Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum » Miscer rustles jim jams on Tinder by posting rules for dating him. LOL
  1. Results 541 to 570 of 617
  2. Page 19 of 21
  3. First
  5. 17
  6. 18
  7. 19
  8. 20
  9. 21
  11. Last

Thread: Miscer rustles jim jams on Tinder by posting rules for dating him. LOL

post 1578074711 04-14-2019, 07:03 PM
-
#541
  1. ForPeteSake
  2. Registered User
  1. ForPeteSake
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Oct 2010
  4. Location: New Jersey, United States
  5. Posts: 5,320
  6. Rep Power: 25947
Originally Posted By Rebel012⏩
When there are high levels of economic development racial groups intermingle without protest. And whiteness as a concept has been unevenly applied to different groups. I followed the whole thread, if you're referring to your example about cultures/dialects, etc, this has never led to conflict without it being stoked from above.

At a young age, children if different races do intermingle, at an older age they may sometimes separate because of socialization.
Idk what you're getting at. socialization is biological.
If any of you need to chat, PM me. I'm here for you boyos.
Life is weird :)
post 1578075121 04-14-2019, 07:13 PM
-
#542
  1. Mmjk1500
  2. In Hoc Signo Vinces
  1. Mmjk1500
  2. In Hoc Signo Vinces
  3. Join Date: May 2018
  4. Posts: 3,320
  5. Rep Power: 29920
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...=1555278236985

Racial bias is found within the first three months of birth.

The results with new born babies were inconclusive. But after three months the infants were shown to have a clear cut racial bias.

That study was duplicated multiple times.
We are all self made but only the successful will admit it. -Earl Nightingale
post 1578075251 04-14-2019, 07:16 PM
-
#543
  1. sword_
  2. uberschwert
  1. sword_
  2. uberschwert
  3. Join Date: May 2005
  4. Location: Texas, United States
  5. Posts: 107,635
  6. Rep Power: 912964
A hit was sent, from the President, to raid your residence /
Because you had secret evidence, and documents /
On how they raped the continents, and it's the prominent /
Dominant Islamic, Asiatic Black Hebrew

- GZA "4th Chamber"
post 1578075271 04-14-2019, 07:16 PM
-
#544
  1. Rebel012
  2. Registered User
  1. Rebel012
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: May 2018
  4. Location: Canada
  5. Age: 43
  6. Posts: 7,027
  7. Rep Power: 57751
Originally Posted By ForPeteSake⏩
Idk what you're getting at. socialization is biological.
What? No, it's not. Examples of socialization that are no longer accepted or believed to stem from biology:

1). Rabid anti-Semitism
2). The wide spread belief in the US during slavery that blacks were two-thirds human
3). Women are chattel property
post 1578075661 04-14-2019, 07:26 PM
-
#545
  1. drvillain
  2. False Football Prophet
  1. drvillain
  2. False Football Prophet
  3. Join Date: Jan 2010
  4. Posts: 48,835
  5. Rep Power: 281012
post 1578076991 04-14-2019, 07:56 PM
-
#546
  1. Rebel012
  2. Registered User
  1. Rebel012
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: May 2018
  4. Location: Canada
  5. Age: 43
  6. Posts: 7,027
  7. Rep Power: 57751
Originally Posted By Mmjk1500⏩
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...=1555278236985

Racial bias is found within the first three months of birth.

The results with new born babies were inconclusive. But after three months the infants were shown to have a clear cut racial bias.

Racial bias is not a learned behavior. Acceptance of different groups is.

That study was duplicated multiple times.
Thanks for posting that study, it corroborates what I, and other non-racists, have been saying, namely that racial bias is learned, and NOT biological or innate. You're either illiterate or are being deliberately dishonest. From the actual study:

"While newborn infants demonstrated no spontaneous preference for faces from either their own- or other-ethnic groups, 3-month-old infants demonstrated a significant preference for faces from their own-ethnic group. These results suggest that preferential selectivity based on ethnic differences is not present in the first days of life, but is learned within the first 3 months of life. The findings imply that adults' perceptions of ethnic differences are learned and derived from differences in exposure to own- versus other-race faces during early development."

Read that last sentence again: "The findings imply that adults' perceptions of ethnic differences are LEARNED and derived from differences in EXPOSURE to OWN- VERSUS OTHER-RACE-FACES during early development."

This is the clear product of early socialization--by three months the baby has had enough exposure to individuals of their own race to form clear preferences based on this exposure. This is precisely why the study noted that there was no preference observed in new born infants--socialization at that stage had not yet taken place. The implications of this study suggest that a white infant adopted by black parents would show racial preferences for blacks because of exposure to this race.

TL; DR: The study posted shows that racial bias is based on environment, NOT biology. LMAO, bigots try to use science to support their case and just end up looking more foolish.
post 1578078861 04-14-2019, 08:37 PM
-
#547
  1. Mmjk1500
  2. In Hoc Signo Vinces
  1. Mmjk1500
  2. In Hoc Signo Vinces
  3. Join Date: May 2018
  4. Posts: 3,320
  5. Rep Power: 29920
Originally Posted By Rebel012⏩
Thanks for posting that study, it corroborates what I, and other non-racists, have been saying, namely that racial bias is learned, and NOT biological or innate. You're either illiterate or are being deliberately dishonest. From the actual study:

"While newborn infants demonstrated no spontaneous preference for faces from either their own- or other-ethnic groups , 3-month-old infants demonstrated a significant preference for faces from their own-ethnic group. These results suggest that preferential selectivity based on ethnic differences is not present in the first days of life, but is learned within the first 3 months of life. The findings imply that adults' perceptions of ethnic differences are learned and derived from differences in exposure to own- versus other-race faces during early development."

Read that last sentence again: "The findings imply that adults' perceptions of ethnic differences are LEARNED and derived from differences in EXPOSURE to OWN- VERSUS OTHER-RACE-FACES during early development."

This is the clear product of early socialization--by three months the baby has had enough exposure to individuals of their own race to form clear preferences based on this exposure. This is precisely why the study noted that there was no preference observed in new born infants--socialization at that stage had not yet taken place. The implications of this study suggest that a white infant adopted by black parents would show racial preferences for blacks because of exposure to this race.

TL; DR: The study posted shows that racial bias is based on environment, NOT biology. LMAO, bigots try to use science to support their case and just end up looking more foolish.
You're either illiterate or being deliberately dishonest. You posts ITT project an intolerance toward whites and the first thing you run to is calling me racist or equating me with the KKK. Tardo.

If you read through the entire study, which you obviously didn't, you'd see they stated multiple times that the tests done with new borns were INCONCLUSIVE on NULL. Their brains weren't developed enough to gauge results.

If racial bias is not naturally present it's developed in the first three months of life , everyone, of every race, has and through social conditioning people can work past It. You can't even talk or walk at three months old. No one is telling babies to hate others but you NATURALLY DEVELOP IT THROUGH EARLY EXPOSURE TO PATERNAL FACES.

Eat a dick you race baiting cuckold worm.

Edit: lol @ you only openly calling me a bigot when you think I've blocked you. Go through and read my posts. Find something bigoted I've said. You're a pathetic race baiting keyboard warrior troll.

Inb4 you start posting about evil racist babies lmao.
We are all self made but only the successful will admit it. -Earl Nightingale
post 1578079671 04-14-2019, 08:52 PM
-
#548
  1. ForPeteSake
  2. Registered User
  1. ForPeteSake
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Oct 2010
  4. Location: New Jersey, United States
  5. Posts: 5,320
  6. Rep Power: 25947
Originally Posted By Rebel012⏩
What? No, it's not. Examples of socialization that are no longer accepted or believed to stem from biology:

1). Rabid anti-Semitism
2). The wide spread belief in the US during slavery that blacks were two-thirds human
3). Women are chattel property
Lol. What is it if it’s not biological...?



Edit: Page 20. Misc I’m proud we can make a 20 page like this without it getting locked.
Reps all around.
If any of you need to chat, PM me. I'm here for you boyos.
Life is weird :)
post 1578083381 04-14-2019, 10:10 PM
-
#549
  1. Rebel012
  2. Registered User
  1. Rebel012
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: May 2018
  4. Location: Canada
  5. Age: 43
  6. Posts: 7,027
  7. Rep Power: 57751
Originally Posted By ForPeteSake⏩
Lol. What is it if it’s not biological...?



Edit: Page 20. Misc I’m proud we can make a 20 page like this without it getting locked.
Reps all around.
Socialization means something is socially learned. It's not a biological drive, like eating, sleeping, sex, seeking out shelter, etc.
post 1578084041 04-14-2019, 10:27 PM
-
#550
  1. Mmjk1500
  2. In Hoc Signo Vinces
  1. Mmjk1500
  2. In Hoc Signo Vinces
  3. Join Date: May 2018
  4. Posts: 3,320
  5. Rep Power: 29920
Originally Posted By Rebel012⏩
Socialization means something is socially learned. It's not a biological drive, like eating, sleeping, sex, seeking out shelter, etc.
So we've established that racial bias stems from exposure to paternal faces between 0 and 3 months of age. If something is naturally learned that early in life, there's likely a biological reason for it. What do you think?

Srs think this guy is just a clever troll.
We are all self made but only the successful will admit it. -Earl Nightingale
post 1578084801 04-14-2019, 10:42 PM
-
#551
  1. MilkforBrains
  2. Registered User
  1. MilkforBrains
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2016
  4. Age: 33
  5. Posts: 6,347
  6. Rep Power: 30016
Originally Posted By Mmjk1500⏩
So we've established that racial bias stems from exposure to paternal faces between 0 and 3 months of age. If something is naturally learned that early in life, there's likely a biological reason for it. What do you think?

Srs think this guy is just a clever troll.
A major blackpill for me was finding out wolves and American coyotes are divergent only around 100,000 years, yet look how differently they behave. Who socialized them?
post 1578084951 04-14-2019, 10:46 PM
-
#552
  1. Rebel012
  2. Registered User
  1. Rebel012
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: May 2018
  4. Location: Canada
  5. Age: 43
  6. Posts: 7,027
  7. Rep Power: 57751
Originally Posted By Mmjk1500⏩
So we've established that racial bias stems from exposure to paternal faces between 0 and 3 months of age. If something is naturally learned that early in life, there's likely a biological reason for it. What do you think?

Srs think this guy is just a clever troll.
You really shouldn't embarrass yourself further by referring to that study. The authors of that study reached diametrically opposite conclusions to what you were trying to argue. They stated clearly that the bias/preference stemmed from early EXPOSURE to members of the same group, and that it wasn't an intrinsic instinct. The implication was clear: If a white baby, or a black baby, were exposed to members of the opposite race from such an early age, they would show bias/preference to THAT particular race, not their own group.
post 1578085471 04-14-2019, 10:56 PM
-
#553
  1. Mmjk1500
  2. In Hoc Signo Vinces
  1. Mmjk1500
  2. In Hoc Signo Vinces
  3. Join Date: May 2018
  4. Posts: 3,320
  5. Rep Power: 29920
Originally Posted By Rebel012⏩
You really shouldn't embarrass yourself further by referring to that study. The authors of that study reached diametrically opposite conclusions to what you were trying to argue. They stated clearly that the bias/preference stemmed from early EXPOSURE to members of the same group, and that it wasn't an intrinsic instinct. The implication was clear: If a white baby, or a black baby, were exposed to members of the opposite race from such an early age, they would show bias/preference to THAT particular race, not their own group.
Idk if you're deliberately missing the point or not but based on your previous posts ITT Im still gonna go ahead and say that you're a race baiting troll. Went ahead and bolded my point so that it's clear..

The study showed that
Black baby with two black parents will develop a natural bias toward black people.
An asian baby with two Asian parents will develop a natural bias toward Asian people.
As will a white baby, or a Latino baby. If you have two parents of the same skin color you will have a natural preference toward people of that skin color BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT YOU WILL SEE THE MOST OF BETWEEN 0-3 MONTHS OF AGE.


For something to be learned that early in development, surely there must be a biological reason for it. Right?

Edit: would encourage anyone interested to actually read that study. Don't take mine or Rebel012's word for it. Draw your own conclusions. This guy's either very racist himself or trolling.
We are all self made but only the successful will admit it. -Earl Nightingale
post 1578086441 04-14-2019, 11:15 PM
-
#554
  1. Mmjk1500
  2. In Hoc Signo Vinces
  1. Mmjk1500
  2. In Hoc Signo Vinces
  3. Join Date: May 2018
  4. Posts: 3,320
  5. Rep Power: 29920
Originally Posted By Rebel012⏩
You really shouldn't embarrass yourself further by referring to that study. The authors of that study reached diametrically opposite conclusions to what you were trying to argue. They stated clearly that the bias/preference stemmed from early EXPOSURE to members of the same group, and that it wasn't an intrinsic instinct. The implication was clear: If a white baby, or a black baby, were exposed to members of the opposite race from such an early age, they would show bias/preference to THAT particular race, not their own group.
Do you even lift?
We are all self made but only the successful will admit it. -Earl Nightingale
post 1578087171 04-14-2019, 11:34 PM
-
#555
  1. hoganrulz
  2. mreatassbtchslapr
  1. hoganrulz
  2. mreatassbtchslapr
  3. Join Date: Feb 2007
  4. Posts: 47,761
  5. Rep Power: 284006
Originally Posted By MilkforBrains⏩
I think these sentiments in the third world are healthy. Samaritans once outnumbered Jews, now there is less than 800. Would you call them racist for wanting their family to remain Samaritan? Or is it only reserved for Whites?

The third world has it right here. 1st worlders are the most brainwashed and because women fear social ostracization more than men, they are the most brain washed of all.
It sounds like youd prefer a middle eastern dictatorship & this preference seems to coming up again and again with white supremacist types.
Originally Posted By Mmjk1500⏩
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...=1555278236985

Racial bias is found within the first three months of birth.

The results with new born babies were inconclusive. But after three months the infants were shown to have a clear cut racial bias.

That study was duplicated multiple times.
Ok, so a couple of things I want to bring up. In your earlier post you framed your point as, ''disgust'' towards ethnicities and later cited this paper.

I dispute ''disgust'' since the method was what face the the 3 month old looked at the longest. And the results werent indicative of disgust because the 3 month old still looked at the other faces for significant periods of time, rather than someone who was disgusted would have been (my assumption is if youre disgusted by something youd look away asap)

The paper itself says the results for newborns & 3 month olds are because of attraction, as in, physical attraction. Hence the claim that if a child stares at you, youre attractive (even thought the discussion section of your paper suggests the cumulative results for Caucasion vs Asian & Caucasion vs Middle Eastern were ''minimal''.)

It would be interesting to see this study from the eyes of a black child to see if it is actually a case of '''attraction'' or 'preference towards primary caregiver ethnicity''. Since obviously, 3 month olds cant be racist.
Formerly HandBrah, LipBrah & FootBrah
they call me Don Taters
NYM
<3 Miami Dolphins
WE GONNA WIN THE FUKING SUPERBOWL SOON BAYBEH
Hala Madrid
££££££sports betting crew££££££
This is all OJ's fault
Ass cheeks are the titties of the ass
First I romance the pie maker, then I romance the pie
post 1578087241 04-14-2019, 11:37 PM
-
#556
  1. melDorado
  2. old woman
  1. melDorado
  2. old woman
  3. Join Date: May 2014
  4. Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
  5. Posts: 8,230
  6. Rep Power: 55823
Originally Posted By ForPeteSake⏩
Children group themselves together with other kids that look like them. As adults we still play with varying races but still tend to stick to those that look like us.
We discussed what it takes for racial groups to intermingle without protest.

Sounds like you didnt follow the whole thread.
In school out of my 5 best friends one was black one Indian one maylasian one Jewish only one was Welsh

Have I disprove your post?
retired from powerlifting, retired from the misc
post 1578087301 04-14-2019, 11:38 PM
-
#557
  1. Mmjk1500
  2. In Hoc Signo Vinces
  1. Mmjk1500
  2. In Hoc Signo Vinces
  3. Join Date: May 2018
  4. Posts: 3,320
  5. Rep Power: 29920
Originally Posted By hoganrulz⏩
It sounds like youd prefer a middle eastern dictatorship & this preference seems to coming up again and again with white supremacist types.



Ok, so a couple of things I want to bring up. In your earlier post you framed your point as, ''disgust'' towards ethnicities and later cited this paper.

I dispute ''disgust'' since the method was what face the the 3 month old looked at the longest. And the results werent indicative of disgust because the 3 month old still looked at the other faces for significant periods of time, rather than someone who was disgusted would have been (my assumption is if youre disgusted by something youd look away asap)

The paper itself says the results for newborns & 3 month olds are because of attraction, as in, physical attraction. Hence the claim that if a child stares at you, youre attractive (even thought the discussion section of your paper suggests the cumulative results for Caucasion vs Asian & Caucasion vs Middle Eastern were ''minimal''.)

It would be interesting to see this study from the eyes of a black child to see if it is actually a case of '''attraction'' or 'preference towards primary caregiver ethnicity''. Since obviously, 3 month olds cant be racist.
Maybe disgust wasn't the right word. Preference would've been a better way to say it.

Theres another study posted that used multiple ethnicities and aversion to different racial groups was prominent through all of them. I'd have to do some time digging to find those. This is the first I could locate with a quick Google search
We are all self made but only the successful will admit it. -Earl Nightingale
post 1578087391 04-14-2019, 11:41 PM
-
#558
  1. hoganrulz
  2. mreatassbtchslapr
  1. hoganrulz
  2. mreatassbtchslapr
  3. Join Date: Feb 2007
  4. Posts: 47,761
  5. Rep Power: 284006
Originally Posted By Mmjk1500⏩
Maybe disgust wasn't the right word. Preference would've been a better way to say it.
Sure, the paper's cumulative results displayed a preference towards Caucasion's by Caucasion's.

Are you willing to concede this may have been caused by physical attraction & being closely linked to what the toddlers primary care giver looks like, as per the paper suggests?
Formerly HandBrah, LipBrah & FootBrah
they call me Don Taters
NYM
<3 Miami Dolphins
WE GONNA WIN THE FUKING SUPERBOWL SOON BAYBEH
Hala Madrid
££££££sports betting crew££££££
This is all OJ's fault
Ass cheeks are the titties of the ass
First I romance the pie maker, then I romance the pie
post 1578087571 04-14-2019, 11:46 PM
-
#559
  1. IMakeSites
  2. Registered User
  1. IMakeSites
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2019
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 66
  6. Rep Power: 0
Did he get a semi to takethe pic (i would i guess) but i'm a grower not a shower maybe he's jst a shower, kinda jelly but i also enjoy my magical powers too

spez; nohomo
post 1578087971 04-14-2019, 11:56 PM
-
#560
  1. Mmjk1500
  2. In Hoc Signo Vinces
  1. Mmjk1500
  2. In Hoc Signo Vinces
  3. Join Date: May 2018
  4. Posts: 3,320
  5. Rep Power: 29920
Originally Posted By hoganrulz⏩
Sure, the paper's cumulative results displayed a preference towards Caucasion's by Caucasion's.

Are you willing to concede this may have been caused by physical attraction & being closely linked to what the toddlers primary care giver looks like, as per the paper suggests?
Yes. If a child's primary care giver is of another race the child will likely have a preference toward that race. Generally the primary care giver of a child will share the same race as the child. I do not believe that physical attraction factors in, ethnicity is likely much more important.

Edit: I said "repulsion" earlier. Not "disgust". The babies showed aversion toward other races. Better way to put it
We are all self made but only the successful will admit it. -Earl Nightingale
post 1578088171 04-15-2019, 12:03 AM
-
#561
  1. hoganrulz
  2. mreatassbtchslapr
  1. hoganrulz
  2. mreatassbtchslapr
  3. Join Date: Feb 2007
  4. Posts: 47,761
  5. Rep Power: 284006
Originally Posted By Mmjk1500⏩
Yes. If a child's primary care giver is of another race the child will likely have a preference toward that race. Generally the primary care giver of a child will share the same race as the child. I do not believe that physical attraction factors in, ethnicity is likely much more important.
But youve just contradicted yourself. You conceded the results of the paper were likely to be skewed largely away from Black and negligibly away from Asian & Middle Eastern, towards white, because of the race of the primary care giver of the toddlers (white), but then say ethnicity plays the biggest part.

How so? Wouldn't it be a case that, familiarity in early stages of development plays the biggest part in preferences of 0-3month olds?

Also I just want to point out, none of this legitimizes the hypothesis that a white man being disgusted by a white woman dating a black man is ok. All we're doing now is discussing preferences in 3 month olds.
Formerly HandBrah, LipBrah & FootBrah
they call me Don Taters
NYM
<3 Miami Dolphins
WE GONNA WIN THE FUKING SUPERBOWL SOON BAYBEH
Hala Madrid
££££££sports betting crew££££££
This is all OJ's fault
Ass cheeks are the titties of the ass
First I romance the pie maker, then I romance the pie
post 1578088461 04-15-2019, 12:12 AM
-
#562
  1. Mmjk1500
  2. In Hoc Signo Vinces
  1. Mmjk1500
  2. In Hoc Signo Vinces
  3. Join Date: May 2018
  4. Posts: 3,320
  5. Rep Power: 29920
Originally Posted By hoganrulz⏩
But youve just contradicted yourself. You conceded the results of the paper were likely to be skewed largely away from Black and negligibly away from Asian & Middle Eastern, towards white, because of the race of the primary care giver of the toddlers (white), but then say ethnicity plays the biggest part.

How so? Wouldn't it be a case that, familiarity in early stages of development plays the biggest part in preferences of 0-3month olds?
The primary care giver of an infant is generally their mother. By three months old the baby is already living at home and has spent basically every waking moment with their mom. The mom is generally the same ethnicity as the baby..

So Asian baby with Asian mom spends the first three months living with Asian parents and develops a preference for Asian faces is the hypothesis. You're like a sponge at that age.

Most mothers can take their baby home in less than a week. Not sure why you think that nurses would be considered primary care givers for any length of time.

Edit: yeah, this thread is well past the original argument.
We are all self made but only the successful will admit it. -Earl Nightingale
post 1578088611 04-15-2019, 12:16 AM
-
#563
  1. hoganrulz
  2. mreatassbtchslapr
  1. hoganrulz
  2. mreatassbtchslapr
  3. Join Date: Feb 2007
  4. Posts: 47,761
  5. Rep Power: 284006
Originally Posted By Mmjk1500⏩
The primary care giver of an infant is generally their mother. By three months old the baby is already living at home and has spent basically every waking moment with their mom.

So Asian baby with Asian mom spends the first three months living with Asian parents and develops a preference for Asian faces.

Most mothers can take their baby home in less than a week. Not sure why you think that nurses would be considered primary care givers for any length of time.
I didn' t actually say any of that.

There's two separate hypothesis.

Ethnicity of primary care giver is the reason for ethnic preference in the paper.
Ethnicity is the reason for the ethnic preference in the paper.

Which one in your opinion?
Formerly HandBrah, LipBrah & FootBrah
they call me Don Taters
NYM
<3 Miami Dolphins
WE GONNA WIN THE FUKING SUPERBOWL SOON BAYBEH
Hala Madrid
££££££sports betting crew££££££
This is all OJ's fault
Ass cheeks are the titties of the ass
First I romance the pie maker, then I romance the pie
post 1578088931 04-15-2019, 12:29 AM
-
#564
  1. Mmjk1500
  2. In Hoc Signo Vinces
  1. Mmjk1500
  2. In Hoc Signo Vinces
  3. Join Date: May 2018
  4. Posts: 3,320
  5. Rep Power: 29920
Originally Posted By hoganrulz⏩
I didn' t actually say any of that.

There's two separate hypothesis.

Ethnicity of primary care giver is the reason for ethnic preference in the paper.
Ethnicity is the reason for the ethnic preference in the paper.

Which one in your opinion?
I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

The primary care giver of an infant will generally be the same ethnicity of the infant. The study indicated that the primary care giver influences perceived bias toward different ethnicities.

Ie white child with white parents will have a preference toward white people because of that early stage of development. If a black child's primary care givers were white at that early stage of development then that infant would likely have a preference toward white people. Most infants are the same ethnicity as their parents. Therefore racial bias is learned at an early age, as the paper indicated 0-3 months.
We are all self made but only the successful will admit it. -Earl Nightingale
post 1578088971 04-15-2019, 12:31 AM
-
#565
  1. hoganrulz
  2. mreatassbtchslapr
  1. hoganrulz
  2. mreatassbtchslapr
  3. Join Date: Feb 2007
  4. Posts: 47,761
  5. Rep Power: 284006
Originally Posted By Mmjk1500⏩
I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

The primary care giver of an infant will generally be the same ethnicity of the infant. The study indicated that the primary care giver influences perceived bias toward different ethnicities.

Ie white child with white parents will have a preference toward white people because of that early stage of development. If a black child's primary care givers were white at that early stage of development then that infant would likely have a preference toward white people. Most infants are the same ethnicity as their parents. Therefore racial bias is learned at an early age, as the paper indicated 0-3 months.
Yeah, totally agreed, racial bias is learned and the reason for it is ethnicity of the primary care giver.
Formerly HandBrah, LipBrah & FootBrah
they call me Don Taters
NYM
<3 Miami Dolphins
WE GONNA WIN THE FUKING SUPERBOWL SOON BAYBEH
Hala Madrid
££££££sports betting crew££££££
This is all OJ's fault
Ass cheeks are the titties of the ass
First I romance the pie maker, then I romance the pie
post 1578089161 04-15-2019, 12:38 AM
-
#566
  1. Mmjk1500
  2. In Hoc Signo Vinces
  1. Mmjk1500
  2. In Hoc Signo Vinces
  3. Join Date: May 2018
  4. Posts: 3,320
  5. Rep Power: 29920
Originally Posted By hoganrulz⏩
Yeah, totally agreed, racial bias is learned and the reason for it is ethnicity of the primary care giver.
Right, so because most people are the same ethnicities as their parents they have already naturally developed by 3 months old a bias toward people who look like them. Acceptance of different groups is a learned behavior imo because we already have the natural tendency to prefer people who look like us.
We are all self made but only the successful will admit it. -Earl Nightingale
post 1578089361 04-15-2019, 12:44 AM
-
#567
  1. hoganrulz
  2. mreatassbtchslapr
  1. hoganrulz
  2. mreatassbtchslapr
  3. Join Date: Feb 2007
  4. Posts: 47,761
  5. Rep Power: 284006
Originally Posted By Mmjk1500⏩
Right, so because most people are the same ethnicities as their parents they have already naturally developed by 3 months old a bias toward people who look like them. Acceptance of different groups is a learned behavior imo because we already have the natural tendency to prefer people who look like us.
This works both ways as per the paper. Racial bias is also learned, and thus racial preference is. If ''racism'' is learned then it can be undone and anyone who is racist is therefore being illogical at an older age where theyre able to understand why things are the way they are.

Preferences are fine, theyve always been. It's when you feel disgust or feel as though someone's value has been lowered because they act against your preferences is where the problem lies.
Formerly HandBrah, LipBrah & FootBrah
they call me Don Taters
NYM
<3 Miami Dolphins
WE GONNA WIN THE FUKING SUPERBOWL SOON BAYBEH
Hala Madrid
££££££sports betting crew££££££
This is all OJ's fault
Ass cheeks are the titties of the ass
First I romance the pie maker, then I romance the pie
post 1578089371 04-15-2019, 12:45 AM
-
#568
  1. Rebel012
  2. Registered User
  1. Rebel012
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: May 2018
  4. Location: Canada
  5. Age: 43
  6. Posts: 7,027
  7. Rep Power: 57751
Originally Posted By Mmjk1500⏩
Yes. If a child's primary care giver is of another race the child will likely have a preference toward that race. Generally the primary care giver of a child will share the same race as the child. I do not believe that physical attraction factors in, ethnicity is likely much more important.

Edit: I said "repulsion" earlier. Not "disgust". The babies showed aversion toward other races. Better way to put it
Yes, precisely. This shows that it's clearly socialization and not driven by biology. If it was the latter then you would expect the bias to be observable before the three month mark, and you would expect to find the same result if the child was raised by caregivers of a different race. But this is not the case. This is the conclusion that the study's authors reached, not my own. You seem to be confused regarding the meaning of socialization vs biology. You're right, others should read the study, it will be abundantly clear to anyone who's literate.

And yes, I lift plenty.
post 1578089701 04-15-2019, 12:56 AM
-
#569
  1. MilkforBrains
  2. Registered User
  1. MilkforBrains
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2016
  4. Age: 33
  5. Posts: 6,347
  6. Rep Power: 30016
Originally Posted By melDorado⏩
In school out of my 5 best friends one was black one Indian one maylasian one Jewish only one was Welsh

Have I disprove your post?
I've met a 6'3" woman, does this make women taller than men?
post 1578089741 04-15-2019, 12:57 AM
-
#570
  1. Mmjk1500
  2. In Hoc Signo Vinces
  1. Mmjk1500
  2. In Hoc Signo Vinces
  3. Join Date: May 2018
  4. Posts: 3,320
  5. Rep Power: 29920
Originally Posted By Rebel012⏩
Yes, precisely. This shows that it's clearly socialization and not driven by biology. If it was the latter then you would expect the bias to be observable before the three month mark, and you would expect to find the same result if the child was raised by caregivers of a different race. But this is not the case. This is the conclusion that the study's authors reached, not my own. You seem to be confused regarding the meaning of socialization vs biology. You're right, others should read the study, it will be abundantly clear to anyone who's literate.

And yes, I lift plenty.
If it wasn't biologically important it wouldn't be apparent by three months old.

Youve got a pretty pointed way of arguing. Basically you imply that if someone doesn't agree with you they're less intelligent. We've done this three nights in a row after you "bowed out" the first night. I will say that things are different in Canada than they are in the US and you do have racist tendencies that were expressed a lot through this thread. If you want I can find those posts for you. I made my point concerning the study in the post above yours and I don't need to type it out again.






What're your lifts?
We are all self made but only the successful will admit it. -Earl Nightingale
Quick Navigation Top Misc
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts