To what degree is xenophobia instinctual, as opposed to learned? For instance, obviously xenophobia relating to the hijab or someone speaking Spanish, is not instinctual, because that has nothing to do with instincts, but learned cultural differences.
>>788418
You mean Russism right?
>>788418
>is not instinctual, because that has nothing to do with instincts
A source would be fine, thanks.
>>788443
I mean in all countries.
>>788474
Instinct is what you are born with. To say babies are born with an instinctual aversion to people wearing hijabs would not make sense.
>>788490
People are born to quickly understand who are similar ie 'yours' and who are different ie 'outsiders'.
ANY difference will be instinctually discriminated.
>>788500
This. Also it's a normal evolutionary mechanism with the goal of self-preservation.
>>788418
>>788500
Recognizing the out group is not the same as xenophobia.
>>788418
What's the alternative, being gangraped by Arabs?
>>788952
Being Japan. It's hard to understate the degree that Japan is fucked because of its demographics problem. They're headed towards a massive supply shock cliff as their labor force will literally not be able to service the needs of the country as a whole.
>>788961
>being Japan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Nu9CcEZJQU
You mean like this?
Racism/xenophobia really do have a biological and evolutionarry purpose.
It's that voice that the monkey hears that tells him to be carefull when he spots a foreign monkey. Because the foreign monkeys might be hostile, and also because you'd want to protect your local gene pool instead of having an outsider pumping your girls. We're programmed to protect our kind, that's why we're more alert when an outsider is around. Now yelling that racism/xenophobia is a social construct is as dumb as saying that it is purely instinctual. No matter what happens, these two traits WILL be apparent in any group, that's one of the elements that make this a group in fact. But then according to ideologies and such, that group's approach toward another one may vary greatly.
People need to acknowledge this in order to transcend that monkey-ism.
>>789008
But How Can Racism Be Real If Our Races Are A Social Construct?
>>789015
>Our Races Are A Social Construct?
WE
WUZ
ERRY
RACE
AN
SHEET
>>789015
Races are not social construct.
You see there is two school of thoughts. One that says that there are different breeds (races) of humans with different characteristic (which is somewhat true scientifically but demonized culturally) and one that says we're all one big race, asking to transcend and not focus on our differences, which is very noble, but also goes against our monkey instincts.
The problem here is that people are mixing parts of these two school of thoughts together and expect it to work. Like when a lefty would call a righty "Racist !". It's really ironic because by calling the righty a racist, the lefty acknowledge the whole sense of the word racism, thus embracing (without knowing it) its meaning. To get out of the racism/antiracism loop, people need to drop these buzzwords and whole heartedly focus not on our differences, but what unites us. In other words, drop their obsolete human nature, constantly dragging them in their own shit.
>>789015
Social constructs aren't non-existent, they're just concepts that exist when humans get together.
>>789163
Is this your first day on 4chan?
>>789015
>Taking "race doesn't exist" out of context.
No one who's ever said that phrase mean what you think they mean.
>>789169
Yours too?
>>789163
>I give an extensive answer on the subject
>I got tricked
Dammit
>>789257
Given that you were also shitposting it is a wash.
>>788418
At the risk of sounding like a phil hippie, I'd say everything stems from the human need to understand it's environment. I'm not sure where that fits into instinct, but it's a very human trend.
Imagine a bullied child, who believes they’re being picked on without cause, and at the same time the bullies themselves, who pick on their victim because they cannot understand them (or maybe they're just negligent and aren't actively choosing to ruin the kid's day, but still). Either the kid decides it's environment just acts without cause and kills itself, the others decide they can't understand it and remove it to keep their environment sound and off him themselves, or people reach a mutual understanding.
Academic fields work off of the same pattern. You're putting something complex in simple, understandable terms. Scientific principles, arithmetic beauty, visual art and music, philosophy. It's an obvious trend to spot, and it's not a bad thing.
The danger comes from when people settle for something comfy by killing their local weirdo in the name of their own peace of mind. People tire of learning new things but want everything to make sense, so they turn a blind eye to or erase anything that appears incoherent.
>>789108
>One that says that there are different breeds
Breeds are social constructs too though.
The argued difference between races of human and races of dogs is that the constructs which we use to separate dogs are based off of tangible qualities wheras the constructs used to separate humans are not or only are to a minimal extent. It's that there's not enough difference to create categories that mean anything in the real world as opposed to being just "categories for category's sake" or "constructs for construct's sake" as opposed to "constructs for material's sake".
>>789048
>Aboriginee
Jesus Christ...
Acknowledging someone looks or acts different than the norm is not xenophobia. Fearing that some values you consider important are being threatened is not xenophobia. Having a panic attack whenever you see some mexilard and start shooting them is xenophobia.
>>788490
>To say babies are born with an instinctual aversion
IIRC there was a study with young infants whereby they were shown white and black faces and they tracked their eye movements as an indication for preference and there was a preference for 'white' - this held even for the black infants.
>>789332
But there ARE categories that DO Matter. There are differences between, say, Jews and Arabs or Tutai and Hutu. Failing to understand these differences because they're minor only clouds your understanding of the interactions of these groups with each other, with their environment, and the history of their interactions with their environment and each other.
We can debate about where a good line in the sand is, but at the end of the day an acceptance that there ARE innate differences between people at the Cultural, historical, and biological levels are necessary.
>>789271
I'm no responsible for two out of the three posts you quoted.
>>789332
You know, studies and practise over human breeds have existed for a very long time. It's far from being a social construct. Well, it somewhat is now as most cientific data on the subject has been destroyed.
The ancient egyptian did it, as well as most "elite" classes (often more from a societal point of view) around the world. But it has always been taboo. In the name of morality we burned down studies that would have strongly suggested that some human being, given by their genes, would be plainly "better" than others, in term of qualities, and likely to have success in this world. It's called eugenics nowadays. It's horrible to admit it, but it's justified. Human beings don't escape that rules.
We're all trying to be unique and shits while forcing the idea that we're all equal and have the same potential. It's just silly.
I'd like to dig up some links for you but it's hard to find stuff, as it completly vanished from our society. I remember there used to be a trend in europe (mostly France if I recall well) the last century, it was about measuring one's skull shape and based on this explain to him which parts of his brain were well-developped, or not enough. At the time we weren't into neurology yet but it was an approach. The problem with that method is that it could literally slap on your forehead a "Dumb" sticker, because from a scientific point of view, you were characteristic of an idiot.
"Fortunately" these studies ended when Hitler happened, and during the de-nazification times (Which has been extremely efficient) after the War, most eugenic studies the nazis had made as well as similar studies en vogue in that time got burned down.
Right now we're just getting at it again. But as it's a field of study that often goes with facism or right-wing ideologies, don't expect any big news that would be enlightening on the subject anytime soon. Sorry for longpost but maybe it's gonna ring a bell with someone here.
>>788418
>For instance, obviously xenophobia relating to the hijab or someone speaking Spanish, is not instinctual, because that has nothing to do with instincts, but learned cultural differences.
Actually, individuals with at least one prejudice against a minority tend to have many prejudices against many minorities, even completely unrelated ones. This is one of the stronger findings in psychology. IIRC Altemeyer compares the strength of the correlation to the strength of the correlation between human weight and height.
Recommended reading
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf
its learned, entirely
but preveserving your nation is not xenophobia
>>791809
>You know, studies and practice over human breeds have existed for a very long time. It's far from being a social construct.
You don't really get what I mean here. The accuracy which a construction might have does not make it any less of a construction. The true question is "is this construction *good* [reflective of reality]?"; it's not a matter of it being a construction or not. Which brings me to the crispy part of what you're getting at;
>We're all trying to be unique and shits while forcing the idea that we're all equal and have the same potential. It's just silly.
>equal
>same potential
You can't say people are really equal or unequal. People might have different intellectual potential due to their own biological makeup, but whether or not that suggests those individuals should be treated differently from others is an entirely different argument.
>>791809
It's called phrenology. And it's bunk science.
>>789386
>But there ARE categories that DO Matter.
I'm not denying that.
>There are differences between, say, Jews and Arabs or Tutai and Hutu.
Go on.
>an acceptance that there ARE innate differences between people at the Cultural, historical, and biological levels [is] necessary.
>Cultural
Noone denies that to my knowledge, but while the coulture you come from might affect you, it isn't "you".
>historical
The average tumblarian "race is just a construct" is probably going to be bringing up historical difference all the time, they'd be taking your side assuming you agreed upon what those historical differences were.
>biological
Yeah, but as soon as "race" comes into play you almost instantly get a completely unwarranted hierarchy typically based off of traits with little to no correlation or importance, like the "relation" of skin color to IQ.
Let's just say you're the leader of some nation and assume two things for the sake of holding your argument up:
A) there's a fairly strong correlation between IQ and a certain "race" observed in your population
B) you can't afford to allow low IQ individuals to do anything more than the most menial of jobs
Would it make sense to discriminate upon race? Why discriminate upon race due to a correlation with IQ when you could just discriminate upon IQ. If you already have a means of judging IQ there's no reason not to. If it is infact the case that you can't adequately measure IQ, that would mean the perceived correlation was inaccurate anyway. It's so inherently faulted.
>>788418
Why would you be okay with your nation being overrun. Tiny bits of immigration here and there can be a good thing but too much is destructive.
>>788418
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-V0eUKBGFA
a lot
you seem quite low IQ
obviously people aren't born with the knowledge of what a hijab is, but they could be genetically averse to foreigners, and learn that hijabs are something that foreigners wear
>>788418
When I was young I felt no hate towards any other races. After working for and with a lot of east indians and literally 9/10 of them being absolutely disgusting people (self centered, xenophobic themselves, only interested in money) I now judge every one of them as scum before even meeting them. I'm willing to give individuals a chance to prove themselves differently, but I've definitely learned to never trust them.
>>791820
> individuals with at least one prejudice against a minority tend to have many prejudices against many minorities, even completely unrelated ones.
what does "even completely unrelated ones" mean?
I don't think that's an interesting finding.
You have people who believe in lots of differences between races, and people who don't.
Calling people who believe in these differences authoritarian because of this belief is silly. Believing these differences goes against what the "AUTHORITIES" (the government, the schools, the media) say. Not only that, it is one of the most emotionally touchy issues in the mainstream. People will try to ruin your life if you say that whites are better in some way. People who believe whites are better in some way are anti-authoritarian, not categorically, but against the current "authorities"
>>792528
>what does "even completely unrelated ones" mean?
It means prejudice versus races also correlates with prejudices versus sexual minorities and so on.
> Calling people who believe in these differences authoritarian because of this belief is silly.
They're called authoritarian because these beliefs further correlate to strong belief in authority.
>People who believe whites are better in some way are anti-authoritarian, not categorically, but against the current "authorities"
Definitely, but they tend to seek out new authorities that agree with them. Likewise there are radical leftists who would say they are politically anti-authoritarian but would also score very highly on authoritarianism tests.
>>791746
Oh my God yes
>>792589
>It means prejudice versus races also correlates with prejudices versus sexual minorities and so on.
Although you haven't said it, I feel like there's supposed to be a punchline here.
Like "and obviously prejudices regarding races and sexual minorities and so on is 'wrong'.".
I disagree with that.
I can show a whole bunch of bad things about different races eg. crime, children out of wedlock, fatherless children, STDs, low IQs, welfare use, serial killers, child abuse, spousal abuse, drug abuse, mental illness, immorality, their countries being shitty.
Similarly, I can show that gays have ridiculous rates of STDs, mental illness, drug abuse, serial killers, spousal abuse, etc
I think the author of the book might have a whole bunch of false assumptions (eg sexual minorities are just like normal people except for their preferences) which leads them to shitty conclusions
>>792589
>strong belief in authority
when you say this, do you just mean:
>they tend to seek out new authorities that agree with them
or does "strong belief in authority" mean something more than that?
>>792589
and how do they measure belief in authority?
It probably says it somewhere in the book but there's like 300 pages
>>792669
>Like "and obviously prejudices regarding races and sexual minorities and so on is 'wrong'.".
Lots of people would say so, but you're going off on a tangent arguing against a hypothetical position. The only point I was trying to make is that individuals who have some prejudices are likely to have a lot of prejudices, and also believe that children should respect their elders, that what their country needs is a strong leader, etc. I don't get the impression we actually disagree on that.
>I think the author of the book might have a whole bunch of false assumptions (eg sexual minorities are just like normal people except for their preferences) which leads them to shitty conclusions
I think Altemeyer is fairly centrist and finds most prejudices disagreeable, but he's probably to the right of most psychologists and sociologists.
>>792677
>or does "strong belief in authority" mean something more than that?
See >>792692
>also believe that children should respect their elders, that what their country needs is a strong leader
Plus various other beliefs in that vein
>and how do they measure belief in authority?
A handful of psychological tests, mostly involving direct questions about beliefs as above
>>792692
>also believe that children should respect their elders, that what their country needs is a strong leader
alright, I thought he was using authoritarian as some sort of slur. A lot of people in psychology tend to do that.
>>792733
He definitely disagrees with a lot of what authoritarians believe and thinks authoritarian takeover is a risk for democracy, but he does emphasize at points that many people you know are probably authoritarians and perfectly ordinary, nice people
>>788418
Oliver's argument makes no sense, the native Greeks will still die off and the migrants will come to be the "natives" of Greece.
>>792417
>Why discriminate upon race due to a correlation with IQ when you could just discriminate upon IQ.
Your objection would be valid if differentiated standards based on race (ie, lower standards for blacks and higher standards for Asians) did not exist.
>>788972
>members of the islamic community in tokyo
you mean like 40 people
>>792417
from the perspective of a white man, just because it's simpler to write like this:
Regression to the mean. Very smart black people will probably have smart black kids who will probably have slightly smart black kids. This is because it is not only the sum of the genes that contribute to excellence, it is the specific combination of the genes that contribute to excellence.
Even high IQ races like East Asians are a threat because East Asians vote US Dem.
IQ and crime is very important, but some people don't talk about the other big reasons.
Racial diversity itself is bad. Racial diversity causes anomy.
Racial diversity causes people to feel depressed, to feel anxious, to participate less in the community, to volunteer less, to donate less, to be friendless.
Racial diversity causes people to distrust people of other races, the people around them, people of their own race and their own neighbours.
Different races create voting blocs who vote for their own racial interests, competing against the other voting blocs. This means that people focus on points where they conflict, taking the focus away from other issues.
