Columbia university racial preferences in dating

Here’s the only thing of note: Schelling’s (1971) model of dynamic segregation shows that even an extremely mild preference for neighbours of one’s own race may lead to completely segregated neighbourhoods.

In our dating market, however, we encounter a different relationship between micromotives and macrobehaviour: our subjects have a strong preference for partners of their own race, yet the overall level of the resulting segregation is quite small.

The authors note that 47% of matches were interracial, while random expectations would have predicted 53%.

Random mating in the general population would result in 44% of marriages being interracial, while only 4% are.

Finally, I’m totally confused as to why hotties would be less race conscious; you would figure if hybrid vigor is real that the marginal returns would be greatest for the fuglies (specifically, assuming that fugitude correlates with individual mutational load and hybridization would be better at masking that load).

But the most relevant demographic point is that these are Columbia University graduate students.

Subjects’ backgrounds, including the racial composition of the ZIP code where a subject grew up and the prevailing racial attitudes in a subject’s state or country of origin, strongly influence same-race preferences.These and the GSS were used to generate independent variables that could be used to predict the extent to which race might matter.In the end, race didn’t matter that much, just to a statistically significant extent.Older subjects and more physically attractive subjects exhibit weaker same-race preferences.A few points need to be made clear: males do not exhibit statistically significant racial preferences by and large. I’m not surprised that older subjects have weaker biases, I suspect frankly they’re more realistic and don’t want to narrow their options anymore than they have to.

Leave a Reply