Finally, I’m totally confused as to why hotties would be less race conscious; you would figure if hybrid vigor is real that the marginal returns would be greatest for the fuglies (specifically, assuming that fugitude correlates with individual mutational load and hybridization would be better at masking that load).
But the most relevant demographic point is that these are Columbia University graduate students.
They found in preliminary analysis that though females are much more strongly biased, males exhibit the same pattern of determinants.
Since you can read the whole working paper I’ll restate in plain language what they find re: determinants. Here are variables which predict same race preference: High proportion wish ban on interracial marriage in a region Areas where people would not want to be neighbors with another race Areas where there are large populations of other races Here are variables which predict less same race preference: Older Attractiveness, 1 standard deviation increase in attractiveness results in a 4 point decrease in same-race preference Variables which had no effect: Shared interests Cultural variables (books read, etc.) Income There are some comments on the robustness of their findings (N for blacks isn’t very large, etc.), but generally little else in the conclusion.
One social science finding which I’ve wondered about over the past few years is the result that women care much more about the race of a potential mate than men do.
The fact that individuals tend to want to mate assortatively with those who share their characteristics is no surprise.
In other words, are Asian guys just ugly, explaining their rejections? The authors find that some of the rejection rate for Asians in general seem to be explainable as a function of the judgment that they’re just not as attractive.
Here’s the above table controlled for attractiveness: There is a difference. At this point the researchers decided to simplify the presentation; they pooled the other races aside from same race and clumped males and females together when trying to tease apart the determinants of racial preferences.
Random mating in the general population would result in 44% of marriages being interracial, while only 4% are.The richness of our data further allows us to identify many determinants of same-race preferences.Subjects’ backgrounds, including the racial composition of the ZIP code where a subject grew up and the prevailing racial attitudes in a subject’s state or country of origin, strongly influence same-race preferences.These and the GSS were used to generate independent variables that could be used to predict the extent to which race might matter.In the end, race didn’t matter that much, just to a statistically significant extent.First, let’s keep this in perspective, here are the correlations from the GSS for married individuals for several variables of note (I’ve filtered for whites here): Ethnicity – 0.40 Highest Degree – 0.55 Socioeconomic index – 0.32 I think it’s interesting to note that the variable which reveals meritocratic achievement has the highest correlation.Ethnicity is something you’re born into, and socioeconomic index is a metric which derives from the milieu in which you were raised.We employ a Speed Dating experiment that allows us to directly observe individual decisions and thus infer whose preferences lead to racial segregation in romantic relationships.Females exhibit stronger racial preferences than males.Some general observations: 1) Black women at Columbia are really open to dating black men. To make this concrete, black women were three times as likely to say yes to a black man as they were to an Asian man (though white women were the most repulsed by Asian men clearly). For all races except Asians, all the coefficients on the race indicator variables are negative, implying a same-race preference.For black and white subjects, these coefficients are jointly significant (p-value First, Asian guys are screwed, obviously.