Mixed race regression to the mean

Since the parents are each below-average to miscegenate according to studies, the average between them isn’t much to write home about.
Hybrid vigour is a myth in humans because of regression to the mean. I didn’t explain this adequately in my hybrid vigour post because I assumed it was obvious statistics, 101.
This applies to any metric and within the same race too, it’s just that the differences inter-racially are more depressing, genetically and literally. IQ, height, blood type, psychiatric risk, cancer risk, menarche, gestation time, forensic facial architecture, lifespan all vary between races. This isn’t good for mixed children than it would have been for the child of the healthier parent with another person of similar health (intraracial). I cover a health study with psychiatric implications lower down.

Galton came up with ‘regression to the mean’ and you can see it here.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/12/a-mediocre-mans-great-son-a-great-mans-mediocre-son/
“What is more curious is how this related to the reality of regression toward the mean. This is a very general statistical concept, but for our purposes we’re curious about its application in quantitative genetics. People often misunderstand the idea from what I can tell, and treat it as if there is an orthogenetic-like tendency of generations to regress back toward some idealized value.”

Remember, geniuses tend to have ordinary children and genius can spring from ordinary parents.
It’s easy to see regression in supermodels. Plain parents, the children of supermodels rarely match their parents, let alone exceed them.
Most mutations are bad. Each child is a petri dish of half their parents.

“So how does it work? A few years ago a friend told me that the best way to think about it was a bivariate distribution, where the two random variables are additive genetic variation and environmental genetic variation. Clearer? For many, probably not. To make it concrete, let’s go back to the old standby: the quantitative genetics of height…..”

Mostly genetic, the ‘nurture’ are epigenetic effects we don’t yet understand e.g. nutrition, less back-breaking work.

This is where many people get confused (frankly, those whose intelligence is somewhat closer to the mean!). They presume that a subsequent generation of mating would result in further regression back to the mean. No! Rather, the expected value of the offspring would be 0.16 units. Why?
Because through the process of selection you’ve created a new genetic population. The selection process is imperfect in ascertaining the exact causal underpinning of the trait value of a given individual. In other words, because height is imperfectly heritable some of the tall individuals you select are going to be tall for environmental reasons, and will not pass that trait to heir offspring. But height is ~80% heritable, which means that the filtering process of genes by using phenotype is going to be rather good, and the genetic makeup of the subsequent population will be somewhat deviated from the original parental population. In other words, the reference population to which individuals “regress” has now changed. The environmental variation remains, but the additive genetic component around which the regression is anchored is now no longer the same.
This is why I state that regression toward the mean is not magical in a biological sense. There is no population with fixed traits to which selected individuals naturally regress or revert to. Rather, populations are useful abstractions in making sense of the statistical correlations we see around us. The process of selection is informed by population-wide trends, so we need to bracket a set of individuals as a population. But what we really care about are the genetic variables which underpin the variation across the population. And those variables can change rather easily through selection. Obviously regression toward the mean would be exhibit the magical reversion-toward-ideal-type property that some imagine if the variables were static and unchanging. But if this was the matter of things, then evolution by natural selection would never occur!”

But IQ is depressed by mutation load, when they talk of ‘cognitive performance’. That’s why geniuses don’t tend to have genius children, and no, well-educated is not a proxy. Chimps can pass tests.

Steve describes regression to the mean in IQ well here.
isteve.blogspot.com/2013/01/regression-toward-mean-and-iq.html

Here’s a 2-minute clip of a professor explaining it.

http://www.unz.com/jman/regression-to-the-mean/

https://humanvarieties.org/2013/04/18/iq-regression-to-the-mean-the-genetic-prediction-vindicated/
“What kind of luck explains the fact that the children of high-IQ parents have lower IQs while they are reared in cognitive stimulating environments, when the children of low-IQ parents who were raised in chaotic environments still have higher IQs than their parents ? The IQs regress halfway (50%) to the population mean at both sides of the IQ distribution. If we stick to the Dickens-Flynn model (2001) of feedback loops, one would expect that children of high-IQ parents have higher IQ and children of low-IQ parents an IQ even lower. But the opposite happens. This criticism, in the end, does not provide any explanation for the fact that the regression is homogeneous across the different levels of IQ. As Jensen made it clear, the IQ subgroups do not depart from linearity for an IQ range going from 50 to 150.
While some say that regression to the mean occurs because of some kind of (random) measurement errors, it should be noted that IQ regression to the mean analyses are usually performed by using the method of estimated true scores, that is, IQ scores corrected for measurement error, or unreliability, with the formula :…”

Rushton brings in r/K theory here

since this mating strategy also differs between race in probability, as much as individuals.
See the number of ‘single mothers’ for irrefutable proof. Domestic violence, rape by race etc.

From The Scientific Study of General Intelligence
“4.7 Blacks and Whites regress toward their predicted racial means”
Scientifically, you’d expect this.
Statistically. As it goes on to say “no culture-only theory predicts these results.”
4.8 details rate of maturation between White, Asian and Black babies. This clearly includes the brain and does impact IQ means.
Black men also average more testosterone, which does explain the rape rates of Africa somewhat and doesn’t form a defense. Black women have it higher too, never seen a feminine jawline on one.
Whites form the medium group, we’re Goldilocks on a lot of this.
“for each characteristic, the mixed race mean fell between…”
As in, not superior than either parent. EITHER parent.
A meta-analysis in Nature back in 2015 with an overly-broad pool prone to Replicability Crisis is not a new study. Height is not a fine metric, it’s too masculine, lung capacity is too specific and ‘cognitive ability’ avoids IQ, the gold and only standard of ‘g’. It doesn’t control adequately for education (see Tiger Moms for how much crazy dominance that can be).

It’s grotesquely unfair to hold these children, already doomed in the dating world, to standards neither of their parents could meet! Is that level of control not child abuse?

I do sympathize with them, it is a plight because they never chose their situation, their terrible, awful parents did.
“As one might expect, on a host of background and achievement characteristics, mixed race kids fall in between whites and blacks…” and they are more antisocial than expected too. They don’t study psychiatric conditions to explain this, as they do with whites.

PubMed published “Health and behavior risks of adolescents with mixed-race identity” which nudges closer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/
Guess the result.
“Most studies are based on clinical reports or reports of mixed-race samples without comparison to single-race groups. It is not surprising that such samples lead to the conclusion of emotional and behavior problems, as clinical samples are self-selected for problems. No national data on adolescents have been reported, except from the sample we used.”
Table 2 is useful: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/table/t2/
“…Mixed-race Whites and Asians show significantly greater risk for considering suicide, having sex, repeating a grade, and being suspended. Support for the hypothesis of greater risk status of mixed race compared with single race is most strongly supported for general health, supported for substance use…”
Ouch, guess Yellow Fever has a toll too.
Pay up.
Table 3 is specfic to combinations of race: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/table/t3/

“These analyses answer the question of whether mixed-race-identified adolescents are at higher risk than single-race-identified adolescents. .. Therefore, the overall inference from the controlled analysis is that the differences between single-race and mixed-race identifiers on the control variables we introduced are not the source of the higher risk encountered by mixed-race adolescents.”
“Previous analyses in this article have been limited to health and behavior risk variables. We examined a set of variables measuring individual and family characteristics that are not in and of themselves health and behavior risk variables, i.e., they are not attitudes, voluntary behaviors, or health symptoms. We offer 4 comparisons (family education, family structure, GPA, and PVT), each of them correlated with socioeconomic status. GPA is a measure of success in school. The PVT is highly correlated with success in school and is correlated with general intelligence tests. Because single-race respondents differ by race on these variables,”

trans. Different races are different.

“it is possible that single-race respondents also differ from mixed-race respondents on the same variables. These measures are all considered here as not caused by personal motivations, decisions, or actions with respect to family structure, family education, and PVT, and at least partially for GPA. They represent cultural opportunities and cultural handicaps. Mixed-race adolescents may be supposed to have had exposure to the cultural fates of 2 racial groups. They may therefore be hypothesized to be between the 2 racial groups with which they identify on such attributes.”

Ding ding ding regression to the mean!

“The general pattern of these nonrisk attributes is that the mixed-race groups have values that are between the values of the 2 constituent races. This lends support to the hypothesis that the mixed-race adolescents have been influenced by both racial groups and, therefore, have an experience that is between those who report the single constituent races.”

The discussion opens:

The preponderance of our evidence supports the conclusion that adolescents who identify more than 1 race are at higher health and behavior risks when compared with those who identify with 1 race only. This applies in a general way and is not distinctive to any particular race combinations. Further, it is not peculiar to any particular type of risk, but to most risks, both health and behavior.
Because risk among mixed-race adolescents is higher for all race combinations, some across-the-board explanation must be inferred….”

Did you guess nurture? They blame nurture.

so we may therefore choose to interpret mixed race as a source of stress. We cannot identify further the source of the stress. Subsequent research can start with the assumption of greater risk for the mixed-race-identified adolescent and try to identify the sources of stress. Only then can we recommend programmatic attention to mixed-race youths.”

Who wants to subject their offspring to that by choice?

What kind of atrocious parents would choose this?

…Isn’t stress biological?

Brazil can openly study it, thanks to demographic necessity.
Historical paper.
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0102-01882016000200107&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en
“In Latin America it was possible to study the negative effects of racial mixing…” – LC Brito, 2016.

Funny story.
Reports about the daughters of white abolitionists marrying blacks in the north were very common in the Southern press. An example was the marriage of Sarah Judson, whose story was published in the newspaper Memphis Daily Appeal in 1859 and according to the author, “would turn the stomach of any white.” The bride, daughter of a “radical abolitionist,” was induced by her father to marry a black man “against the designs of nature.”4″

and the origin of the word ‘miscegenation’:

The Democrats thus used a strategy to link once and for all the image of President Lincoln to the practice of amalgamation. In the heat of the electoral campaign, two democratic journalists, David Goodman Croly and George Wakeman, used a pamphlet called “Miscegenation: the theory of racial mixing applied to the white American man and the black.” The leaflet was false, and the intention of the authors, then anonymous, was to leave the impression of that it had been written by radical Republican abolitionists, supporters of Lincoln and inter-racial marriage. The text had a great repercussion in the North, where the majority of the president’s voters were based, affecting public opinion terrorized by the ideas defended in the pamphlet, which promoted racial mixing as something practiced among the most advanced nations of the world.

The text also pointed to people of mixed race as being the people of the future, a vision not very common in the United States, affirming that mixed races were superior and thereby opposed to the central justification of white superiority: racial purity (Lemire, 2002, p. 116; Fredrickson, 1971, pp. 171-174).

Edit: They believe in superiority but not race (mixed isn’t a race).

A race evolves over millennia in precise environments and overcoming specific (natural) selection events, it’s like saying you invented a primary colour. A human group can’t evolve in ALL/NO environment, especially with no advantageous mutational benefit to the organism’s fitness (why I emphasize health). There are no separate human groupings (sub-species) made from pre-existing groups! It’s logically impossible! It’s a little like cutting a slice of cake and acting like it’s a new, whole cake. The genetic tree doesn’t sprout from air!

Genetically, they’re creating niche sub-subraces with severely restricted breeding opportunities (explaining the IVF rates) and I’ve yet to see a mixed race fertility study go into grandparents and great-grandparents, which could already be done.

As a niche group whose rare mutations are swiftly lost in the blend, we would expect their fertility overall to drop with each generation (this includes mixed White and could explain America).

The pamphlet created the term miscegenation, which from then on would be used to designate mixing between people from different races. “

The propaganda has been in effect for a long time.

“The use of Latin America can be perceived in the section “Superiority of the mixed races.” Here the authors stated that the mixed races were mentally, physically, and morally superior to the pure race which had not mixed, and mentioned the example of the sambos in South America, descendants of blacks and Indians. Once again, Brazil was cited as an example of a country where the people were miscegenated, collaborating with the consolidation of the idea of mixing in the country.”

This 1860 clip from a newspaper is timely.

“Unfortunately, the Brazilian constitution considers all men equal if they are free, whether they are black men or white men. The effects of the equality of these laws do not need demonstration. This has plunged Brazil into a political revolution which has been destroying the Imperial government and its army, the majority of which is composed of blacks who will shortly dictate the terms of emancipation to the nation and the Empire will be converted into another Venezuela.”

Venezuela is currently eating their pets.

Anyway…

“Opposing the thesis of the degeneration of mulattos, the author stated that individuals of a biracial origin also could serve as an intermediate class which could reduce possible racial tensions, as had occurred in Haiti.12″

Serve?

Footnote

“According to the Webster Dictionary (1828), the term mongrel is defined as “of mixed breed, of different kinds, animal of mixed breed.” The word is associated with mingle which according to the same dictionary means ‘mixing’ and also ‘promiscuity.'”

Without specialization, a bereft quality.

You can search that site by subject but this is the only paper I found on ‘racial mixing’. I did try. Moving on…

I need to collate more data on the products of miscegenetion but the data is rarely collected, honestly interpreted and
published openly. The results don’t fit the Narrative.
There are places you can look but they’re too broad in my judgement, and miss fine-grain studies like the Asian myopia risk, based in precise genetic strains.

en.metapedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_race_mixing

http://www.deathofcommunism.josru.com/effects-of-race-mixing

On psychiatric risk,
http://www.sec-ed.co.uk/news/mixed-race-children-at-greater-risk-of-mental-health-issues
whitegenocideproject.com/study-mixed-race-people-have-identity-problems/
https://www.unc.edu/news/archives/oct03/udry10302003.html