OK, here is more explaination about what I was trying to say

[SSanf]

I have maintained that people are better advised to choose dates and mates among people like themselves, people usually found within their own group if they want lasting happiness.

That is pretty old wisdom that has been pretty much tried and tested and as far as I am concerned is true.

Since I am clumsy about explaining it and have been accused of everything from racism to Goddess only knows what for holding fast to this opinion, I would like to offer the following, about human biology, from Live Science for your consideration. http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060213_attraction_rules.html


Of course, there are exceptions. There almost always are. But, it is risky business to think that you are going to be that exception. You need to ask what makes you so special that you ARE going to be that exception.

It says in the article that there are many things that make this a complex issue. And, it is complex.
Lasting relationships

The rules of attraction might drive our initial decisions, for better or worse. But lasting relationships are about much more than what we see and smell.

Behavior plays a key role, with biology an intriguing contributing factor.

One of the oldest theories about attraction is that like begets like. It explains that eerie perception that married couples sometimes look awfully similar.

Last year, J. Philippe Rushton, a psychologist at the University of Western Ontario, looked into the relationships of people's genes. Based on a set of heritable personality traits, having similar genetics plays 34 percent of the role in friendship and mate selection, he found.

"The main theory is that some genes work well in combination with each other," Rushton told LiveScience. "If these genes evolved to work in combination, then you don't want to break that up too much for your offspring. Finding a mate with similar genes will help you ensure this."

If your spouse is genetically similar, you're more likely to have a happy marriage, for example. Child abuse rates are lower when similarity is high, and you'll also be more altruistic and willing to sacrifice more for someone who is more genetically like you, research shows.

It probably comes as little surprise people are drawn to individuals with similar attitudes and values, as psychologist Eva Klohnen at the University of Iowa found in a 2005 study of newlywed couples. These characteristics are highly visible and accessible to others and can play a role in initial attraction.

When it comes to sticking together for the long haul, researchers have shown that likeness of personality, which can take more time to realize, means more.

Comedy can also help a relationship. But the importance of humor is different for men and women, says Eric Bressler of McMaster University.

A woman is attracted to a man who makes her laugh, Bressler found in a 2005 study. A man likes a woman who laughs at his jokes. Hey, if you want to toss out a 34% edge toward success and long term happiness in the date and mate business, it is no skin off my nose. But, I wouldn't advise my kids to do it.

And, I won't back down on telling you things that I know to be true even if they are not popular!

[Athena-Nadine]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, just the way you've said it in the past. I agree that people are much better off choosing someone else like themselves in order to form a successful romantc relationship. However, race and ethnicity are only part of the equation. For some, the person most like themselves is someone of a different race.

I've mentioned my grandparents in the past. My grandmother was born and raised in a "proper" White Prodestant New England family. But she turned out completely different in her mind and heart. She was an artist and found her soulmate in my grandfather, another artist, but a black man. If she was like the rest of her family, my grandfather would have been the wrong person for her and I would be someone else. Because of who she was, the "correct" man, according to her family's expectations, would have been a disaster for her.

I hope that all made sense.

[SSanf]

Well, don't you think that is a lot more unlikely that you will find a person from a different race who is genetically similar than to find such a match in your own group?

You will find and love a person from among those that you are exposed to. Dating among your own group will probably give you a better chance of hooking up with someone who has the genetic similarity that helps with long term happiness and success if you want the significant advantages of genetic similarity, which certainly do exist.

That is what I have been saying all along.

Certainly you can find mismatches among your own group. Of course, you can. I am saying it is best to have as much going for you as you can since marriage is hard, anyway you look at it.

You ignore this important, though not liked by some, factor in relationships at your own peril. But, at least, it has been brought to your attention. So, now, you know.

Hopefully, what I have been saying is, now, more clearly understood.

You know, not every truth is a pleasant truth nor what we wish the truth would be. But, it is still the truth.

[Athena-Nadine]

I do think that it's generally true, yes. BUT, maybe I'm not understanding you very well. I mean, what is a genetic match? Genetics is so complicated and contains so many variables. Race and skin color is too simplistic to be the only, or even main, consideration. What about height? What about weight? What about hair color or texture? Bone structure? All of these contribute to an initial physical attraction, but I can't see that they have all that much to do with the long term success of a relationship.

So we take the genetic link further. In all honesty, if I were to choose someone solely based on genetics, upbringing, and what I was used to, my husband would have been an alcoholic, clinically depressed, drug addicted abuser who spent all of his money on his addictions so his family was always being evicted and struggling for food.

Yes, my husband is caucasion, but that's really as far as that goes. In all other things, he is as different as night and day to my family. But so am I.

So even I chose someone completely different than my upbringing and genetics would have pointed to. The similarities are purely on the surface.

Like I said, I don't disagree with your thoughts in theory. I just think it's much more complicated. Skin color and bone structure make up such a tiny part of genetics as to be laughable. In the end, I think culture and personality are far more important.

And no, I don't believe you to be a racist. It is a fact that the vast majority of people we will have things in common with are those who share our culture and personalities, and they often share our race as well. I just don't think that those people are always the ones we expect them to be.

[SSanf]

I don't disagree with what you are saying in principle.

I just think that the more you narrow your group the better your chances to find a good match.

You brought up race as one means of winnowing. Not I. I said, rightfully, that I have been accused of racism because I recommended that people date among their own kind. Needless to say, people read that as "race" because that is something that even the most doltish can grasp as a difference among people. But, I think race is one good one mainly because it is so darned easy, the differences being easy to spot even by the least observant. You just can't simplify too much for some people. But, certainly, there would be other ways of winnowing, too. And, some of those may be better, such as date only those with higher education if you have a higher education.

My previous recommendation was date in your "group" to find a suitable mate, as I recall. That may not be right because the whole conversation was getting out of hand.

Others will maintain that the more you enlarge your group the better your chances of finding a good match. While that has some merit, I disagree with it because when the old mating urge kicks in, you will latch on to whatever is available. So, I think only good matches should be available as much as that can be controlled.

[Athena-Nadine]

I don't disagree with what you are saying in principle. I just think that the more you narrow your group the better your chances to find a good match. You brought up race as one means of winnowing. Not I. I said, rightfully, that I have been accused of racism because I recommended that people date among their own kind. But, I think race is one good one mainly because it is so darned easy, the differences being easy to spot even by the least observant. But, certainly, there would be other ways of winnowing, too. And, some of those may be even better, such as date only those with higher education if you have a higher education.

*...nods...* I see what you're saying here and I really can't disagree with you (but while I've never been called a racist, I have been called a snob for holding similar ideals :lol: ). I only brought up race as an example, and only used it because I know it's been the reason people have most often shut their eyes, stuck their fingers in their ears, and refused to see what you were trying to say. I never said nor thought it was your only consideration--just the most obvious one.

Others will maintain that the more you enlarge your group the better your chances of finding a good match. While that has some merit, I disagree with it because when the old mating urge kicks in, you will latch on to whatever is available. So, I think only good matches should be available as much as that can be controlled.

This I agree with as well, but that's because I've never been one for serial dating. I've always gotten involved with people I've already known or been friends with, for good or ill.

Really, I think if people gave more thought to why they wanted to be with a particular person, other than, "He's hot and I love him!" they'd end up much happier in the long run.

[SSanf]

*...nods...* I see what you're saying here and I really can't disagree with you (but while I've never been called a racist, I have been called a snob for holding similar ideals :lol: ). I only brought up race as an example, and only used it because I know it's been the reason people have most often shut their eyes, stuck their fingers in their ears, and refused to see what you were trying to say. I never said nor thought it was your only consideration--just the most obvious one.



This I agree with as well, but that's because I've never been one for serial dating. I've always gotten involved with people I've already known or been friends with, for good or ill.

Really, I think if people gave more thought to why they wanted to be with a particular person, other than, "He's hot and I love him!" they'd end up much happier in the long run.
You are so on target!

When you read some of the knee jerk reactions, just remind yourself that half the population has an IQ of under 100!

You are obviously not one of those!

[Athena-Nadine]

:lol: We all have knee-jerk reactions to certain things. I've certainly had my share. I was one of the people who had one to one of your posts on this very subject. But I was bound and determined to take the time to look past my initial thoughts to see what you were trying to say.

I have an insatiable curiosity about everything I don't understand and a constant need to look at my own motivations for things that makes me a bit of an annoyance to many at times. ;)

[SSanf]

Thank you for taking the time to understand what I am saying.

My original intent was to give people one more thing to consider when dating and mating. And, to give parents some food for thought when guiding their young, emerging adults.

I am tired of reading about all the people who get hurt because they just don't use their heads or try to act as if the world is as they would like it to be instead of the way it is.

I know failed relationships hurt in a very real way.

My intent, now, is to more clearly explain what I meant since the knee jerk reactions of many posters over shadowed the truth of what I was saying in the first place.

[Athena-Nadine]

*...nods...* I truly hope everyone here can see the spirit of what you're trying to accomplish.

Maybe it's a result of growing older (though I'm only 33), maybe it's a result of experience, but in looking back at every previous relationship, when trying to determine exactly why they were all so unhealthy, I found that it was all due to the choices I was making. All the signs were there, right from the beginning. I just refused to see them--sometimes because I was young and naive, sometimes because I was insecure and unsure of my own worth, sometimes because I wanted to act on the physical attraction so convinced myself it would all be fine. But while I will never accept fault for the abuse and harm others have caused me, I have no choice but to accept responsibility for making the choices I've made when the signs were always in front of me.

I've pissed numerous people off with my opinions, but if I can spare just one person the pain I've lived through in my life, a little anger is well worth it.

You are always blunt in your views, but I've seen enough posts of yours over time to know that you genuinely care about others and only want them to find happiness.

[SSanf]

Yes, quite worth it. I have broad shoulders. I can take it.

Glad to find a kindred spirit.

I hope you keep posting the insights you have gained through living and I will, too.

[SphinYote]

I've not read through everyone's posts, so if someone's already brought this up, my apologies for repeating. I don't disagree with what has been said, it matches many of my observations, but want to add something to the already complex issue:

I find it distinctly ironic that we are culturally (or perhaps genetically), predisposed to choose people from a similar group--the similarities we look for might be in terms of behavior and belief might provide a distinct advantage for the long term in terms of social harmony.

However, genetically speaking (I'm talking about from the perspective of evolution here, which I suppose is debatable in and of itself, but it's what makes the most sense to me), aiming for racial (and thus genetic) similarity would potentially (there are caveats, of which I'll try to address a few shortly) limit the gene pool. Genetically speaking it would be better to reproduce with someone outside the immediate cultural and genetic (and thus possibly racial) proximity. You have greater genetic variation, less possibility for recessive mutations, etc.

Caveats (genetically speaking), which may undermine my argument:

There is significant debate about whether or not the category of race exists genetically speaking. There have been several studies involving genetic testing stating that there is (at least in terms of race being defined in terms of skin color and broad geographic region) on average more genetic variation between individuals of the same race than there is, on average, of genetic differences between two different races as a whole. Of course, that's comparing the difference between two individuals to the difference between two bodies of several million different individuals, and it doesn't take into account the genetic bottleneck generated by social or physical isolation of smaller subgroups (at it's worst causing genetic mutations and disorders due to inbreeding).

Further, if you choose a different set of features than skin color, such as blood type, the geographic borders that form the outer edges where certain blood types are predominant, DO NOT follow the same geogaphic borders as those defined by race in terms of skin color. But things like bloodtype DO follow a pattern according to geographic region.

So yes, the factors are complex, but I find it interesting that our psycholoical preferences, and abilities to get along socially (which I suspect are culturally rather than genetically determined, but I can see both possibilites) go against what I suspect would be advantageous genetically and evolutionarily speaking.

Of course, given the present overpopulation problem (WHich some may disagree about the existence of) clearly we have no problems with reproduction, regardless of who we choose as long-term or short-term partners.

Just some thoughts. I'm kind of thinking things through as I respond, I could be overlooking something obvious, probably am, but at any rate, it is interesting.

[SSanf]

Thank you for your reasoned reply.

I need to read it through again to get the most out of it.

But, I will start with this. I understand that when there is a small gene pool to draw from, the best strategy for survival of the species is to mix them up as much as can be done. When it is a large gene pool, it is best to keep the genes that have proven to work well in combination with each other together.

If we have a population crash, due to global warming or disease, time to mix it up.

Otherwise, staying with your own kind is best.

I think it is irrelevant whether "race" exists or not. There is an obvious genetic grouping that determines the prevalence of certain genetically linked traits that separate groups by physical appearance. That is an undeniable fact to anyone with eyes to see. Whether or not the term "race" or some other appellation is used to designate people with these physical traits into groups is a red herring.

Given that these traits developed over a long period of time when human groups were somewhat isolated from each other, it is also reasonable to assume that other traits that are generally unseen also developed just as much as skin tone and hair texture. These might be such things as a predisposition of one group to have cycle cell anemia or heart condition or life expectancy and even general personality traits.

The bottle neck issue is interesting. We do have some of that in Kentucky. Those groups would appear to need an influx of new genetic material. There is probably some optimal point at which new genetic material should be brought into a given population of a given size.

But, I think the question at hand is not what is best for the long term survival of the species since we currently have enough people. The question is what will most likely lead to a happy and harmonious relationship and will lead to the least probable long term heartache for the people involved.

(I feel sad, that I feel I must bold certain words, in order not to be misunderstood by some who will be determined to misread what I write. But, such is life.)

[Marcasite]

Hmm so if I decided to marry my cousin, we'd be doubly compatible :P
Besides, I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, but there's more genetic variance within a "racial subgroup" than there is between groups so unless you go get your genes analyzed you can't really tell who is more or less genetically similar to you based on race.
That isn't to say cultural differences don't make a difference. But there's an important distinction between culture and race.
I think the most important similarities two people need to have are values and life goals.

[SSanf]

OK, you bring up a couple of issues. As to cousins marrying, they may indeed be doubly compatable. That was not even unusual in many places until fairly recently. Currently in 26 out of 50 states in the United States, and most other countries, first cousins can marry. It is estimated that 20 percent of all couples worldwide are first cousins. It is also estimated that 80 percent of all marriages historically have been between first cousins!

Here are some cousin marriage facts that answer most of your anticipated objections to the arrangement.

http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=facts

The original article stated "having similar genetics plays 34 percent of the role in friendship and mate selection". That means 66% of the factors are other factors than genetics. This, obviously, does not exclude your contention that other factors may, indeed, out weigh the important role of genetics. I am surprised that no one, so far, picked up on that because I was waiting for it to be mentioned.

I have never maintained that only genetics should be considered, just that they should be considered and that they should play a very important role in mate selection, that, in fact, one should make every effort to insure that they are considered when putting your self into an environment that could lead to dating and mating. It tips the chances of success and a happy outcome in your direction. And, Goddess knows, that as hard as marriage is, you need all the advantages you can line up for yourself.

I still feel race, is a red herring when what I am clearly stating is that you should date within your own "group", a place where you are most likely to find genetic compatibility, if you want to have your best chance at harmonious marriage relationships. I think race, alone, is too large a definer and that you need to narrow the field a whole darned lot. Surely, I am not genetically compatible with all white people. That is too large a group to be effective for this purpose.