Racial genetic interests

From Metapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Race research
Race differences
Arguments regarding the existence of races
Race and crime
Race and health
Race and intelligence
Race and intelligence: The genetics or not debate
Countries and intelligence
Race and morphology/physiology
Race and sports
Racial awareness
Differential K theory
Human Accomplishment
Other race differences
Related research areas
Boasian anthropology
Contact hypothesis
Effects of race mixing ‎
Ethnic heterogeneity
Genetics denialism
Inbreeding depression and
outbreeding depression
Pathological altruism
Racial genetic interests
Recent African origin of modern humans
Smart fraction
The sociologist's fallacy
White flight
White demographics
divided societies
Affirmative action
Civic nationalism
Contact hypothesis
Effects of race mixing
Ethnic heterogeneity
Hate crime
Islamization and anti-Islamization
Magic dirt
Melting pot
No-go area
Political spectrum
Racial genetic interests
White demographics
White flight

Racial genetic interests refers to argued common genetics interests of the members of race. Giving support to other members of the race that a person belongs to is argued to increase the probability of survival of a person's genes. This is argued to have caused effects such as genetically influenced preference for and altruism towards the race a person belongs to. It can be seen as an extension of the genetically caused preference for and altruism towards relatives (kin altruism).

"Genetic similarity theory" and "ethnic nepotism"

The phrase "ethnic nepotism" is sometimes used for the argued preference for and altruism towards the race/ethnicity a person belongs to. However, the phrase can be seen as problematic, with "ethnicity" being a word with many interpretations (often emphasizing cultural aspects instead of genetic aspects) and with "nepotism" being associated only with family relationships as well as being negatively associated with corruption.

An ethnic group often has a belief in a common origin. Genetic research has shown that this is usually correct.[1] Thus, common (cultural) ethnicity is often associated with similar (genetic) race.

"Ethnic nepotism" has many similarities to the genetic similarity theory and the two theories are often discussed together. One difference is that the genetic similarity theory usually refers to effects on the individual level, while "ethnic nepotism" refers to effects on the group level.

Aspects of the theory

Even very young children know which ethnicity they belong to and usually show a clear preference for other persons from this ethnicity.[2]

Patriotism has usually been seen a virtue and has often been described by using terms similar to ones used for relatives (such as Fatherland and Motherland).[2]

One aspect of the theory is a preference for persons sharing the same language, religion, clothes and physical appearance, since this (at least in early societies) indicated a person from the same ethnic group and a person with similar genetics.[1] It has also been argued that different ethnic groups may purposefully have increased such differences, which may have been evolutionary useful (for example by allowing easier detection of intruders).[2]

Ethnic nepotism is one explanation for why increased ethnic heterogeneity decreases trust and cooperation. This is one explanation for why risky projects are often organized along ethnic lines. Examples include business networks, organized crime, and political dissidents organized along ethnic lines.[2]

It has been proposed that the caste system in India has had such a long-lasting and large influence due to it being based on more fundamental racial/ethnic differences and ethnic nepotism. It has thus been argued that the higher castes are genetically relatively more similar to Europeans than the lower castes, who are genetically relatively more similar to other South Asians.[2] (This is likely due to an early invasion of India by Indo-Aryans).

Ethnic nepotism may occur in the academic community. One study examined citations by North American social scientists. The names of social scientists were classified as Jewish, non-Jewish, or other. The study found that social scientists cited persons from the same category more often than expected. The same result was seen even among prejudice researchers. The results could not be explained by "differential assortment of researchers by ethnicity to research topics, and selective citation of acquaintances' works".[3][1]

Ethnic nepotism provides one explanation for phenomena such as kamikaze pilots or suicide bombers, where persons sacrifice their lives for the perceived benefit of their group. This since it may have been evolutionary advantageous under certain circumstances for persons to take great risks or sacrifice themselves in order to ensure the survival of a genetically related group.[2]

There may be decreased identification with and empathy for same race individuals who are friendly with other race individuals. Thus, a 2014 study found that Blacks who viewed photographs of other Blacks with White friends saw these Blacks as being less Black and empathy towards these Blacks decreased. In contrast, when the Blacks viewed Whites with Black friends, this did not increase the empathy for these Whites.[4]

Political agendas and ideologies may often fundamentally reflect ethnic nepotism. People have been argued to favor a particular ideology partly based on how beneficial it is assumed to be for the ethnic group an individual belongs to. This may be the case even if not openly stated. Examples include religious movements such as Islamism, which may be associated with particular ethnic groups.[2] The Culture of Critique series have argued that several different ideologies have been created/influenced/supported by many Jews, since these ideologies were seen as beneficial for Jews.

Frank Salter and ethno-racial genetic interests/nationalism

A review of a paper by Frank Salter states that "Dr. Salter’s paper can be summarized as follows. Ethnies (and races) are large reservoirs of genetic interests for group members. Ethnic genetic interests are real and vitally important. Genetic kinship can be calculated, and the harm to any person’s (or group’s) ethnic genetic interests resulting from alien immigration can be quantified. Immigration of even closely-related groups has a negative impact on genetic interests, and this detrimental influence increases rapidly with greater genetic distance. Putting this detrimental impact in the form of “child-equivalents” is a particularly powerful way of demonstrating these effects. If people of European descent understood that every non-white face they see is diminishing their personal and group interests they might begin to understand they are being ill-served, at a fundamental genetic level, by non-European immigration and the ideology of multiculturalism.[5]

Finally, Dr. Salter’s paper stands as an objective, scientifically sound justification for the activist pursuit of ethnic and racial interests. Liberals cannot deny the facts discussed here, nor can they deny that they point to the necessity of European ethno-racial nationalism. The formation of ethnic-based national states is the most efficient way of safeguarding ethnic genetic interests."[5]

Salter's arguments, stated also in his book On Genetic Interests, are discussed in more detail in the following sections.

Examples of genetic interests of ethnic groups

"Perhaps the most important conceptual breakthrough in On Genetic Interests is to recognize that loyalty to one’s ethny — Dr. Salter prefers this term to race, nation, or ethnic group — is just as valid biologically as loyalty to one’s children. This is because each ethny is a storehouse of its members’ distinctive genes, just as children are carriers of their parents’ genes. A person’s children are very concentrated stores of his genes, but his ethny is a vastly larger, though more dilute, pool of the same genes. Given the size of most ethnies, they are repositories of far more copies of a member’s distinctive genes than even his own children, and therefore have a theoretical genetic claim to loyalty even greater than that of his children."[6]

An example is that "In an ethnically mixed society of French and Japanese, an ethnic group numbering one million carries 120,000 copies of each member’s genome. By comparison, a family of three children carries 1.5 copies of each parent’s genome. If children represent parents’ “reproductive interests” or “genetic interests”, ethnic groups represent a much greater interest for their members. Genetically speaking, our ethnic families are 5 or 6 orders of magnitude larger than our nuclear families. The emotions that so often mark ethnic affairs begin to make sense, even though they evolved in small scale societies with smaller genetic aggregates. Genetic survival is at stake in the welfare of our ethnic groups as it is in the welfare of our children."[7]

Another example demonstrating that ethnicity can create powerful evolutionary effects is by considering genetic data on the French and the Japanese and a theoretical ethnically heterogeneous population consisting of both French and Japanese individuals. In such a heterogeneous population, the relative genetic similarity between average French-French individuals and between average Japanese-Japanese individuals corresponds to the genetic similarity that is found, in an ethnically homogeneous population, between an individual and his/her great-grandchild or between first cousins.[1][7]

Ethnicity and territory

One very advantageous strategy for a genetically similar group is to control a territorial area and its resources and to exclude non-group members from this territory. Certain events may temporary greatly reduce the population size (such as famines, epidemics, or wars), but as long as the group retains control of the territory (and there are no recent inventions such as contraception), it is possible to relatively quickly rebuild the population size to the maximum carrying capacity of the territory. This is argued to be one explanation for the great importance ethnic groups have placed on controlling territorial areas.[8]

All hunter-gatherer societies (as well as chimpanzees who are humanity’s closest relatives) have been stated to defend their territories against incursions by neighbors. More generally, persistent ethnic identities all include a territory as part of their identities, either presently or once occupied by the group. Removed from its land, a tribe’s social organization tends to break down, reducing its ability to maintain independence and continued existence. These instincts may to some degree be shaped by culture and strengthened by tribal rituals that cause individuals to identify and bond with the group’s territory or past territory.[8]

Thus, territory has been described as an essential part of nationhood: "[A people constitute] a nation because they are conscious of being “members one of another” and of being different from the peoples of other lands. They are, and always have been, an inbreeding people. They have a particular affection for their native land. . . . If their country or its people are in jeopardy . . . they rally to its defence; they would give their lives freely to preserve the integrity of the land and the liberty of its people.. . . They are sharers in a common interest and in a common destiny; they hope and believe that their stock will never die out. They inhabit a sharply delimited territory and claim to own it."[8]

See also the article on the Competitive exclusion principle.

Ethnicity and immigration

Immigration by members of other ethnicities into a territory inhabited by another ethnicity is contrary to the genetic interests of the native ethnicity. This since there is a maximum population carrying capacity of a particular territory. Immigration by other ethnicities therefore reduces the maximum population size of the native ethnicity.[8] The effects of immigration are even more severe if the newcomers are of low productivity and drag down the carrying capacity of a territory.[6]

This can be seen as irrelevant in some particular modern societies having large agricultural surpluses (which does not apply to large parts of the modern world) and there thus currently being enough food for both natives and immigrants. However, for most of human evolutionary history, humans have had population sizes close the maximum carrying capacity of the territories they inhabit and with further population growth being prevented by factors such as famines. Human evolutionary psychology is argued to be adapted to such historical societies.

Furthermore, also in the modern world there is a maximum carrying capacity of territories and the world as a whole. The present world population has been argued to be long-term unsustainable and only temporarily sustained by causing ecological damage and long-term loss of carrying capacity. Thus, even those areas that currently have an agricultural surplus may not in the future do so. This means that currently occurring immigration of non-native ethnicities to such areas may in effect reduce the future maximum population size of the native ethnicity (or native ethnicities, if several).[8]

How damaging immigration is to the genetic interests of a native ethnicity (or native ethnicities), current or future, assuming that the natives are in effect displaced by the immigrants, depends on how genetically distant the immigrants are. Immigrants that are genetically very similar will in effect not greatly harm to the genetic interests of the natives. The opposite occur with genetically very different immigrants.[8]

The harmful effects on genetic interests by immigration of genetically different immigrants have been argued to be very large. It has been calculated that "it would appear to be more adaptive for an Englishman to risk life or property resisting the immigration of two Bantu immigrants to England than his taking the same risk to rescue one of his own children from drowning".[8]

Future race mixing will not change the situation, because what counts is the proportions of a people’s distinctive genes in a territory, irrespective of how they are mixed.[8]

Consequently, the immigration policies of the overwhelming majority of societies has been argued to be slight variations on a total ban.[8]

"If one construes ethnically-restrictive immigration policy as a form of inter-group competition, then the American majority would have been handsomely rewarded in terms of genetic continuity had it engaged in competitive behavior of this form by maintaining the quota system put in place in 1924. This system was aimed at maintaining the ethnic proportions that existed within the country in the late 1800s. Conversely, efforts by minorities—meaning lobbying efforts within the country combined with instances of illegal entry, work, and residence—to overturn that quota system and widen the 1965 open door constituted acts of competition with the ethnic majority. Those efforts, combined with other lobbies such as some employers seeking cheap labor, has decreased white genetic interests more than all American war losses combined."[8]


The hormone and neurotransmitter oxytocin has been described as a "bonding hormone" and as being involved in behaviors such as trust, attachment between individuals, pair bonding, and maternal behaviors. It has also been argued to have an important role regarding group attitudes and group behaviors related to ethnic nepotism. Administration of oxytocin increases positive attitudes/altruism towards the in-group and to a lesser extent decreases this towards the out-group.[9][10][11]

Race and perception

There are several phenomena related to the perception of race that may be related to ethnic nepotism.

Preference for own race in infants

Studies have found that three months old infants have a preference for faces from their own race.[12][13]

Other research has found results such as support for that infants prefer to learn from adults of their own race. Such findings were argued to be notable because they contradict the belief that racial bias is associated with negative experiences a person may have had with other-race individuals. In other words, the children were simply too young to have memories of such experiences.[14]

"Cross-race effect"

The "cross-race effect" (alternative terms include "cross-race bias", "other-race bias" and "own-race bias") refers to the tendency to more easily recognize individual members of one's own race. In particular, the term refers to such effects regarding facial recognition. It has been observed in different races and countries.[15]

One proposed explanation is less contact with and thus less experience with identifying members of other races. This has received some support in studies. Thus, Blacks and Whites emphasize different facial traits when they describe faces and place more weight on traits that is particularly useful for identifying members of their own race. For example, Whites places more weight on eye color and hair color than Blacks. Increasing contact with members of other races does increase the ability to recognize individuals, but the effect is relatively small. Furthermore, the "cross-race effects" can be decreased by training, but this improvement tends to decrease after a while.[15]

Another explanation that has received support in studies is that how another individual is categorized in itself contributes to the "cross-race effect". Thus, if another individual is categorized as belonging to another race, then this individual will be perceived more stereotypically and later facial recognition will be impaired.[15] This and other effects has been argued to support that the brain very early during perception categorizes other individuals as belonging to the same race or to a different race.[16]

Research on certain other primate species have found support for that different species have evolved distinct facial traits in order to prevent interbreeding between different species.[17]

Emotion recognition

Studies have found that individuals are better at recognizing the expressed emotions of other individuals when the other individuals are from the same ethnicity. Proposed explanations include explanations similar to those proposed for the "cross-race effect" as well as cultural differences regarding expressing emotions.[18]

Studies on brain activity

The amygdala is a brain area that is involved in negative emotions. Studies have found stronger activation of the amygdala when coming in contact with a person from a different group as compared with coming in contact with a person from the own group. Studies have also found that persons that deny that they are prejudiced show subconscious activation in the amygdala and in areas that suppress subconscious processes.[19]

Other studies have instead found stronger activation of brain areas involved in feeling empathy for grief and pain when coming in contact with a person from the own group.[20][21][22]

Studies have found that such brain activation occurs as early as one tenth of a second after observing a face. This has been argued to demonstrate an automatic and subconscious racial recognition mechanism in the early stages of perception. The same effect also occurs if the person consciously concentrates on other facial characteristics.[19]

Attitudes towards other groups can be measured by traditional opinion surveys. However, these may be poor at measuring subconscious attitudes. These can instead be measured through methods such as Implicit Association Test (IAT). Studies using IAT have found much stronger negative attitudes against other groups than those stated in traditional opinion surveys. IAT results are consistent with amygdala activation unlike opinions survey results. Certain behaviors towards others are predicted by IAT results.[23]

Administration of oxytocin affects IAT results and degree of brain activation.[24][25]

Suggested general model

Results such as those described above have been argued to support that perception of race occurs in several stages. The first stage occurs in lower brain structures/functions, such as the amygdala. An observed person's race is identified by a quick, automatic and largely subconscious process. This is followed by a fast initial evaluation and fast emotional reactions. However, these largely subconscious and quick initial reactions can be somewhat suppressed and modified by conscious higher brain structures/functions that at a somewhat later stage make slower and more complicated evaluations. Results from ordinary opinion surveys reflect higher brain functions, while results from IAT reflect lower brain functions.[23][26]

An evolutionary explanation for this is that in the early human history, there were often intense intergroup competition and conflicts. It was important to differentiate persons depending on whether they belonged to the own group or to other groups, and often react very differently depending on this. Certain psychological effects, such that perceived increased antagonism from another group is followed by increased empathy for the own group and less empathy for the other group, have been explained as evolutionary useful by contributing to a willingness to fight for and if necessary sacrifice oneself for the own group. It has furthermore been argued that most suicide bombers are not psychopaths, but instead selectively can feel strong empathy for the perceived sufferings of the own group.[27]

In social psychology, it is often claimed that it is possible to create arbitrary in-groups and out-groups, and psychological reactions such as intergroup hostility based on this. Against this, it has been argued that the psychological mechanisms that have been mentioned in this article were created exactly in order to differentiate genetically different ethnic/racial groups and that it is not possible to create identical effects for arbitrary groups.[22][28]

Changing racial perceptions

Opinion surveys in the US have stated more positive attitudes towards other races. However, the research on the subconscious and largely automatic processes observed by using IAT and brain activation has created pessimism regarding the possibility of fundamentally changing the perceptions of other races. One suggested possibility is training the higher brain functions to more actively suppress the lower brain functions. One problem with this is that the results of such training tend to disappear with time and that a person therefore must permanently continue with such training, which can be difficult to implement in practice.[23]

This may mean that it is very difficult to avoid, for example, the problems associated with ethnic heterogeneity.

Group differences regarding ethnocentrism

Different groups may have differences regarding the degree of ethnocentrism, tribalism, and individualism. In particular, studies have found evidence for the majority group (Whites) having less empathy/altruistic motivation towards their own in-group than minorities (such as Blacks). This may be due to lower identification with the in-group in a majority group.[29][30][4][31] This may suggest that as Whites increasingly become minorities in various countries, they will become increasingly ethnocentric.

A 2014 study found that making Whites aware of Whites now being a minority in California and Whites becoming a minority in the US in the future increased support for conservative policy positions. "Moreover, the results implicate group-status threat as the mechanism underlying these effects."[32]

The World Value Survey has asked people in more than 80 different countries to identify the kinds of people they would not want as neighbors. Some respondents, picking from a list, chose "people of a different race." The frequency of picking this has been argued to be an indicator of the degree of "racism" in a country. White countries were generally among the least "racist" according to this measurement.[33]

Another suggestion is that differences regarding the degree of ethnocentrism, tribalism, individualism, and tolerance of strangers may in part be due to genetics. For example, populations in areas with a high parasite prevalence may have developed genetics conducive to avoidance of and less tolerance of strangers, in order to reduce the risk of infection. For another explanation, see Jewish group evolutionary strategy.[29][30][34]

The 2019 book Race Differences in Ethnocentrism discusses research on race differences in ethnocentrism and theories on causes. For example, it argues that high average ethnocentrism for South Asians (including Middle Easterners and North Africans) may be related to frequent cousin marriages (increasing genetic similarity and shared genetic interests and) and high religiosity promoting various related aspects. Similar arguments, including a high frequency of cousin marriages, may also apply to Jews.[35]


The theory (as well as the related genetic similarity theory) has been criticized on the grounds that the genetic similarity between non-relatives is too small to cause evolutionary effects. This has been argued to be incorrect (see the above section "Examples of genetic interests of ethnic groups") and the genetic similarity theory has been argued to be supported by many empirical studies (see the article on the genetic similarity theory).[1][2]

Another criticism is that human groups had few contacts with distant groups during much of human history or that there were no serious group conflicts until recently. Therefore, there would have been no evolutionary selection favoring ethnic nepotism. Counter-critics have argued that the empirical research results supporting the genetic similarity theory show that even small group differences can influence preferences and that population growth, relatively large migrations, group conflicts, and warfare existed also in prehistory.[1][36]

See also

External links


  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Frank Salter, Henry Harpending, J.P. Rushton’s theory of ethnic nepotism, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 55, Issue 3, July 2013, Pages 256-260, ISSN 0191-8869, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.014.
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 J. Philippe Rushton. Ethnic nationalism, evolutionary psychology and Genetic Similarity Nations and Nationalism 11 (4), 2005, 489–507. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8129.2005.00216.x/abstract http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n%202005-1.pdf
  3. Greenwald, A. G. and Schuh, E. S. (1994), An ethnic bias in scientific citations. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol., 24: 623–639. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420240602. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.2420240602/abstract
  4. 4.0 4.1 The “Black Code”: Blacks discriminate against other Blacks who socialize with Whites. Kevin MacDonald on January 23, 2014. http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/01/the-black-code-blacks-discriminate-against-other-blacks-who-socialize-with-whites/
  5. 5.0 5.1 Ethnic Genetic Interests https://www.amren.com/news/2018/05/ethnic-racial-genetic-interests-differences/
  6. 6.0 6.1 What We Owe Our People https://www.amren.com/news/2017/11/what-we-owe-our-people/
  7. 7.0 7.1 Frank Salter. Strong Ethnic Kinship Confirmed. Social Technologies, 31/03/2014. http://socialtechnologies.com.au/strong-ethnic-kinship-confirmed/
  8. 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 Frank Salter. Estimating Ethnic Genetic Interests: Is It Adaptive to Resist Replacement Migration? Population and Environment, Vol. 24, No. 2, November 2002. https://whitelocust.wordpress.com/america-in-crisis-the-triumph-of-political-correctness/estimating-ethnic-genetic-interests-is-it-adaptive-to-resist-replacement-migration/
  9. Carsten K. W. De Dreu, Lindred L. Greer, Gerben A. Van Kleef, Shaul Shalvi, and Michel J. J. Handgraaf. Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism. PNAS. vol. 108 no. 4 1262–1266. 2010. http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.full
  10. Feng Sheng, Yi Liu, Bin Zhou, Wen Zhou, Shihui Han, Oxytocin modulates the racial bias in neural responses to others’ suffering, Biological Psychology, Volume 92, Issue 2, February 2013, Pages 380-386, ISSN 0301-0511, 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.11.018. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301051112002761
  11. Carsten K. W. De Dreu et al.. The Neuropeptide Oxytocin Regulates Parochial Altruism in Intergroup Conflict Among Humans. Science 11 June 2010: 328 (5984), 1408-1411. [DOI:10.1126/science.1189047] https://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5984/1408.abstract
  12. David J. Kelly, et al. Three-month-olds, but not newborns, prefer own-race faces. Developmental Science Volume 8, Issue 6, pages F31–F36, November 2005. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2566511/
  13. Cross-Race Preferences for Same-Race Faces Extend Beyond the African Versus Caucasian Contrast in 3-Month-Old Infants. David J. Kelly, Shaoying Liu, Liezhong Ge, Paul C. Quinn, Alan M. Slater, Kang Lee, Qinyao Liu, Olivier Pascalis. Infancy. Vol. 11, Iss. 1, 2007. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18974853
  14. Racist babies? Infants prefer to learn from adults of their own skin color, study says https://www.rt.com/news/384606-babies-race-skin-study/
  15. 15.0 15.1 15.2 Jessica L. Marcon, Christian A. Meissner, & Roy S. Malpass. Cross-Race Effect. Encyclopedia of Psychology & Law. 2007. Redaktör B. Cutler. Sage Publications.
  16. Reginald B. Adams Jr., Kristin Pauker, Max Weisbuch, Looking the other way: The role of gaze direction in the cross-race memory effect, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 46, Issue 2, March 2010, Pages 478-481, ISSN 0022-1031, 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.12.016. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103109003229
  17. Becky Oskin. Monkeys evolved distinct faces to prevent interbreeding, say scientists. June 26, 2014. The Christian Science Monitor. http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/0626/Monkeys-evolved-distinct-faces-to-prevent-interbreeding-say-scientists
  18. Elfenbein HA, Ambady N. On the Universality and Cultural Specificity of Emotional Recognition: A Meta-Analysis. Psychol Bull. 2002 Mar;128(2):203-35. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11931516
  19. 19.0 19.1 Tiffany A. Ito, Bruce D. Bartholow, The neural correlates of race, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Volume 13, Issue 12, December 2009, Pages 524-531, ISSN 1364-6613, 10.1016/j.tics.2009.10.002. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661309002162
  20. Jennifer N. Gutsell and Michael Inzlicht. Intergroup differences in the sharing of emotive states: neural evidence of an empathy gap Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 2011 : nsr035v1-nsr035. http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/06/22/scan.nsr035.abstract
  21. Jennifer N. Gutsell, Michael Inzlicht, Empathy constrained: Prejudice predicts reduced mental simulation of actions during observation of outgroups, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 46, Issue 5, September 2010, Pages 841-845, ISSN 0022-1031, 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.03.011. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110000661
  22. 22.0 22.1 Xiaojing Xu, Xiangyu Zuo, Xiaoying Wang, and Shihui Han. Do You Feel My Pain? Racial Group Membership Modulates Empathic Neural Responses. The Journal of Neuroscience, 1 July 2009, 29(26): 8525-8529; http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/​JNEUROSCI.2418-09.2009
  23. 23.0 23.1 23.2 Jennifer T Kubota, Mahzarin R Banaji & Elizabeth A Phelps. The neuroscience of race. Nature Neuroscience. Published online 26 June 2012; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nn.3136
  24. Feng Sheng, Yi Liu, Bin Zhou, Wen Zhou, Shihui Han, Oxytocin modulates the racial bias in neural responses to others’ suffering, Biological Psychology, Volume 92, Issue 2, February 2013, Pages 380-386, ISSN 0301-0511, 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.11.018. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301051112002761
  25. Carsten K. W. De Dreu, Lindred L. Greer, Gerben A. Van Kleef, Shaul Shalvi, and Michel J. J. Handgraaf. Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism. PNAS. vol. 108 no. 4 1262–1266. 2010. http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.full
  26. Paola Sessa1, Federica Meconi1, Luigi Castelli, Roberto Dell’Acqua. Taking one’s time in feeling other-race pain: an event-related potential investigation on the time-course of cross-racial empathy. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci (2013) First published online: January 12, 2013 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/scan/nst003
  27. Cikara, M., E. G. Bruneau, and R. R. Saxe. “Us and Them: Intergroup Failures of Empathy.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 20.3 (2011): 149–153. Web. 13 Apr.2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721411408713
  28. Contreras-Huerta LS, Baker KS, Reynolds KJ, Batalha L, Cunnington R (2013) Racial bias in neural empathic responses to pain. PLoS One 8 (12):e84001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084001 http://pubmed.gov/24376780
  29. 29.0 29.1 Wade, N. (2014). A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History. Penguin.
  30. 30.0 30.1 What Makes Western Culture Unique? Kevin MacDonald. http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/West-TOQ.htm
  31. Vani A. Mathur, Tokiko Harada, Trixie Lipke, Joan Y. Chiao. Neural basis of extraordinary empathy and altruistic motivation. NeuroImage, 2010; DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.03.025 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20302945
  32. Craig MA, Richeson JA (2014) On the Precipice of a "Majority-Minority" America: Perceived Status Threat From the Racial Demographic Shift Affects White Americans' Political Ideology. Psychol Sci 25 (6):1189-1197. DOI:10.1177/0956797614527113 http://pubmed.gov/24699846
  33. A fascinating map of the world’s most and least racially tolerant countries. May 15, 2013. Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries
  34. Borinskaya, S., Inglehart, R., Harro, J., Cotter, A., Ponarin, E., & Welzel, C. (2014). Genetic Factors, Cultural Predispositions, Happiness and Gender Equality. Journal of Research in Gender Studies, (1), 32-100. http://www.addletonacademicpublishers.com/component/content/article?id=2231:genetic-factors-cultural-predispositions-happiness-and-gender-equality
  35. Race Differences in Ethnocentrism https://www.amren.com/features/2019/05/race-differences-in-ethnocentrism/
  36. Lawrence H. Keeley. War Before Civilization: the Myth of the Peaceful Savage. Oxford University Press. 1996