"Actually, chud, inbreeding is bad because that one family of impotent nobles were forced to do it and their circumstances meant that even the most misshapen got to breed further. People should outbreed!" The outbred:

"What do half of these have to do with outbreeding? They're just fat Americans." Whatever ugliness and degeneracy exists within White Americans results almost exclusively from mixing incompatible European ethnicities with no control mechanism. No I will not elaborate. Reflect on this.

''MOM MY INTERNETFRIEND IS OEDIPUSPOSTING AGAIN.''

"Heh, looks like I have uncovered your hidden desire for your mother and your hate for your father, as per Dr. Freud. Psychoanalysis is valid after all!" "Hidden? Hate my dad? No way!"

''YES I WANT TO FUCK MY MOTHER. BUT I DON'T HATE MY DAD.''

problem with AI in this case (sparse research, contentious topic) is that it just combines terrible online health website clickbait with halfway scientific buzzwords. hybrid vigor is an effect where crossing two distant strains produces better results, so the opposite of what you asked about here. It should have caught that but didn't. the terms are inbreeding depression and outbreeding depression, both of which apply in humans. (inbreeding depression because of homozygosity in deleterious alleles, out mostly because interspersing watermelon eater DNA disrupts long gene complexes and breaks their functionality) the ethnoGuessr dev had a thought-provoking controversial thread on twitter about it: https://nitter.poast.org/Airmanareiks/status/1829510442940555527#m

yes, incompatible European ethnicities such as... negroes

It was 2 separate questions. One was was fertility. The other was whether the high fertility translated to healthier children

I'm saying "hybrid vigor" is the complete opposite of "more related parents make healthier children" whether or not it's true, and the LLM writes as if it was the same concept.

The question is around where hybrid vigor peeks. We were sold interracial marriage on the back of hybrid vigor. It would be nice to know whether it’s actually observable and if so at what point it deteriorates. Am I making sense?

You are. If you did ask the same question to the LLM, the answer reads as if it misunderstood you. To your point: It is observable biologically, but mostly with crops (where both strains have the same "purpose" they were bred for) or badly deteriorated domestic animal lines (e.g., dog breeds with heritable defects) In humans, it is to my knowledge mostly overshadowed by the effects of outbreeding depression, which I said before. You tear up gene complexes by intermixing them with too-distant breeding. Another aspect is that in lab conditions, they select healthy specimens to hybdridize, but in humans miscegenation is mostly reserved for rejects. So the gene pool is bad even before mixing. marrying someone from the same ethnic group isn't even hybrid vigor at all because the individuals are both the same "strain" if that makes sense.

I thought hybrid vigor was a measurement of genetic distance of parents as the input and positive traits of the offspring as the output. So family vs same race vs other race. Same race cannot be considered for hybrid vigor?

>hybrid vigor was a measurement of genetic distance of parents that's the thing. >Heterosis, hybrid vigor, or outbreeding enhancement is the improved or increased function of any biological quality in a hybrid offspring. To my knowledge it's not a measurement of genetic distance, it is a (purported) effect of mixing with a different genetic strain. They call it heterosis because inbred strains are homozygotic for more alleles, which is bad if the alleles are deleterious. In the cuck fetish race baiting context, they often claim you will gain beneficial effects across the board simply by breeding with a negroid. Not true, of course. >Same race cannot be considered for hybrid vigor? A swedish person isn't homozygotic (inbreeding depression) in the first place so mating with another random swede isn't hybrid vigor at all... No strains are being crossed. It's mostly a misunderstood definitions thing. Peep that twitter thread I sent you, it gives a good start for further reading.

The measure you're looking for is probably "gene pool variance" or something generally, or "heterozygosity" more specifically The problem is that even a 100% homozygotous individual can be perfectly healthy and even healthier than peers, because in principle, the homozygotous alleles do not have to be deleterious. Most mutations are, however, so straight up inbreeding increases homozygosity in these, lowering fitness. "inbreeding depression" "outbreeding depression" is when you mix with a person whose genomic complexes are not similar enough and you destroy both their functions. Say there is a interdependent chain of gene alleles encoded on a chromosome like so A-A-A-A-A and you mix with a person who has a different adaptation complex, B-B-B-B-B. Offspring could have B-A-B-B-A, which destroys the effect of both adaptations and drops you to baseline.

@WandererUber@poa.st are You guys doing ok? Anyways think i'll add My little piece to the fire Isnt theres proof that inbreeding only starts to show its negative sized one the third/fourth generation?

@rlier23@varishangout.net @WandererUber@poa.st yes, but it's like 2nd and 3rd. 4th is guaranteed to be an abomination. Sooner if it's parent/child incest tho.

@professionalbigot69@poa.st @WandererUber@poa.st niggers and modern British and Irish. Imma gunna say it, y'all are some ugly mother fuckers. ESPECIALLY your women.

Or the layman's version of this: dog breeds have been classic examples of all these outcomes (and other animals I am sure), with some mutts being very hardy while others are basically waiting to die. Some purebreds are perfection of form and health, others have chronic issues because of trait breeding that is a negative on their health.