Oh, oh. As someone who is generally curious about everything, and who aspires to ask tough questions about anything, the following study did get my mind going. But dare I go there publicly?
In, Many US women have children by more than one man I learned,
The first national study of the prevalence of multiple partner fertility shows that 28 percent of all U.S. women with two or more children have children by more than one man.
Hmm. Quite a few. It should be noted, however, that the above is not about fidelity/infidelity, for having children by different men can be the result of a number of serial, yet monogamous, relationships.
The source of the data seems okay. Not stellar, but worth consideration.
Dorius analyzed data on nearly 4,000 U.S. women who were interviewed more than 20 times over a period of 27 years, as part of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. The data included detail on individual men in each household, capturing what demographers call “relationship churning.” For nonresidential relationships, Dorius triangulated information from mother and child reports to establish common paternity. [bold mine]
I’m not sure about that “triangulated” element. I wonder how it was performed. While I would take the finding with a grain of salt, I certainly wouldn’t dismiss it outright.
What I found most eye-raising was the absolutely mammoth difference in rates for differing races.
Rates of having children by different fathers:
White females = 22 percent
Black females = 59 percent
(I didn’t just go there, did I?)
Before any liberal reader gets their undies in a bunch, let me loudly declare, OF COURSE social, economic and cultural factors play huge role in those numbers, as study author Cassandra Dorius states. OF COURSE!
But as a liberal who puts science ahead of politics when attempting to better understand any phenomenon, I wonder if there is any genetic component to the above finding. For we do know that genes play a role in human behavior. And studies into racial differences in health and longevity seem to suggest there may be an influence in that area.*
And then there is the rate for Hispanic females.
Hispanic females = 35 percent
Which is 13% more than whites, 24% less than blacks. Hmm. First thing that comes to mind: potentially huge socio-cultural differences. But that is quite a remarkable gap. Is it all socio-cultural?
So many factors, so many questions. But should we let political correctness step in they way of attempting to most objectively understand? I don’t think so. And so I ask questions. I go there, wherever there is.
-
[recycled material - first appeared here]
Evolutionary psychology is a fascinating field of conjecture study. Yes, the data it relies upon is indirect and thus ideas based upon it should be expressed tentatively. Still, I’m drawn to it, as a child in a zoo seeing a solo rhinoceros for the first time might be drawn to the animal’s horn. What is that for?
When I scan headlines for science news, titles like this one will catch my eye: Xenophobia, For Men Only.
Hmm. What’s this about?
It’s known that people are more fearful of “out-groups” – that is, people who are different from them, and this fear of “the other” has been clearly demonstrated with race. But Navarrete found that volunteers’ most persistent fears were reserved for men – that is, male members of the out-group. So white men and women feared black men, and black men and women feared white men; all the other lab-induced fears, including any conditioned fear of women diminished.
Shouldn’t the title then be, “Xenophobia, Of Men Only”? Further tests revealed that -
Those with close relationships outside their own race had less persistent fears than did those with little interracial experience.
Interesting and potentially helpful.
The article ends with, surprise, a tentatively worded explanation.
Why would gender influence these ingrained fears as much as race? It may be that men were more often the aggressors over evolutionary time, so that male faces became a potent cue for danger. So xenophobia is not an equal-opportunity emotion.
Evolutionary psychology doesn’t “close the book” on an inquiry with neat, tidy and complete solutions. It opens it.
My hunch: If marijuana were traditionally consumed in liquid form — as a tasty beverage with or without a tiny paper umbrella protruding out the top — it would be legal today. Although it continues to be illegal in the vast majority of U.S. regions, some cities, and even the entire state of California, have rethought or are rethinking it’s legal status.
Over the past decades a big argument against legalization was the claim that marijuana is a “gateway” drug. That it leads to the use and possible addiction to harder, more physically and socially injurious drugs.
Is marijuana a gateway drug? The answer to that question depends upon what studies you consider. From some research the logical conclusion would be, seems so. From other research, maybe not.
A recent study falls into the second category.
New research from the University of New Hampshire shows that the “gateway effect” of marijuana – that teenagers who use marijuana are more likely to move on to harder illicit drugs as young adults – is overblown. [source]
Reading and thinking carefully here, the use of the word “overblown” suggests there may be a small link, a minor influence of marijuana use on whether or not an individual later uses other, more truly dangerous drugs.
Oh darn. Damn those precise scientists! Can’t give us a completely black or completely white answer! We’ll have to go to a preacher or politician for one of those.
Additionally, the small gateway effect appears transient.
[O]nce young adults reach age 21, the gateway effect subsides entirely.
Drug use is a complicated subject. A couple other variables that seem involved were exposed by this study. The first being employment. When gainfully employed, individuals are much less likely to “move on” to the use of harder drugs.
And then there was this surprising finding (at least to me) -
The researchers found that the strongest predictor of other illicit drug use appears to be race-ethnicity, not prior use of marijuana. Non-Hispanic whites show the greatest odds of other illicit substance use, followed by Hispanics, and then by African Americans. [emphasis added]
Hmm. Now that’s food for thought. No, not hash brownies. Regular food. At least not until you punch-out on Friday.
There may be less to the concept of race than previously thought. By me — at least in one regard. (Your thoughts may differ.)
In the Eurekalert news release, Disparities in cardiovascular risk based more on socioeconomic status than race, ethnicity, I learned:
A new UCLA study suggests that disparities in cardiovascular disease risk in the United States are due less to race or ethnicity than to socioeconomic status.
Notice the degree words? More and less. Not either/or. Absolute and exclusive, black/white thinking is especially problematic in the domain of the social sciences. It’s just so darn difficult to completely isolate and tease out the influence of fully circumscribed variables. But you can try. As the researchers for the study in question did.
To separate out socioeconomic risk differences from racial and ethnic differences, the researchers examined socioeconomic disparities separately within the racial and ethnic groups.
The finding -
The researchers found that the lower the socioeconomic status, the higher the risk — in all racial and ethnic groups. A large fraction of the difference in cardiovascular and diabetes risk could be linked to differences in lifestyle. For instance, there is more smoking, less physical activity and more obesity among the poor.
Interesting.
Science is the most potent tool we have for determining what is true. Yet science isn’t perfect and doing science isn’t easy. Still, how else are we going to attain a more accurate understanding of the human world and entire universe?
Back to race. I hold open the possibility that in other regards there may be more to race than previously thought. Not because I’m racist, but because I am skeptical and open-minded. Of course, I’m not going to put any stake in the possibility unless there is reason to. Scientific reason.
I’m dating myself here, but I’m going to go ahead and do it. I’m going to quote lyrics from a song I remember hearing decades ago.
“Half Breed” by Cher
[CHORUS:]
Half-breed, that’s all I ever heard
Half-breed, how I learned to hate the word
Half-breed, she’s no good they warned
Both sides were against me since the day I was born
That’s the old. Now the news. A study on “mixed-race” people generated these results:
“A random sample of black, white, and mixed-race faces was collected and rated for their perceived attractiveness. There was a small but highly significant effect, with mixed-race faces, on average, being perceived as more attractive.” [source]
So it appears there is an upside, at least today, for being of racially divergent parents. As to the why of the attractiveness, Dr Michael Lewis of Cardiff University’s School of Psychology speculates . . .
“The results appear to confirm that people whose genetic backgrounds are more diverse are, on average, perceived as more attractive than those whose backgrounds are less diverse. This can be taken as evidence for heterosis [hybrid vigour] among human population groups.
Of course, a downside to looking different can still exist, even when the different looks are perceived as attractive. Consider the fact that for ages men have perceived “the opposite sex” — women — as attractive, but haven’t necessarily treated them with dignity, respect and equal rights.
One final thought. I find the results intriguing in that they may reflect what could be described as an extension of an anti-incest instinct. By mixing new genes into a gene pool you can make it healthier.
So go ahead. Love Cher and all those other mixed-breeds. In all sense of the word.
Recent Comments