Comments on: On Asking ‘Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive?’ http://dcentric.wamu.org/2011/05/on-asking-why-are-black-women-less-physically-attractive/ Race, Class, The District. Mon, 16 Jul 2012 03:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: James http://dcentric.wamu.org/2011/05/on-asking-why-are-black-women-less-physically-attractive/#comment-542 James Wed, 18 May 2011 01:35:00 +0000 http://dcentric.wamu.org/?p=7015#comment-542 After looking at Satoshi's face, I think it is obvious that he is low on testosterone.  After looking at Satoshi’s face, I think it is obvious that he is low on testosterone. 

]]> By: Gaylforce1 http://dcentric.wamu.org/2011/05/on-asking-why-are-black-women-less-physically-attractive/#comment-541 Gaylforce1 Tue, 17 May 2011 19:00:00 +0000 http://dcentric.wamu.org/?p=7015#comment-541 Sorry for printing this three times!  Was having trouble with the formatting. Evolutionary psychology as a science in and of itself is still up for much debate.  So calling it pure science is problematic in itself. If you can find a test that measures in a linear scale with no possibility of subjective bias then I will debate that science, because assigning a number to a subjective statement doesn't actually make that into an objective statement – which is what Mr.  Kanazawa  did when The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health as the basis of his study with its subjective component in where the people doing the survey make judgments about the subjects' appearance. Replace African/black with white or Asian and I would see how those women would react. From the FLOTUS to the Rutgers basketball team to Albert Haynesworth, it seems as though having one’s humanity degraded for America’s entertainment is the cost of doing buisness in America as a black woman.  I don’t see other women being discussed like this in public.  I wonder if anyone can possibly understand the pain. I don’t feel as though I need to defend my humanity to anyone.  I’d rather alongwith my fellow dual degree having, six figure making sistas along  with other like minds and handle it the old fashioned way and boycott Psychology Today’s advertisers.  Check out the “What About Our Daughters” Sorry for printing this three times!  Was having trouble with the formatting.

Evolutionary psychology as a science in and of itself is still up for
much debate.  So calling it pure science is problematic in itself. If
you can find a test that measures in a linear scale with no possibility
of subjective bias then I will debate that science, because assigning a
number to a subjective statement doesn’t actually make that into an
objective statement – which is what Mr.  Kanazawa  did when The
National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health as the basis of his
study with its subjective component in where the people doing the
survey make judgments about the subjects’ appearance.

Replace African/black with white or Asian and I would see how those women would react. From the FLOTUS to the Rutgers basketball team to Albert Haynesworth, it seems as though having one’s humanity degraded for America’s entertainment is the cost of doing buisness in America as a black woman.  I don’t see other women being discussed like this in public.  I wonder if anyone can possibly understand the pain. I don’t feel as though I need to defend my humanity to anyone.  I’d rather alongwith my fellow dual degree having, six figure making sistas along  with other like minds and handle it the old
fashioned way and boycott Psychology Today’s advertisers.  Check out the “What About Our Daughters”

]]> By: Gaylforce1 http://dcentric.wamu.org/2011/05/on-asking-why-are-black-women-less-physically-attractive/#comment-540 Gaylforce1 Tue, 17 May 2011 18:57:00 +0000 http://dcentric.wamu.org/?p=7015#comment-540 Evolutionary psychology as a science in and of itself is still up for much debate.  So calling it pure science is problematic in itself. If you can find a test that measures in a linear scale with no possibility of subjective bias then I will debate that science, because assigning a number to a subjective statement doesn't actually make that into an objective statement – which is what Mr.  Kanazawa  did when The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health as the basis of his study with its subjective component in where the people doing the survey make judgments about the subjects' appearance.  Replace African/black with white or Asian and I would see how those women would react. From the FLOTUS to the Rutgers basketball team to Albert Haynesworth, it seems as though having one’s humanity degraded for America’s entertainment is the cost of doing buisness in America as a black woman.  I don’t see other women being discussed like this in public.  I wonder if anyone can possibly understand the pain. I don’t feel as though I need to defend my humanity to anyone.  I’d rather along with my fellow dual degree having, six figure making sistas along  with other like minds and handle it the old fashioned way and boycott Psychology Today’s advertisers.  Check out the “What About Our Daughters” website for details on the boycott.   Money talks – scientist walks. Evolutionary psychology as a science in and of itself is still up for much debate.  So calling it pure science is problematic in itself. If you can find a test that measures in a linear scale with no possibility of subjective bias then I will debate that science, because assigning a number to a subjective statement doesn’t actually make that into an objective statement – which is what Mr.  Kanazawa  did when The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health as the basis of his study with its subjective component in where the people doing the survey make judgments about the subjects’ appearance. 

Replace African/black with white or Asian and I would
see how those women would react. From the FLOTUS to the Rutgers basketball team
to Albert Haynesworth, it seems as though having one’s humanity degraded for America’s
entertainment is the cost of doing buisness in America as a black woman.  I don’t see other women being discussed like
this in public.  I wonder if anyone can
possibly understand the pain. I don’t feel as though I need to defend my
humanity to anyone.  I’d rather along
with my fellow dual degree having, six figure making sistas along  with other like minds and handle it the old
fashioned way and boycott Psychology Today’s advertisers.  Check out the “What About Our Daughters”
website for details on the boycott.

 

Money talks – scientist walks.

]]> By: Gaylforce1 http://dcentric.wamu.org/2011/05/on-asking-why-are-black-women-less-physically-attractive/#comment-539 Gaylforce1 Tue, 17 May 2011 18:54:00 +0000 http://dcentric.wamu.org/?p=7015#comment-539 Evolutionary psychology as a science in and of itself is still up for much debate.  So calling it pure science is problematic in itself.  If you can find a test that measures in a linear scale with no possibility of subjective bias then I will debate that science, because assigning a number to a subjective statement doesn't actually make that into an objective statement – which is what Mr.  Kanazawa  did when The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health as the basis of his study with its subjective component in where the people doing the survey make judgments about the subjects' appearance.    Replace African/black with white or Asian and I would see how those women would react. From the FLOTUS to the Rutgers basketball team to Albert Haynesworth, it seems as though having one’s humanity degraded for America’s entertainment is the cost of doing business in America as a black woman.  I don’t see other women being discussed like this in public.  I wonder if anyone can possibly understand the pain. I don’t feel as though I need to defend my humanity to anyone.  I’d rather along with my fellow dual degree having, six figure making sistas along  with other like minds and handle it the old fashioned way and boycott Psychology Today’s advertisers.  Check out the “What About Our Daughters” website for details on the boycott.   Money talks – scientist walks. Evolutionary psychology as a science in and of itself is still up for
much debate.  So calling it pure science is problematic in itself. 
If you can find a test that measures in a linear scale with no possibility of subjective bias then
I will debate that science, because assigning a number to a subjective
statement doesn’t actually make that into an objective statement – which is
what Mr.  Kanazawa  did when The National
Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health as the basis of his
study with its subjective component in where the people doing the survey make
judgments about the subjects’ appearance. 

 

Replace African/black with white or Asian and I would
see how those women would react. From the FLOTUS to the Rutgers basketball team
to Albert Haynesworth, it seems as though having one’s humanity degraded for America’s
entertainment is the cost of doing business in America as a black woman.  I don’t see other women being discussed like
this in public.  I wonder if anyone can
possibly understand the pain. I don’t feel as though I need to defend my
humanity to anyone.  I’d rather along
with my fellow dual degree having, six figure making sistas along  with other like minds and handle it the old
fashioned way and boycott Psychology Today’s advertisers.  Check out the “What About Our Daughters”
website for details on the boycott.

 

Money talks – scientist walks.

]]> By: Anonymous http://dcentric.wamu.org/2011/05/on-asking-why-are-black-women-less-physically-attractive/#comment-537 Anonymous Tue, 17 May 2011 00:18:00 +0000 http://dcentric.wamu.org/?p=7015#comment-537 Ah yes, he's unattractive, therefore his arguments must be wrong. That's why I never bought Relativity, Newton is much hotter than Einstein. Ah yes, he’s unattractive, therefore his arguments must be wrong. That’s why I never bought Relativity, Newton is much hotter than Einstein.

]]> By: Anonymous http://dcentric.wamu.org/2011/05/on-asking-why-are-black-women-less-physically-attractive/#comment-536 Anonymous Tue, 17 May 2011 00:14:00 +0000 http://dcentric.wamu.org/?p=7015#comment-536 Interesting, (and good!) article that got a very different reaction from NPR-affiliated blogs: http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2011/05/blake-yale-men-die-young/ Honestly, both articles draw broad inferences from imperfect data, but this one does it better. I'm honestly not sure why, other than the fact that I can't immediately point and laugh at flawed statistics. Ideas? Interesting, (and good!) article that got a very different reaction from NPR-affiliated blogs:

http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2011/05/blake-yale-men-die-young/

Honestly, both articles draw broad inferences from imperfect data, but this one does it better. I’m honestly not sure why, other than the fact that I can’t immediately point and laugh at flawed statistics. Ideas?

]]> By: Anonymous http://dcentric.wamu.org/2011/05/on-asking-why-are-black-women-less-physically-attractive/#comment-534 Anonymous Mon, 16 May 2011 23:58:00 +0000 http://dcentric.wamu.org/?p=7015#comment-534 I noticed something. Both comments on this post so far and most of the twitter reactions are ad-hominem attacks on the author of the piece. But science does not work that way. Now, having read the article, the author was obviously trying to get a rise out of people.  Which he did. He calls his column "The Scientific Fundamentalist," what did you expect? Knowing these types of people, attacking them rather than the science cedes the field. Don't attack the author. Attack the science if you think it's wrong.In their mind, you implicitly conceded their point. In fact, you kinda did by talking about the "white standard of beauty." Definitionally, if the world thinks whites are more attractive, then whites are more attractive to the world. So, do you want to prove your ideological purity, by calling someone who says something unpopular names and associating him with other unpopular things? Or do you want to try to prove him wrong? Most everyone picked the first. I'd rather win.Fundamentally, science believes that the world is knowable. To know the world, we must be able to measure it. No one claims the measures are perfect, but to get closer to truth, you have to run with the best measure you have. Attractiveness, you may have noticed, isn't the same word as beauty. If attractiveness means anything, it has to be measured by the average of individual perceptions. How else could you possibly measure it?Now, the data Kanazawa uses seems to be good, a representative sample controlled by a good University. But his "attractiveness" measure isn't what he thinks it is. Don't get me wrong, it is an objective measure, but it measures the of attractiveness of the subjects to the interviewers. The interviewers are not a representative sample of anything, they're UNC scientists. It's generally accepted that most people prefer people who look like them. I know lots of people at UNC, they're good people, but they aren't statistically similar to America as a whole. How many of interviewers were black?So, Kanazawa made a fundamental mistake and misinterpreted his data. Here's where the fun begins. Read the article again. But this time, each time  you see the word "attractive" or "attractiveness", insert "to UNC researchers" after it. Seriously, go read it again, here's a Google cache version: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=933&source=hp&q=cache:http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201105/why-are-black-women-rated-less-physically-attractive-other&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1The article isn't really convincing, is it? In fact, your first reaction would probably be to ask, "Why don't UNC researchers find black women as attractive?" I don't have the data, but it seems to be correct, he did control for random error. But he didn't control for observational bias, aka non-random error. Oops.So, Kanazawa made a rookie mistake. A mistake that a high school student would be failed for. If PT has editorial standards, that's a good reason to remove the article. Honestly, it's pretty funny that such bad science got the blogosphere and twiterverse all in a tizzy. Cut the snark. Win the argument. It isn't hard. I noticed something. Both comments on this post so far and most of the twitter reactions are ad-hominem attacks on the author of the piece. But science does not work that way. Now, having read the article, the author was obviously trying to get a rise out of people.  Which he did. He calls his column “The Scientific Fundamentalist,” what did you expect? Knowing these types of people, attacking them rather than the science cedes the field. Don’t attack the author. Attack the science if you think it’s wrong.In their mind, you implicitly conceded their point. In fact, you kinda did by talking about the “white standard of beauty.” Definitionally, if the world thinks whites are more attractive, then whites are more attractive to the world. So, do you want to prove your ideological purity, by calling someone who says something unpopular names and associating him with other unpopular things? Or do you want to try to prove him wrong? Most everyone picked the first. I’d rather win.Fundamentally, science believes that the world is knowable. To know the world, we must be able to measure it. No one claims the measures are perfect, but to get closer to truth, you have to run with the best measure you have. Attractiveness, you may have noticed, isn’t the same word as beauty. If attractiveness means anything, it has to be measured by the average of individual perceptions. How else could you possibly measure it?Now, the data Kanazawa uses seems to be good, a representative sample controlled by a good University. But his “attractiveness” measure isn’t what he thinks it is. Don’t get me wrong, it is an objective measure, but it measures the of attractiveness of the subjects to the interviewers. The interviewers are not a representative sample of anything, they’re UNC scientists. It’s generally accepted that most people prefer people who look like them. I know lots of people at UNC, they’re good people, but they aren’t statistically similar to America as a whole. How many of interviewers were black?So, Kanazawa made a fundamental mistake and misinterpreted his data. Here’s where the fun begins. Read the article again. But this time, each time  you see the word “attractive” or “attractiveness”, insert “to UNC researchers” after it. Seriously, go read it again, here’s a Google cache version:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=933&source=hp&q=cache:http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201105/why-are-black-women-rated-less-physically-attractive-other&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1The article isn’t really convincing, is it? In fact, your first reaction would probably be to ask, “Why don’t UNC researchers find black women as attractive?” I don’t have the data, but it seems to be correct, he did control for random error. But he didn’t control for observational bias, aka non-random error. Oops.So, Kanazawa made a rookie mistake. A mistake that a high school student would be failed for. If PT has editorial standards, that’s a good reason to remove the article. Honestly, it’s pretty funny that such bad science got the blogosphere and twiterverse all in a tizzy. Cut the snark. Win the argument. It isn’t hard.

]]> By: Anonymous http://dcentric.wamu.org/2011/05/on-asking-why-are-black-women-less-physically-attractive/#comment-535 Anonymous Mon, 16 May 2011 23:58:00 +0000 http://dcentric.wamu.org/?p=7015#comment-535 Deleted duplicate Deleted duplicate

]]> By: BrooklynShoeBabe http://dcentric.wamu.org/2011/05/on-asking-why-are-black-women-less-physically-attractive/#comment-533 BrooklynShoeBabe Mon, 16 May 2011 20:00:00 +0000 http://dcentric.wamu.org/?p=7015#comment-533 *Grimace* Wow. There's nothing worse than an a-hole with credentials. *Grimace* Wow. There’s nothing worse than an a-hole with credentials.

]]> By: Frenchie http://dcentric.wamu.org/2011/05/on-asking-why-are-black-women-less-physically-attractive/#comment-532 Frenchie Mon, 16 May 2011 19:35:00 +0000 http://dcentric.wamu.org/?p=7015#comment-532 one could be filled with rage and indignation about this Darwinist psuedo-science until you look at the source and wonder, 'why is  Kanazawa so unattractive and irrelevant'.... one could be filled with rage and indignation about this Darwinist psuedo-science until you look at the source and wonder, ‘why is  Kanazawa so unattractive and irrelevant’….

]]>