>>10982840>You're trying to explain something (people tend to prefer mating with people that are genetically dissimilar to them) which does not actually exist except for very closely related individuals. Incest is very much a relevant issue for the typical Hominid, who knew maaaaaaaaybe two hundred other people. Additionally, we were generally polygynous which makes relatedness an even greater concern. This would encourage regular exchanges of genetic material with other social groups/tribes via peaceful emigration and immigration, taking captives in warfare, or some other process. However, because of simple geography and the existence of prior exchanges, the nearby “alien” groups will tend to already be pretty similar to your own. This is itself easy to witness with the remarkably clinal darkening of skintones you’d observe if you started in Scandinavia and trekked southward through Germania and Russia into the Balkans, then to the Mediterranean, North Africa, and down into central and Eastern Africa. Cultural conditioning is sufficient to overwhelm this natural drive and the concern of inbreeding depression is largely gone in the modern world, but so does the modern world allow for groups that would never interact in the Stone Age, say the Bemba people of Zambia and an Anglo-Saxon, to encounter eachother and exchange genetic material.
>People tend to associate with people that are genetically similar to them your theory predicts the opposite.“Associating” and “impregnating” are different things, and how true is that really when there’s a hundred other “groups” superimposed onto that one?
>Racial sexual preference are a deviation from the general rule.Yes, we call that cultural xenophobia.
>How do stereotypes emerge?Observation combined with bias and a little imagination. Instilling biases in people is trivial and anything but cold fusion.
