Suppose I on average found category X of dissimilar people, less attractive because they are different, this would not mean I would find every member less attractive than average.
Okay. That definitely makes more sense.
Also historically, people really haven’t been that picky, its amazing to what extent we chose those that are available. While barriers between populations that coexist on the same territory do exist, they are not absolute. And all else being equal the smaller group will quickly become basically a hybrid population, while the larger population will still have a bunch of people who match their previous genetic profile. To give an extreme example If you are the last member of your tribe, the only way you get to mate is to find a partner outside your tribe.
While I can certainly understand why minorities would mix with majorities, that doesn’t really explain the opposite.
But I suppose the opposite isn’t really that true. After all, looking at America, we see that blacks have lots of european ancestry, but we don’t really see whites having lots of african ancestry (unless I’m mistaken). My example with Jews explains how Jews took from the majority populations, not the other way around.
And upper class people of European and native American ancestry are called “white” in many places in Latin America.
The majority and minority group, by definition are called different if they consider themselves different, otherwise there is no minority.
But consider the toy model of a society made up 90% of group C and 10% of group D. There is no discrimination, no class differences, no differential birth rates, no selection pressures, no gene expression complications, no differences in cultural norms. I don’t know why in the world they call themselves C and D then or why any researcher would divide them into two groups for the purposes of a study, but lets say for the sake of argument they do.
Lets say you have X generations later, purely from a genetic perspective a 80% group C, 5% group D and 15% hybrid CD. Lets say you have x+n generations after 60% group C and 40% group CD.
Regardless of whether Hybrid group CD identifies as “C” or as “D”, biologically speaking the minority population is the one that hybridised, perhaps even vanished if they where tiny enough.
Okay. That definitely makes more sense.
While I can certainly understand why minorities would mix with majorities, that doesn’t really explain the opposite.
But I suppose the opposite isn’t really that true. After all, looking at America, we see that blacks have lots of european ancestry, but we don’t really see whites having lots of african ancestry (unless I’m mistaken). My example with Jews explains how Jews took from the majority populations, not the other way around.
Thanks for the clarification.
That’s because people of mixed European and African ancestry are called “black”.
And upper class people of European and native American ancestry are called “white” in many places in Latin America.
The majority and minority group, by definition are called different if they consider themselves different, otherwise there is no minority.
But consider the toy model of a society made up 90% of group C and 10% of group D. There is no discrimination, no class differences, no differential birth rates, no selection pressures, no gene expression complications, no differences in cultural norms. I don’t know why in the world they call themselves C and D then or why any researcher would divide them into two groups for the purposes of a study, but lets say for the sake of argument they do.
Lets say you have X generations later, purely from a genetic perspective a 80% group C, 5% group D and 15% hybrid CD. Lets say you have x+n generations after 60% group C and 40% group CD.
Regardless of whether Hybrid group CD identifies as “C” or as “D”, biologically speaking the minority population is the one that hybridised, perhaps even vanished if they where tiny enough.
The point is the minority population becomes the hybrid, and the majority population changes relatively less.