/sci/ - Science & Math

A well-known study by Robert D. Putnam found that higher ethnic heterogeneity was associated with lower trust between people, lower social capital and a "hunkering down" where people avoid engagement with their local community. This occurs both between different ethnic groups and within ethnic groups. This has been associated with many negative effects, many of which are mentioned in different sections in this article.[3]

A 2015 study in Denmark found that the negative effect of ethnic diversity on trust occurred when there was high ethnic diversity in the immediate surrounding residential area, but not when the ethnic diversity was further away. This was interpreted as supporting that "interethnic exposure" decreases trust.[4]

A 2019 meta-review stated that "this article reviews the existing literature on the relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust through a narrative review and a meta-analysis of 1,001 estimates from 87 studies. The review clarifies the core concepts, highlights pertinent debates, and tests core claims from the literature on the relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust. Several results stand out from the meta-analysis. We find a statistically significant negative relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust across all studies. The relationship is stronger for trust in neighbors, and when studied in more local contexts."[5]
"The researchers looked investigated whether “continued immigration and the corresponding growing ethnic diversity” have positive impacts on social unity, cohesion, and togetherness. In short, the study found that “continued immigration and corresponding growing ethnic diversity” exerts the exact opposite effect on society. The results mean that it undermines and degrades social cohesion, unity, and togetherness."[6]
Later an Oxford study concluded that the relationship of compromised social cohesion and ethnic heterogeneity is likely causal.
>http://asr.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/04/20/0003122415577989.abstract
>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335924797_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_A_Narrative_and_Meta-Analytical_Review
>https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/civic-engagement-and-community-heterogeneity-an-economists-perspective/B83D5803F1454A16A7080C04A10DE25D
>https://academic.oup.com/esr/article/32/1/54/2404332

if it's bad it would have never been a thing in the first place

>>15913387
Diversity is the most important aspect of human genetics.
We should breed indigenous arctic peoples with indigenous Australians to produce superhumans.

Howdy fellow Americans!

>>15913442
Most genetically distant groups, at least going by Fst are probably Pygmies and Abos. The Fst found in pic rel is so large (0.4287), it really does border on different species.
So yeah, make your Pygmie and Abo master race (if they can even produce fertile offspring).

>>15913471
>0.4287
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature15393
>human genome project reference genome
>max ~0.164 between subpopulations
>gif rel

>>15913531
Well that didn't include Abos or Sub-saharans now did it? Almost like you didn't even bother to read even a little

>>15913540
>Sub-saharans
pygmies*

>>15913540
>>15913543
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13110/humanbiology.85.1-3.0251
>"The FST distances we observe between Philippine and New Guinean pygmies (0.18–0.19) are comparable to the lower range of differences seen between African and non-African populations."
https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.0507611102
>fig 2b most mbuti pygmies cluster around <0.1 with some extreme mbuti/san outliers around <0.2

You do realize genetic distance compared to average variation is different from the utmost extreme distance from individuals with the greatest possible difference, right? If you're going to claim "subspecies" you'd be comparing variation of a subpopulation averaged against the total population averaged. Not the utmost extreme singletons.

>>15913565
What you posted has zero relevance. Unless you're saying that Cavalli took the most extreme outlier singular abo and used only that as his abo reference point. In which case go ahead and show it (pic rel is from book titled "On Genetic Interests by Frank Salter, page 64).

>>15913471
>it really does border on different species
A species encompasses all organisms that can breed together. There are numerous half cast aboriginals

>>15913565
>>fig 2b most mbuti pygmies cluster around <0.1 with some extreme mbuti/san outliers around <0.2
"The data set that we analyzed consists of 1,027 individuals from the HGDP-CEPH Human Genome Diversity Cell Line Panel (10)."
"Notably absent are LCLs from India, rich in genetic diversity (6), and Australia, whose founders arrived quite early in the peopling of the world (7)."

>>15913387
It is called Out breeding Depression.

>>15913602
>A species encompasses all organisms that can breed together.
I've petted a wolf dog.

>>15913609
OK, I should have been more specific.
A species encompasses all organisms that can breed together and successfully create generally healthy offspring without defects

>>15913624
What now? Let's move on.

>>15913624
What's wrong with wolf dogs?

>>15913624
Nice try, but wolf dogs are more healthy than dogs.
They are also clearly labelled hybrid, so why aren't mixed people?
Also this: https://doi.org/10.1002/bdra.20054
We need more evidence, especially regarding intergenerational epigenetic adaptation and short-term health effects.

>>15913599
>What you posted has zero relevance
okay I'll make it simple for you,
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1017511108
maximum difference ~0.23 for pygmies ~0.25 for khoesan. both are overestimated as this is from 2011 based on older data of course but you seem to think pygmies are from Mars so the human genome project african subpop data doesn't count for some reason.

of course calculations are highly sensitive to sample size and selection so it is hardly surprising smaller samples of smaller groups of individuals yield higher upper bound estimates. plenty of papers on that too. long running problem has been lack of pygmy genomes so even in most recent samples you've got an extremely small sample size highly sensitive to outliers.

>>15913606
i don't get your issue. why are you assuming they'd be radically different? take pygmies for example despite very few genomes and even in older samples they're not >>15913733
and they're not very different from their neighbors who are in that sample either.

this is some weird "guilty until proven innocent" shit and it makes zero sense biologically

>>15913733
What are you trying to say? Those still are not aborigines. What are you arguing? Whether it's exactly 0.43 or 0.30 I don't really care. My only point that matters is that Abos and Pygmies are among the most genetically distinct populations as measured by Fst.

>>15913602
I don't know of any half pygmy half abo hybrid.

>>15913769
>What are you trying to say?
average variation is quite small especially relative to other species even at the extremes. the older you go the more extreme the difference seems just from low samples and less ability to test larger portions of genomes
>Those still are not aborigines
and why would they be radically different? you listed pygmies i showed you pygmies.
>My only point that matters is that Abos and Pygmies are among the most genetically distinct populations as measured by Fst.
a lot less than you seem to think and even so with very few individuals and relatively small amounts sampled, which exaggerates that difference as you'll see in super old data. you said they'd be separate species lol no nowhere near the two most divergent humans on earth are less divergent than your average chimp is to the rest of the chimps. or that was the case last i checked

>>15913755
You thought Australian aboriginals were in the dataset. They're not. And now you wave your hands because you do not want to admit that your original comment was not justified.

>>15913783
My "different species" thing was tongue and cheek. I like hard definitions; If Abos and and Pygmies can create fertile offspring then as far as I'm concerned they're the same species.
If you want to argue one race the human race (which was not this OP) I don't care to engage with that nonsense.

>>15913792
>You thought Australian aboriginals were in the dataset.
no i don't see why it matters and a ref genome for that was just published like last year https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04601-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201623
>And now you wave your hands because you do not want to admit that your original comment was not justified.
nope there you go there's the pangenome project data
>>15913793
>If you want to argue one race the human race (which was not this OP) I don't care to engage with that nonsense.
that's just how it is? there's proof of concept mappings aplenty showing it leads to contradictions however you attempt to define "a race" and that's not nonsense. i'd say you could do it yourself but you'd probably need a supercomputer or a dedicated computer running for quite a while

>>15913800
>and a ref genome for that was just published like last year
Then I'm sure that you can provide us a proper updated pairwise fst-matrix.

>>15913656
it's just the dictionary definition
>a set of animals or plants in which the members have similar characteristics to each other and can breed with each other
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/species
If two animals can have children and those children can grow up and have their own children then they're all of the same species. You might be able to call various races of humans "subspecies". But you might as well call them "races" because then people will actually know what you're talking about. But call them subspecies if it makes you feel better I guess
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_taxonomy#Subspecies

>>15913387
how far does it have to be? Will a German and Iranian see negative consequences? What about a Kazakh and and an Italian

>>15913812
>Then I'm sure that you can provide us a proper updated pairwise fst-matrix.
bit delayed got busy doing life things. i checked again and i seem to have fucked up in my ref library. double checked, pangenome data for that doesn't seem to be available yet. thought i had a link for it but copy-pasted the notes wrong and forgot to double check it. ignore that second link i annotated the tags wrong. this is the most recent i know of now https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05896-x and the data isn't in yet for australia.

well making up for that let's just look at all the other data and why i said it doesn't matter,
https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg2016147
there's an MDS plot comparing some european and african populations to the australian indigenous ones and it's not much different from the hapmap data
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13323-015-0024-0
or other PCA or fst matrix pairwise stuff like this one data https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(10)00364-2
same here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3562786/
as you can see from the various comparisons and older datasets there's gradients here of course showing descent but also not much distance. comparisons relative to european or similar populations like the one in utah should be in each of these examples from my cursory glances at them.

of course you could always go by equivalent ratios of how genetic distance shrank with the human genome project compared to Cavalli-Sforza 1994 and just apply that. so australian aborigines should end up much the same way with actual variation turning out to be much less. idk why you wouldn't infer that on your own given that's true of every group so far compared

>>15913599
base on the graph, being chinese, I should have THE SEX with australian to max out the diversity stats for a +4 genetic gains IT IS TIME, TO SEX, WITH THE WHITE, FEMALE, HUMANBEING. reeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>15913624
No it doesn't. Why say shit that was literally refuted and outdated hundreds of years ago?
Fact is 'species' is undefined, anyone who supposes a definition is readily contradicted by another and actual practice of those who decide what goes on the taxonomy.

This notion you regurgitate actually misleads you as to the rather extreme level of interbreeding (and yes with fertile offspring) that is possible and likely normal in the development of life. That is to say, clean genealogies and bounded 'species' may be sorely mistaken.

See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogxim

>>15914679
>Fact is 'species' is undefined, anyone who supposes a definition is readily contradicted by another and actual practice of those who decide what goes on the taxonomy.
More so, if you actually know anything about taxonomy you will find any and all definitions contradicted. There is no one definition compatible and this is immediately obvious. Sometimes it can even be a political or cultural matter.

>>15913531
>>15913540
What's some statistical gibberish got to do with the matter? Taxonomy has never been decided by it and it doesn't tell you actual variation/differentiation so who cares?

if race is only skin deep, how come negroes get sickle cell anemia?

>>15914695
depends on where they're from and which population. many you'd consider black don't have it and never would have it. which is why population ancestry is more helpful to doctors than race as geographic barriers explain things better than "race"

>>15913387
>mixing bad!
>meanwhile one of the most homogeneous populations in the world, South Korea has a birthrate of 0.8, effectively in extinction territory

>>15914704
Importing millions of Indians guarantees their extinction. Not doing so gives them at least a chance. This is not complicated.

>>15914704
>do fine for thousands of years
>don't do fine for the last 20
>the problem is OBVIOUSLY genetic and not cultural

>>15915121
indians have a lot of asian genes anyway so its okay

Some of the top chess players are mix-raced:
-Hikaru Nakamura (Japanese father and american mother)
-Anish Giri (Nepalese father and russian mother)
-Wesley So (filipino-chinese)

>>15915214
>posts a PCA chart showing Indians as very distant from East Asians
what did he mean by this

>>15915246
>PRETTY CLOSE
>very distant
HAH

>>15915246
>>15915249
you'd think "variance explained" being like 2.5% for each axis and even explicitly labeled on each axis might give /pol/tards a clue
a small hint
the teeniest glimmer of the hope of self awareness

Race is a social construct, you mix humans, not races.

>>15913387
All of the things you mention are just caused by racism. You are just describing people that are put in a stressful situation. Yes, mutts have stressful lives, but its not because theres anything wrong with them physically. If they were accepted as normal people they would not have any of these issues.
The evidence exists in the form of huge race mixed populations in latin america. While Latin america isnt a good place to be, it isnt because its people are depressed or prone to mental illness.
You just said it "social isolation". Obviously.

>>15913442
>to produce superhumans
That's not how it works, lol

>>15913387
look around anon. Is society better now or worse than before mass mixing?

We're in a lot of trouble

>>15915350
>no it isn't greed or massive wealth siphoning or anything systemically wrong with society
>it's them dark skins
for people so obsessed with echoes controlling everything you sure like licking the asses of the rich

>>15913387
African black people are the most diverse people on Earth yet they basically never mixed with anyone outside of Africa, which completely destroys the gospel of multiculturalism insisting that racemixing creates diversity. The only lunatics that support diversity are evil bastards who hate white people or people with black people sexual fetishes.

>>15915350
define better, by what metric are we not better now than we were 400 years ago

>>15915350
The only mass mixed societies are Brazil and India.

>>15913387
Not dying alone sounds like a good idea

But am not married

>>15915370
India was mixed 3000 years ago, can you really call them mixed if they've been the same for thousands of years?

global race mixing is inevitable due to passenger jets, unless deep human psychology forces periodic ethnic cleaning to undo race mixing, it should be done every few centuries at least

>>15915482
And by global you of course mean just European countries since everyone is trying their hardest to move there. In 100 years Iran, Nigeria, and Japan (Ostensibly) will still be a thing. Germans, French, and English will be practically extinct.

>>15915488
Latin ametrica was the first mutt society and they got invaded by europeans.
To be fair i think in the future everyone will be black, not race mixed, africans will just migrate out by the tens of billions until the entire earth is black

>>15915511
once nigeria completely destroys its forest in the next 30 years, they will either die off in mass numbers or migrate in the tens of millions in an extremely short period.

We should keep a certain portion of each race pure and isolated so we can have a diverse library of phenotypes to keep our species alive against threats like disease and natural disasters

>>15915365
>or people with black people sexual fetishes.

>>15915488
the only race mixed countries are south american and it was whites who did it

>>15915786
Are anti races technically pure? I imagine when people think of pure they think of something in its original state. This would make sense if races were created as such. Like God created the whites Asians and blacks. But if people now think humans evolved into the different races and that whites and Asians mixed with Neanderthals and things similar, none seem to be pure.

>>15915786
we already do. They're called conservative rural retards.
Those are always pure in every country.
The country will never racemix, because they're so racist and immigrants never go there.

Cities have always been havens for racemixing. You'll find Turks selling kebabs in Tokyo too. You can't keep cities pure, they have too many airports

>>15913387
>citing (((scientific papers)))
kill yourself shill

>>15916309
you have to be 18+ to post here