/sci/ - Science & Math

https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/biracial-asian-americans-and-mental-health?id=8732

A new study of Chinese-Caucasian, Filipino-Caucasian, Japanese-Caucasian and Vietnamese-Caucasian individuals concludes that biracial Asian Americans are twice as likely as monoracial Asian Americans to be diagnosed with a psychological disorder.

Basically the same as always, way higher risk of mental disabilities (not severe ones like autism as far as I am aware).
Also, the male suffers a lot since it is not accepted by east Asian females that want to preserve their genes. But that has more to do with society than with him.

>>9110684
I gave it a quick skim-read, it is certainly interesting.
However, couldn't this be due to socialization rather than genetics?
That is, due to feelings of dissonance from either culture (East Asian or European) they feel alienated and are thus more prone to mental health disorders?

>>9110685
Intellectual disabilities or what the anon above linked?

I have a master's in genetics. Hybrid vigor generally occurs when one population is inbred to some degree.

A Finn or an Icelandic person, for example, could conceivably benefit from outbreeding with a healthy Chinese or Korean.

I should also point out that inbreeding effects exist on a sort of spectrum, so even if you don't see many obvious cases of serious genetic diseases caused by mendelian traits, there may be more subtle population effects on energy levels, immunity, and other complex traits.

>>9110689
So, unless populations are genetically similar to some extent, miscegenation is a negative?

>>9110690
Given that inbreeding exists on a continuum I wouldn't take the position that there's some sort of a threshold, like you seem to be suggesting but in the aggregate this is likely true. More studies are needed to determine whether the higher rate of psychological disorders are due to society at large, family dynamics, genetics, or some other environmental factor like an autoimmune reaction or microbes.

I'm mixed and I have a high quality of life though, so I wouldn't categorically rule out the option of racemixing. After all, adversity is often a catalyst for self-improvement and philosophical growth.

>>9110690
That doesn't even follow from what he said.

>>9110698
>Given that inbreeding exists on a continuum I wouldn't take the position that there's some sort of a threshold, like you seem to be suggesting but in the aggregate this is likely true.
I was aiming for the latter, an aggregate.
>More studies are needed to determine whether the higher rate of psychological disorders are due to society at large, family dynamics, genetics, or some other environmental factor like an autoimmune reaction or microbes.
Understandable, though I imagine this is one of those controversial things to study.
>I'm mixed and I have a high quality of life though, so I wouldn't categorically rule out the option of racemixing.
Agreed, I'm just simply curious.
>After all, adversity is often a catalyst for self-improvement and philosophical growth.
Well put.
Thank you for laying it out so clearly for me.

>Tries to invalid something markedly more cogent with a cherrypicking meme.
Yeah, no.

>>9110705 is also meant for >>9110693.

>>9110684
4 things:
>It's a single study and only of americans.
>Monoracial asian americans retain asian cultures more, which are more collectivist and suppressive of the individual and their emotions. >Diagnosis figures are not absolute figures - many will not be diagnosed and many will be lazily misdiagonosed.
>The child of a clash of cultures is likely to be less resolute and comfortable with their identity and themselves as a whole.

There is likely a big difference to a non-western influenced Japanese girl and a non-international american white boy. When compared to just two americans.
>

>>9110705
>cogent
A non sequitur is anything but cogent.

The absence of so-called "hybrid vigor" is not a negative. So your statement quite simply doesn't follow.

>>9110714
Says you, take a look at Arnie's other children with Maria Shriver you sophist:
>Katherine Schwarzenegger
>Christina Schwarzenegger
>Patrick Schwarzenegger
They're all reasonably attractive, even Christopher Schwarzenegger isn't that unattractive when he's slim.
So I'd say out, out of the two fallacies, your entire 'argument' being sophistry is overly worse than over reductionism.

>>9110716
>focusing on the meme joke image instead of on the meat of the argument
>y-your fallacy is worse than mine!1!
Thanks for the entertainment.
You shitted out a non sequitur and you should feel embarrassed.

>>9110720
Ah, so:
>That doesn't even follow from what he said.
Was the "meat" of your "argument"?
Whoa, so 'very robust'!

>>9110681
Do they have this PHENOTYPE?

>>9110681
Finn & Russians = 20% Mongol + 80% White
Conclusion: Half Asians are EBIN :DDDD

>>9110724
Here it was (>>9110714):
>The absence of so-called "hybrid vigor" is not a negative. So your statement quite simply doesn't follow.
Feel free to address it. Keep in mind you admitted to committing fallacy (>>9110716).
>So I'd say out, out of the two fallacies, your entire 'argument' being sophistry is overly worse than over reductionism.
Back to /pol/ now, young faggot.

>>9110681
Half Asian half white waifus are superior.
Pic related.

If >>9110714 is the "meat" of your argument, then it isn't related to >>9110698 and is therefore an entirely new argument as a replacement for your original weak "argument".
Therefore, the true non sequitur in this whole 'exchange' is >>9110720.
Well done, sir, well done.
You're guilty of your own favourite fallacy.

If you're not sexually selecting EXCLUSIVELY for the PHENOTYPE you are just wasting your time.

You need a brain bull like Witten to impregnate your wife to even STAND a chance in the increasingly competitive service economy.

>>9110754
>that meme image had nothing to do with your argument! n-non sequitur! ha!
All these posts and mental contortions, but you have yet to offer even a single defense of the statement that I said didn't follow.

>>9110763
What if I told you I have THE PHENOTYPE and maternal Ashkenazi genealogy?

>>9110788
>M-my s-s-subtle rhet-rhetorical i-inference is a s-statement, s-sir.
No, if you didn't state it, then it isn't a statement.
If I have to infer something (subjective) and draw the same conclusion as you (subjective), then it wasn't that well stated.
We aren't the same person, despite obviously sharing autism.

>>9110763
>brain bull like Witten
okay this meme is getting good I'm so sorry for doubting it

>>9110733
That's actually a very interesting image.
Thank you for the deep-think.

>>9110688
What anon linked above, mostly. There are several studies out there, I a pastebin link full of studies and other stuff but that is mostly about race mixing in general.

>>9110698
>extreme cherry picking
>filename
back to /r/eddit maybe?

>>9110790
>sharing autism
No, it's just you, trust me.

>subtle
It was very clearly stated: "That doesn't even follow"
You might be retarded.
The absence of so-called hybrid vigor is not a negative; therefore, your statement
>So, unless populations are genetically similar to some extent, miscegenation is a negative?
doesn't follow logically from
>Hybrid vigor generally occurs when one population is inbred to some degree
Now, we're again at the part where you're supposed to respond with a defense of your logic. I know this concept is new to you but give it a shot.

>>9110812
Do you have the link to that pastebin, anon?

>>9110940
I think it's this one.
https://pastebin.com/BtA2zJsX
There is a study in it about "whites" mixing with east Asians near the beginning.

>>9110948
Thank you, anon.

>>9110883
Not even that guy but OUTBREEDING depression exists too. You're sort of being pedantic.

>>9110681
I think you pol is the other way anon

>>9110961
There's literally nothing /pol/ about my question, you edgy denialist.

>>9110961
>science I don't like is /pol/

>>9110689
Hybrid vigor has only been observed on plants

>>9111023
>>9110963
>hurr durr science
>doesn't read what people are talking about
dem veiled poltards

>>9111066
Well, they are talking about studies and(and?) science, just because it doesn't fit your distorted view doesn't mean it should be in the politics board.
No one is talking politics here.
Also, there is no right wing of left wing science.
There is science.
Sorry if your opinions don't match reality.

>>9111078
>trying to sound reasonable
yeah nice deflection
Cute that you automatically assume I'm a leftist
I don't even have a political alignment I just hate poltards like you

>>9111086
VERY weak bait

>>9111086
>Cute that you automatically assume I'm a leftist
Cute that you actually outed yourself as leftist. All I said about left or right is "Also, there is no right wing of left wing science.".
At this point I assume you are not even trying anymore.
>I hate no political alignment, I just hate x people in politics
Also I didn't defend /pol/ or anything, literally all I did was link some articles. And you seem pretty butthurt about it, talking politics and stuff. I'm reporting you for keeping politics out of /pol/.

>>9111086
They didn't assume you were a leftist, in fact, they didn't assign you or anyone a political label.
Simply they told you that mathematics and science are not partisan, they are apolitical.

>>9111100
>racemixing
>science
>apolitical
>2017
Yeah you're going to have to try harder

>>9111088
Not bait

>>9111095
>being butthurt
Can't separate racemixing from politics in today's social climate. Pretending you can is cute but you aren't fooling anyone. You are painfully naive or trolling

>>9111112
>>>/pol/

>>9111112
Your bait is getting to weak even for me.
You've been proved wrong many times by many different people but this is too much. Just because group a wants y to be true doesn't mean you support it or anything if you prove that this y thing is actually true.
This is the end, if you want to say anything else, read all the replies other people gave you a second time.
Your nonsense and short answers prove that you didn't read it well enough.

>>9111120
Yes I agree, OP should take this to pol

>>9111123
You are the only one talking politics right here, everyone else is talking science.
Science belongs to /sci/, politics to /pol/.

>>9111121
>even for me
>expects me to read thinly veiled pol propaganda
>thread starts off with i don't know fucking anything but
Entire thread is bait

>>9111125
just stop replying and report him for derailing the thread

>>9111126
>Can't ask questions.
>That makes you /pol/.
I guess /sci/ is dead then, thanks newfag!

>>9111125
This.

>>9111125
PHENOTYPE is a Biological Concept rooted in Genetics.
More related to Biology than Politics.

>>9111638
This, PHENOTYPE is everything.