perhaps every interaction was unique.

However, in an aggregate we see trends and inequality. If you're a segment that gets penalized for your race from most segments, do you not see why people would care? It doesn't mean people should be accused of being racist or should have to change their preference, rather we should be open to discuss why things are the way they are, not unlike race/gender imbalance in the tech world.

Are you sexist if you're gay? I think we can rest assured that sexual preference has nothing to do with being racist.

> Are you sexist if you're gay?

That's...a really interesting point.

Exactly. It would be completely unacceptable to challenge a gay person's natural attraction to another person of their gender. How can they help who they're attracted to, right? Yet for a straight person...people almost immediately assume racism.

Sexual orientation and sexual preference are not the same thing, though people argue where the line is. If you want to see a real shitstorm, see people arguing online if lesbians who sexually discriminate against transwomen are transphobic.

Personally, I see no difference.

Also, if e.g. a straight person says they have experimented with the same sex, I take that as potential evidence that they only like a few members of the same sex, but (comparably) many more members of the opposite sex.

> Sexual orientation and sexual preference are not the same thing, though people argue where the line is.

Probably because there isn't a line. Rich and poor aren't the same thing, either, but there isn't a line between them either.

Humans like clear binary categories (to the point of trying to force things into them) but reality often doesn't oblige by being neatly structured around them.

> Are you sexist if you're gay?

No more than if you are straight.

It's not racist, but saying "I only date black men" or (worse) "no azns, no femmes" (an all too common phrase on gay male hookup profiles) is incredibly dehumanizing and terrible on many levels.

I think that was the writer struggling to reconcile the fact that personal sexual preferences are considered sacrosanct in modern liberal culture (as long as those preferences don't harm anyone), and yet using "race" (which doesn't exist, remember) as a component in any decision is considered immoral.

I don't think the problem is that using "race" as a component in any decision is considered immoral. The problem is that the net effect of all those independent "preferences", which we know are shaped by society, hurts actual people.

We can't just say "be attracted to different people", because people like what they like, but it is certainly valuable to know how our preferences are likely to be biased. The least we can do is acknowledge the aggregate hurt our individual preferences may contribute to.

> The problem is that the net effect of all those independent "preferences", which we know are shaped by society, hurts actual people.

I don't think you want to go down this route, though. Are short men hurt by the fact that women are typically less attracted to them? If so, what remedy would you propose?

Throwing some anecdote into the ring - I grew up in a primarily white, rural area (in Australia). I went to a university in the city, which has a large Asian contingent (in fact the city as a whole is a lot more multicultural).

During my time there I noticed a drastic change in both the frequency and intensity of my attraction towards Asian women (though it was never particularly high in general). In particular, I noticed a significant (positive) change after spending significant in the direct company of Asian women (and men).

My belief for why this was the case has always been in-line with the authors statement

"I think that’s no coincidence. Beauty is a cultural idea as much as a physical one, and the standard is of course set by the dominant culture."

I had never had much of a chance to interact with Asians growing up, besides the local chinese restaurant and a few kids in my class. At university it felt like I had to overcome the 'newness' of these people I was meeting before I might be attracted to them.

I'm sure studies have tried to approach this idea; it seems like the same idea could apply to any minority that are 'different' enough from everyone else, even if there is no overt racism in play.

Perhaps it has some correlation with the own-race bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-race_effect.

On a personal level it is probably in most cases (all but the most extreme) very hard to disentangle racism from preference. It’s also not necessarily conscious or intentionally malicious, either. That doesn’t stop it from being racist, though.

I think everyone agrees that not dating someone based on their race can be consciously racist. (“I’m not dating xyz people because they are all so dumb!”) The belief that conscious racist believes can influence who someone finds attractive and who not surely isn’t very controversial.

Is it then too much of a leap of faith to believe that our own image of what’s attractive and what’s not can also be less consciously influenced by the society we grow up in or the media depictions of different people we see – and that that society and those depictions can and often are racist?

I really wish their analysis went beyond just heterosexual pairings.

Firstly because those who haven't dated outside their own gender like me can't really comprehend the significance of this and secondly because same-gender dating dynamics are profoundly different than their different-gender counterparts.

It reminds me of this paper (look at the chart in page 2): "Cultural Biases in Economic Exchange?" http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/sapienza/htm/cul...

Does this control for factors like age? For example perhaps people of some races/cultures are more likely to marry early (perhaps because of religion etc) so the people who end up using dating sites from that race are more likely to be divorcees (so older) or the sort who were passed over in real life.

Black men are the least racist people.

How does not having an attraction to somebody make them racist?

I wonder if not being bisexual makes somebody sexist.

If you are not attracted to someone because of their race, then you are racist.

Sexual attraction is not a logical choice. People become attracted to someone first (or not) and rationalize it after the fact. No one goes, "she's black, therefore I'm choosing to not have a boner."

I agree that sexual attraction is not a logical choice. If you tend not to be attracted to black women, that doesn't mean you're necessarily racist. It could just mean that, statistically, you have had a tendency to not be attracted to black women, and that can be for a variety of reasons, such as lack of black women in your vicinity. However, a lot of people, while not considering themselves racist in general, do in fact automatically rule out being attracted to people of specific races. In other cases, they have a fetish for a particular race. In both cases, that is in fact racist, because a conscious choice has been made on the basis of race. People's conscious choices can, to a degree, influence their tastes.

It's still not racism. Prejudice? Yes. But unless you're believing they're inferior because of their race then you're not being racist. I guess in the layman's version of racism you're being racist (regarding examples 2 and 3), but per the actual definition you're not.

Exhibit A: http://i.imgur.com/SbRtlOR.jpg

Relevant text from an OKCupid profile:

    Q: Would you strongly prefer to go out 
       with someone of your own skin 
       color / racial background?

    A: Yes
       No jungle fever up in here

10~25% boost for Asian males.

You can thank Kpop for that boost. It's quite amazing what popular media catering to the female demographic can create a totally different image of the Asian male, unlike the American perspective which tends to degrade and emasculate Asian males through stereotypes. Even positive stereotypes are ridiculed (Good at math, plays classical piano).

In my experience, I had more positive experience with young non-Asian women (around 18~22) and don't think I ended up dating anyone around my age or older (unfortunately :D).

It's funny that most of my Asian friends also lie about being Korean when they are not. Even more insane is that they are able to get Asian women by getting past the filter which seems to favor Korean men.

Thank you Korean popular culture machine! Thank you Kpop!

As an Asian living in France I've always blamed it on the media. You will never see an asian man in a movie, and if you see one it's a ridiculous stereotype just here to make fun of asian people.

You're 100% correct when you're talking about kpop boosting our numbers. Japanese culture is a big deal as well.

How do you find the dating scene in France as an Asian male?

Harder than in China for sure. But I'm not really complaining since I'm a mix. I'm sure full asian have it harder.

There was recently a kpop (iirc) video featuring all black women... maybe they are next!

It's interesting my Korean friend also dated African American women and he's had a great experience.

I think the pattern is becoming clear. Statistics is meaningless. Popular media glamorizing certain demographic counters decades of degrading Asian male stereotypes in mainstream culture. It all started with rail road workers who weren't allowed to bring wives.

I fantasize about time traveling but I awaken with cold sweats thinking about the misfortune of time travelling 100 years earlier to America.

So basically, this data confirms what everybody sees in reality: that white people are considered the most beautiful by every other race; even to the point that adding "whiteness" to your racial profile will increase interest in your overall profile. That's why in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia; the most successful, attractive people shown in the media have White features or are very light skinned.

Now, here's a better question about this data: would this study be considered "racist" if Black or Asian people were considered the most attractive?

I'm guessing no. "Anti-racism" is just another way to say "anti-white".

You got a zero from black women.

edit: I'm sorry - you got a zero in 2009. Now it's a -12%, twice the second lowest percentage.

Yup ... this one is particularly interesting/weird.

Black women carry this behavior over to black men they perceive as "white" ... (interests, speech that sort of thing). As a black man it really is kind of perplexing.

>>this data confirms what everybody sees in reality

What it confirms is.... http://thehairpin.com/2014/09/white-beauty-myth

Is making a choice based of race inherently racism? And is racism inherently bad?

As someone who is new to this world i felt like things like race and racism don't matter if you are a nice person and caring about what others feel.

Choosing a mate seems discriminatory by nature. What racism is is a matter of definition, and as for whether it's good or bad, I firmly believe that there isn't anything inherent about whatever answer you come up with. That said, I think people usually mean racial prejudice and it being applied in ways that hurt people or cause injustice when they say "racism". Personally I think those things are bad.

"Things like testing and bugs don't matter as long as you are a good programmer and care about code quality."

Emergent social dynamics still have a very real effect on people's lives, even if no one intended to do anything wrong.

I thought its like that a programmer knows that he makes mistakes, and therefore takes actions to reduce the amount of mistakes. Isn't "code quality" and the nature of human implying this?

I would expect people to know the consequence of what they are doing. Am i wrong?

De gustibus non est disputandum.

It's Latin for "taste is not to be discussed" - meaning that just because we like different things does not mean that our choices are bad. In fact, attraction/taste is most often not even a choice!

So, for example, just because I'm attracted to women (and not attracted to men), it doesn't mean I'm sexist. Likewise, just because someone isn't attracted to black/asian/redhead men/women, doesn't mean they are discriminating.

On the other hand, if you're making choices that are based on race (i.e. not trusting someone who is black - apparently police in the US is quite prone to that), it's either discrimination or racism. Sometimes, discrimination helps us survive (that big dangerous-looking man coming your way? better run), but very often, it's based on irrelevant things (black man driving an expensive car? must be a drug dealer!!), or even institutionalized (women can't own property). I'd say that's inherently bad.

Edit: I personally consider any institutionalized discrimination bad and immoral. Grants for black students are bad, IMO. On the other hand, grants for poor students (the majority of which will be black (in the US), but not all of them) are good.

"Indeed, in America there is a strange and powerful belief that if you stab a black person 10 times, the bleeding stops and the healing begins the moment the assailant drops the knife. We believe white dominance to be a fact of the inert past, a delinquent debt that can be made to disappear if only we don’t look." Ta-Nehisi Coates, The Case For Reparations http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-case...

You can use violent language to sensationalize it, sure. But its always seen as a stretch to me, to use ancient history to explain the current generation. Native Americans are jobless and alcoholic? Must have been those Indian wars 200 years ago. African-American folks uneducated and over-incarcerated? Blame slavery.

Everybody is born into their own life, and make of it what they can. Some change their position dramatically, some sit where they started. How do we explain that? "My parents were poor and uneducated because..." is just an excuse for one's own failures.

I understand that culture can strongly influence outcomes. But do we really believe that ancient wrongs have so warped a demographic's culture to the point they are doomed? And need 'reparations' to make it all right again?

I favor the process in the parent post - help those in need, sure, who demonstrate a willingness to use that help (send the poor to college etc). Blindly. That's important because people game any system, and others use quotas and officially-sanctioned profiling as further proof of whatever bigotry they already harbor.

> But its always seen as a stretch to me, to use ancient history to explain the current generation.

Calling it ancient history is disingenuous. History does repeat itself, and as any historian will tell you "If you don't know history, you are a doomed to repeat it".

> African-American folks uneducated and over-incarcerated? Blame slavery.

You are reducing it into something much less believable than:

"Blame the current people in power (white) for African-American folks having a harder time because there are still racist effects, cultural ideologies, subconscious denigration, uncaught biases, and traditions passed down from their great-grandparents who were slave owners."

Ok blame whomever you like. The issue of 'reparations' remains cloudy, and I for one don't see the argument.

> Ok blame whomever you like.

I love how you frame things as if I'm just pointing fingers and may just as well blame inanimate objects.

> The issue of 'reparations' remains cloudy, and I for one don't see the argument.

I'm unclear on my position here, but I do see the argument for reparations.

Sorry, I meant blame-throwing is an interesting exercise, for a sense of history if nothing else. But 'reparations' means payment for having wronged someone, usually a group. Using historical precedents of harm seems very indirect to me, to justify handing a check to someone born a century after that harm. Clearer?

That "ancient history" includes discriminatory subprime mortgage practices and redlining that are currently going on. Ferguson is not ancient history, and neither are the disparities in policing or the school-to-prison pipeline.

Ancient history merely tells us how we came to be at current history. We can not possibly begin to fix these ongoing injustices without admitting that "ancient" history had an actual impact that must be repaired.

Right now, black men with the same college degrees make far less than their white counterparts. A resume with a white-sounding name gets far more responses than one with a black-sounding name. No amount of "helping people in need" is going to address those problems.

> to use ancient history to explain the current generation

Skip to the end if you don't have time to read the whole article. It's not ancient history.

I'm not sure what the point of your comment is.

As for the article you've linked to, I don't think it's a bad idea to repair past injustice, but you need to do it in a good way. For example, I see denationalization (which happened after communist countries of E. Europe adopted capitalism) as something positive (if done in a transparent way). Likewise, if the US government decided to pay out all descendants of slaves, I'd be ok with it. But it has to be specific, intentional, for a specific cause. In contrast, racially biased college admissions are just that, racially biased.

I was responding to "I personally consider any institutionalized discrimination bad and immoral. Grants for black students are bad, IMO. On the other hand, grants for poor students (the majority of which will be black (in the US), but not all of them) are good." That would do nothing to reduce existing injustices and could make racial gaps worse, since white people would get a greater benefit from race-blind programs.

If you read the article, it describes how the racial injustices of this country weren't limited to slavery and didn't end with the civil war. There were ongoing government-sponsored, terrorism-enforced race-based programs that were targeted at people who are alive today. The article isn't calling for any specific response: he simply wants a committee to be convened to investigate possible reparations for the harm done.

> That would do nothing to reduce existing injustices and could make racial gaps worse,

I guess it depends on what you consider to be the greatest existing injustices. I personally think that the rich/poor gap is much more unjust, inexcusable and even dangerous for the future of the society than any race gaps. Also, I think that if the social gaps are made narrower, race gaps will by definition follow.

> since white people would get a greater benefit from race-blind programs.

Why is that bad? I see no reason why a black student coming from a rich family should have an easier time getting admitted to a good college than a white student coming from a poor family. Sure, it's less benefit "for the black", but wouldn't it be totally racism to demand higher test scores for admitting (poor) white students, just because they're white?

Is racism implying discrimination?

> While OkCupid is large enough that its demographics reflect the general Internet-using public

Statistically, speaking, that is false. Unless the OKC user base is over half the size of the Internet-using public, which I doubt. Any number less than that does not guarantee it is representative (but it might be weak support for it being so).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com