Comment by lifeisstillgood | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lifeisstillgood | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

lifeisstillgood

The major restraining factor on young men in a village or tribal setting was always the rest of the village. When the demographics became unbalanced (war, famine) then young gangs were always to be feared (Peter Pans lost boys would not have been cute)

We are fortunate in having overcome hunger in 4/5ths of the world - but it has left a lot of time on people's hands compared to a hunter gather lifestyle and a lot of unsupervised time similarly

That said - holy moley! this is insane!

But does this work for other sexual choice communities? I suppose there must have been class divides where "working class" men were more likely to go to jail so changing the sexual choice landscape? Gay men?! Ex-military? Prior to public transport was there geographic boundaries? Education?

This is a fascinating subject - why are black women limiting themselves to a reduced choice of black men when presumably other races are open? What is it that makes that choice / boundaries? Clearly parental type must have a big impact, but what else?

This is an indictment of US post-slavery culture to be sure, but thinking about it it is massively wider in scope.

Any pointers to research on this?

> We are fortunate in having overcome hunger in 4/5ths of the world - but it has left a lot of time on people's hands compared to a hunter gather lifestyle and a lot of unsupervised time similarly

Actually, some studies have shown that hunter-gatherers have much more free time than we do. Our wants grow more quickly than our technology can satisfy them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society

But this "free time" came at the cost of constantly having to scavenge for more food, move to new areas, fight for survival, etc.. I see primitivists hawking this on hacker news quite a lot now, but you can post that link a hundred times, it still won't make 10k BC any more appealing than 2015.

It turns out that after you feed, shelter, and clothe people, they still want more stuff. What a fucking surprise. But at least I'm not starving, freezing, naked, bleeding out on the plains after being gored by a rhino or squashed by a mammoth.

"Is Marriage for White People?" attempts to answer that question. As I remember it, the main answer was that black women don't want to date outside their race.

http://www.amazon.com/Is-Marriage-White-People-American/dp/B...

But - why? Because their fathers were black and so they associate positive feeling with that colour? Why skin colour? Why not height or body type or behaviour?

What about social pressure (you are a "race traitor" fords ting non blacks). Is it an anti white thing? Is the proportion of Hispanic dating higher? What about comparing across cultures - is the incidence of dating cross race lower than in say the UK?

The fact that we are raising race to its own singular cause for this sort of marriage-limiter shows how much race issues have a grip on our societies, but it's interesting to think around the subject.

Still would be interested to know how one can find a epidemiological "natural" experiment to solve this.

Race is simply a salient category in American life, that shapes people's social experiences in a wide variety of ways.

It's also pretty ordinary for people to prefer mates that have a broadly similar life experience and perspective as themselves. It's easier to sustain a relationship when you have more common ground.

I remember a debate about high achieving black women "marrying down" (with school dropout black guys on low income) or "marrying out" with white guys.

Attitude seems to be changing for the better anyway.

Here's also an article [0] on the subject that cause quite a stir back in 2011.

[0]:http://www.npr.org/2011/06/29/137499303/author-tells-black-w...

I read that article, and articles like it. They all leave out one thing, and I'll get hammered for stating this, and it's only my hummable opinion.

As much as people want to to homogenize the sexes, their are differences in factors that determine desirability.

Powerful women(degrees, income, position in society, etc.) are judged differently in my surrounding(I said in my surroundings, antidotal, don't kill me); than powerful men.

Are a lot of women are attracted to powerful men--yes, for the majority. Unless the man has horrid genes, and even then they line up. The man with the biggest cave still seems to attract to most--especially later in life.

It works in the opposite direction for women. I have never met a man(except in scripts, on t.v.) that judges women on degrees, or wealth, or status in society. I have never heard a man say, "I find women in power/authority sexy!" I don't know why. I hope it changes. I just think we forget about millions of years of biology--men are looking for good genes, a kind disposition--maybe someone to raise the spawn?

Yes, it's wrong. I'm just tired of hearing "Why is she single--she is so accomplished?" Yes, I hope it changes. Go ahead kill me. There's too many examples to list, and it's politically incorrect to even talk about. Again, I'm sorry if I offended anyone.

It's not offensive, it's just yet another example of "every anecdote I have from this specific culture supports X!! Why don't we just admit that X is clearly biological and not a property of culture at all!??!"

I don't know about power, but ambition is pretty important to me.

Not exactly highbrow research, but OkCupid has an interesting post indicating that black women are less likely to get replies in their online dating service: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-race-affects-whether-...

The OkCupid research shouldn't be presented as some universal scientific fact. It doesn't account for socioeconomic backgrounds for one, nor does it account for country of origin. Having lived in Africa, Europe and the US, it's clear that interracial dating carries much more historical baggage in the US than it does in Europe and Africa. It's also probably clear to most people in the US, that acceptance of interracial relationships has changed markedly in the past decade alone. A second OkCupid study in 2019 would very likely show significantly different results.

A fact being sociological doesn't make it false.

The OKCupid analyis is based on US dating data...right? Why would anyone try to analogize that to universal human behavior, rather than taking it as a description of the situation in the US?

"Race" is a culture-specific category.

One thing that was striking to me was the map showing the male:female ratio among the black population in the US. Without using any actual statistical tools, it's apparent that areas with a higher black population also have fewer men for every woman.

See this map: http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_nhblack.gif

Reply on news.ycombinator.com