angos Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 You are erroneously concluding that an attraction to people who superficially resemble parents somehow means that we are not attracted to people who are genetically diverse. The study doesn't draw that conclusion. No I'm not, and I have already said that I am not, you just want to think that that is what I'm saying, because it gives you something to argue about. Similar doesn't mean the same/identical, generically diverse people can be genetically similar. ---------- Post added 12-12-2013 at 10:05 ---------- http://www.essayjoint.co.uk/samples/Racism%20A%20Learned%20Behavior.pdf A study (essay) on the subject. ---------- Post added 12-12-2013 at 09:36 ---------- You are erroneously concluding that an attraction to people who superficially resemble parents somehow means that we are not attracted to people who are genetically diverse. The study doesn't draw that conclusion. Your link warns me not to visit the site. McAfee®, Inc. Contact us Warning: Suspicious Site Whoa! Are you sure you want to go there? http://www.essayjoint.co.uk/samples/Racism A Learn... may be risky to visit. Why were you redirected to this page? When we visited this site, we found it exhibited one or more risky behaviors ---------- Post added 12-12-2013 at 10:08 ---------- If racism was really in our genes, why would that be? Because early humans split into small groups as a means of protection, cooperation within the group and being suspicious of people from outside the group helped them survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Because early humans split into small groups as a means of protection, cooperation within the group and being suspicious of people from outside the group helped them survive. Where is the scientific evidence to support this argument? By your reckoning, if the above was true, then you and I would dislike everyone outside our immediate families (small group) regardless of their colour, religion or whatever. Besides, I have provided a link explaining attitudes and behaviours and how they are developed. No comments on that then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 No I'm not, and I have already said that I am not, you just want to think that that is what I'm saying, because it gives you something to argue about. Similar doesn't mean the same/identical, generically diverse people can be genetically similar. Only if you redefine what diverse and similar mean... Since they are antonyms. That would be par for the course though, you've already tried to redefine bigotry. Your link warns me not to visit the site. You mean McAfee is warning you, not the link is warning you. Because early humans split into small groups as a means of protection, cooperation within the group and being suspicious of people from outside the group helped them survive. Is there any evidence to suggest that group has to be defined by physical appearance, there's plenty to suggest otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 It's simply not even an argument, my point being that some post a simple one liner claiming 'racism' is learnt or taught and nobody demands proof, then some posters make a fuss because they want others to link to proof of anything they suggest that goes against their agenda As for your racists are permeating and influencing SF and every aspect of life remark, that suggests to me that your as narrow minded and as paranoid as your mate Halibut ..... your posting frequency and style on certain subjects being proof of that Oh Mikey thou does protest too much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Only if you redefine what diverse and similar mean... di·verse adjective \dī-ˈvərs, də-ˈ, ˈdī-ˌ\ : different from each other : made up of people or things that are different from each other sim·i·lar adjective \ˈsi-mə-lər, ˈsim-lər\ : almost the same as someone or something else 1 : having characteristics in common : strictly comparable So I can be genetically different to the person I am attracted to whilst having characteristics in common. ---------- Post added 12-12-2013 at 12:57 ---------- Where is the scientific evidence to support this argument? By your reckoning, if the above was true, then you and I would dislike everyone outside our immediate families (small group) regardless of their colour, religion or whatever. Besides, I have provided a link explaining attitudes and behaviours and how they are developed. No comments on that then? No we wouldn't because these groups inevitably got larger and larger over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 So you accept then that people are attracted to genetic diversity, not to genetic similarity, which is what you claimed earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 No we wouldn't because these groups inevitably got larger and larger over time. You said: Because early humans split into small groups as a means of protection, cooperation within the group and being suspicious of people from outside the group helped them survive. So, by your reckoning, we would. Small groups are now families, not tribes, therefore you would be suspicious, by your own belief (as stated above), of anyone who was not in your family unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 So you accept then that people are attracted to genetic diversity, not to genetic similarity, which is what you claimed earlier. No, I accept that people are attracted to people of similar appearance whilst still maintaining enough genetic diversity. ---------- Post added 12-12-2013 at 15:48 ---------- You said: So, by your reckoning, we would. Small groups are now families, not tribes, therefore you would be suspicious, by your own belief (as stated above), of anyone who was not in your family unit. I didn't say anything about family groups, that's your interpretation of the meaning of small groups of people, clearly humans split off into small groups or their would have just been one massive group of people centered round Africa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathAxe Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 I think it is genetic. It is natural for people to be around others like them in the same group. I believe it is a part of us linked to survival of the fittest. Look back to the cave man days where we had more than one type of human. They kept in the same groups, and others died out. As is in the animal kingdom, you don't get (for example) bears living with lions (different parts of the world I know but it is an example). It is hard wired, but we use our minds to overcome out hard coded programming. It is what sets us aside from animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 I believe it is a part of us linked to survival of the fittest. Look back to the cave man days where we had more than one type of human. They kept in the same groups, and others died out. But the 'fittest' were those who diversified, weaknesses were bred out and the strong became stronger. Those who stayed in familial groups died out because they had little or no tolerance to the extremes encountered by human kind. ---------- Post added 12-12-2013 at 17:55 ---------- I think it is genetic. It is natural for people to be around others like them in the same group. That's learned behaviour, because they're experiences within that group are positive. A new born baby will learn that the people around him create positive associations and invariably that group he'll know as his family, who generally will look like him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.