Satoshi Kanazawa Says Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women

Thanks to N’Jaila Rhee, who posted an article from Psychology Today that looks like it has since been taken down from their website.  It was called Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women, and it was written by Satoshi Kanazawa, who, as most of you know, is a prominent evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics.  I unfortunately didn’t get a chance to read it on the original site, but I saw tons of comments and blog posts by people who had, and I have no reason to doubt that it was up there.   Being the age of the internet, someone copied it before it went down.  You can read it here, and I’m going to repost it below (I think I can legally do this since it’s no longer available at the source.  If not, I’ll take it down.).  Kanazawa gets all “scientific,” and his “science” becomes his fact.  He doesn’t stop to think that the social sciences rarely if ever provide universal truths, and yet he accepts them as such:

It is very interesting to note that, even though black women are objectively less physically attractive than other women, black women (and men) subjectively consider themselves to be far more physically attractive than others.

Oh, they are?  “Objectively?” So if abagond says that he prefers black women, are we to assume that he’s just…wrong?  Because his opinions clash with something that is “objectively” true?

Kanazawa eventually comes a similar conclusion to Steve Sailer, that black women are less attractive because they have more testosterone and are therefore more manly.  We Asian men know the reverse side of this, as the militant members of the AFCC and the Rice Chasers are always always telling us that we’re less masculine and that therefore White is Right.  And so it’s troubling that this prominent psychologist is using his post to spread ideas which by no means are objectively true.

That’s the problem with some of these social scientists, as well as some of these “Human Biodiversity” hacks who imagine themselves to be experts on the human condition.  They take an old idea, try to repackage it as something new, and then refuse to deviate from their chosen path.  They don’t open themselves up to what the world can teach them, and then they foist their unscientific ideas onto the public.  (Speaking of which, check out a good TED talk on being wrong.)

Edit: Someone made a screenshot. Click the image to read the Psychology Today article below (you may have to click again to magnify):

(Thanks to therotund for finding the screenshots.)

 

227 thoughts on “Satoshi Kanazawa Says Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women

  1. Haha…someone wrote a better post than mine:

    http://www.therotund.com/?p=1149

    “Seriously, this “researcher” can only think of ONE think that will “explain” the results – that black women are too manly. How thinly veiled does a racist attack have to be before Psychology Today sits up and realizes, hey, maybe we shouldn’t be printing this because someone obviously forgot to take their “anti-internalized racism” pills this morning? ”

    “I think my favorite – and by favorite, I mean it made me throw up in my mouth a little bit – is the part where the writer talks about how black women THINK they are pretty. Though it might also be the “oh, no, I totally controlled for how all black women are fat” part”

    She also hotlinks some screenshots, which I’ll try to put in the O.P.

  2. I think that the only objective fact this clown is espousing is the fact that he has a small pecker, cannot handle a black woman or any other woman for that matter. Who knows, maybe a black woman turned him down. My suggestion? The black women and the asian man should get together, pump each other silly and call it a day. Maybe the black woman can give the asian man some tostsoterone and he can make her more ‘feminine’ as he drains her of the tostosterone. In any case, a fun time will be had by all. Seriously, some of the gut rot some of these jackasses write is hilarious, only they actually believe what they are writing. There is also an undertone of homo-erotica in his ‘article’ as he claims that black men are more attractive and manly than other men or something to that effect. Maybe he is praising the black men in hopes of hooking up with some, hahahahaha!!!!

    As for the stereotypes about asian men, I have never understood them. For one, which ‘asians’ are they referring to? Asia is a continent not a country. The populace run the gamut in height, weight, colour etc. Yet these racist fools make these goofy suppositions. I always say, half-jokingly, that a billion asian women can’t be wrong! I guess these racists have never read any asian history. They think asian history began with WWII or something. Men come in all shapes sizes and colours it is all for the good! Besides, you will never be without a date on Friday night unless you want to, hahahaha!

  3. Wow. The only psychology class I enrolled in college, I dropped after the first class. Was too touchy, feely without much logical structure. Perhaps the author should understand the scientific methodology first before claiming science. Come up with an objective definition of beauty that can be verified in a double blind experiment.

    I support the humanities but at times like these I wonder if universities should redirect overhead from research dollars to the humanities.

  4. Man, I’ve been reading some of Kanazawa’s old articles. Sure, what he did this week was batty, but man, he’s been batty for a while:

    Why feminism is illogical, unnecessary, and evil:
    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200908/why-modern-feminism-is-illogical-unnecessary-and-evil

    Men do everything in order to get laid: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200807/men-do-everything-they-do-in-order-get-laid-iii

    His stuff isn’t even rational. Take the “everything in order to get laid” article, for example. He talks about how society is driven by the fact that women are picky and men supposedly become successful only to date women, and he makes some snide comment comparison to gay people, who supposedly spend all their time having sex. But then he totally ignores the fact that gay people have lots of accomplishments too. He mentions the Beatles but not Freddie Mercury; he mentions Bill Gates but not Alan Turing.

    He sees what he wants to see. I’m really surprised Psychology Today didn’t axe him today; I’m surprised they didn’t axe him before.

  5. ha ha, this article is too funny. He even starts taking into account “intelligence” and implying that maybe lower intelligence is making black women appear less attractive. omg! But he says that is not the cause when he compares women of same intelligence. ha ha.

    WAIT – the most disturbing thing of the graphs – Asian men have the lowest SELF-perceived attractiveness. I think someone needs to get their confidence up like black men and start acting like they’re hot shit, so maybe others will “objectively” perceive them as hot, and we can rid society of wesley yangs thinking they look like reptiles. Some of the hottest men in the world are Asian!

  6. Just because he says really controversial stuff, doesn’t mean it isn’t true either. It is snarky to link that TED video that he’s just a man who can’t admit guilt. Also, I believe you are reaching a bit on his word of objective by contesting him that basically you are saying nothing is objective. Though I can see reason if you are saying that he is reaching by using the word objective if objective is not defined, but this post just sound like you just don’t like his word of objective.

    Looking at those graphs and assuming that nothing is manipulated or hidden, the study shows that black women are rated less attractive while they rate themselves highly attractive. Now the stuff after that observation is then entering the “media interpretation-conclusion” mode where it goes beyond the observable result of the study and start to speculate on the cause. It could very much bit social thinking or instinctual thinking. Or a mix of both. Which assuming it is a mix of both, we have to ask on how much is influenced and instinctual and in the results and difference. I noticed that you did not a counter reason to his analysis of the data (unless you are just dismissing the data that we cannot measure people’s perception in beauty).

    That said, going by the 3rd paragraph, it sounds like the bigger issue is the larger implication that if beauty is objective and determined by biology outside our control, then it means our issues is determined by biology outside our control. I want to point that even if there’s some truth, it doesn’t mean it is all outside our control. I think we can confidently say that we are born with dispositions, not destinies. But if there are disposition, we should recognize it and react accordingly to deal with it. If we don’t, it will only serve to hurt us.

    I don’t have time to read his other articles right now. But, I do think I have heard of the “men invent stuff for getting laid” thing before, I find that it ignore other sources like an curiosity and how an creative/intelligent person just might like to invent stuff by inspiration or by desire to make things easier during leisure. It fits better to the theories of the rise of civilization is caused by agriculture allow some people to put their time and energies to other stuff. Still that reasoning is greatly differently from your counterexample of gay men invent stuff too. That can just be easily counter back that gay men invent stuff to impress other gay men. That just make it weak counter-argument.

  7. @Dreamer,
    “Looking at those graphs and assuming that nothing is manipulated or hidden, the study shows that black women are rated less attractive while they rate themselves highly attractive.”

    How about the following thought experiment. Raise about a million human babies *in isolation from each other* among spherical robots that can talk in mechanical voice. Make sure the babies grow up not seeing a single human face (not even their own). Then, when they are grown up ask them to rate the attractiveness of the different races. Outcome of this experiment would qualify as an objective measure of beauty.
    This would be a scientific study.

    Otherwise, if you take some random people off the street they are too much conditioned by their cultural surrounding where white is right.

  8. Dreamer,

    I disproved beyond a reasonable doubt his statement about black women being “objectively” less attractive. Disproved it 100% by linking abagond. I could’ve further disproved it by quoting an Asian friend of mine who likes black women, or I could’ve pointed to the many successful celebrities who marry black women, even if they have other choices. I didn’t counter his data because I’d already disproven his thesis; all you need is one counter-example to disprove anything that anyone claims is objectively true.

    He’s a guy who lives in the country where English was invented, and he’s a prominent professor there, so he should know what “objectively” means: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/objectively

    I don’t have time to read his other articles right now…..Still that reasoning is greatly differently from your counterexample of gay men invent stuff too. That can just be easily counter back that gay men invent stuff to impress other gay men. That just make it weak counter-argument.

    Read his article. He himself says that it’s not symmetrical. He himself says that people wouldn’t get things done if women didn’t have high standards because they’d be having sex all the time. He says that gay men have sex more often because they don’t have the burden of having to impress a woman (never mind the fact that he doesn’t cite data indicating low standards among gay men). Logically it’s impossible to claim that nothing would get done if people had too much sex, and then show a society where people supposedly have lots of sex and still get things done.

    I know, it’s a crazy illogical blog post from a guy who is a professor at the London School of Economics, and I too might not believe it if someone told me that he said it. But it’s there! Check it out.

  9. I was almost not going to comment but….

    @Herneith: I am not sure of your sex and your upset but one must be careful when expressing upset lest you come across just as ignorant as the person you are denouncing.
    You say “this clown is espousing is the fact that he has a small pecker….Maybe the black woman can give the asian man some tostsoterone and he can make her more ‘feminine’ as he drains her of the tostosterone…”
    in other words, because he is Asian, he “most likely” has a smaller member and is effeminate, no?
    And that thinking makes you different from Satoshi, how?

    @Dreamer: you say “Just because he says really controversial stuff, doesn’t mean it isn’t true either…..Looking at those graphs and assuming that nothing is manipulated or hidden, the study shows that black women are rated less attractive while they rate themselves highly attractive…”
    1. So you do agree that Black women are unattractive? Well, that is your entitled opinion
    2. In a “study” when you question just two people and one says something opposite of the other, you have a “50%” result, not so? When you see “statistics” and graphs that endorse a backwards thought, I implore you to employ some forward thinking on your part. Who was profiled? How many were selected? What “TRULY” was their level of attractiveness?
    The CSI generation loves to be shown graphics and “science” that :”proves” an idea, I will ask that they should learn to think a bit

    My personal take:
    1. I think the man is personally not attracted to women of colour which is not a bad thing
    2. is thinking of black women only in the context of his western-base of residence and social interactions and thus is reflecting a WESTERN bias against skin colour; one that has taken generations to inculcate into people

  10. @ Catwalq

    I think that Herneith was intentionally using these stupid stereotypes to make the point of how ludicrous they are, not only about Black women, but also, Asian men. the fact that Satoshi himself is a member of a stereotyped group is a bit ironic.

  11. How does one evaluate whether a statement is “objective”? Does “objectively” qualify as a weasel word?

  12. Can you guys put a Facebook share link for the whole blog? I want to share this blog on facebook and spread the love.

  13. “Does “objectively” qualify as a weasel word?”
    In the defense of Science, NO.

  14. Jo,

    Thanks for the suggestion!

    Okay, I’m not sure if I did this correctly, but I put a Facebook “Like” button just above the RSS comment thingie. I tried to click it to say I liked it, but it still says no one likes it. So either I’m super-unpopular, or it takes time, or I have no idea what I’m doing. It also gets cut off by on the right side.

    If you can’t “like” it with the button, here is the fb page:

    https://www.facebook.com/pages/BigWOWO/146680088737761

  15. Okay, I’m figuring this out as I go along. That “like”button goes to the site; the Facebook page above goes to some kind of community group that I think I set up. Oi. I need to work on my tech-savvy-ness.

  16. @bigWOWO

    all you need is one counter-example to disprove anything that anyone claims is objectively true.

    What? No! I must be honest and say what you just said is completely flawed or my understanding of the word objective is completely off. The word objective in science is by the 3rd definition of your link which is “Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices” and “Based on observable phenomena; presented factually.” In other words, to view thing from a central perspective (not from any particular lens, so uninfluenced by any emotion or personal prejudices) and based from what exactly what the data says.

    A counter-example only works against absolute statements. Such as “All Asian men find Black Women unattractive.” His statement was “even though black women are objectively less physically attractive than other women” ….. Okay, reading that now, without context, it can be constructed sound like “black women are scientifically shown through data to all be uglier than other women”… but, within the context of the article, which after showing his graphical data, seem to be relating to the data that black women are rated lower. Basically, you have to attack the data, your counter example only works if he stated something like “all men find black women ugly” which he did not.

    @ John Doe

    How about the following thought experiment. Raise about a million human babies *in isolation from each other* among spherical robots that can talk in mechanical voice. Make sure the babies grow up not seeing a single human face (not even their own). Then, when they are grown up ask them to rate the attractiveness of the different races. Outcome of this experiment would qualify as an objective measure of beauty.
    This would be a scientific study.

    Dude, that’s absurd. Not even the most rigorous studies follow that. There’s easier ways to control variables and get data that we can confidently believe in without having to raise a million babies with no human contact. By that logic, no studies of human beings or any animal can be take with an seriousness. A random sampling of people across various cultures can give plenty satisfying data. It is not unassailable as as a million babies idea, but it can test how much biology versus culture influence a person as long we keep as many other things controlled.

    To disagree with the word objective and how studies work is disagreeing with the entire scientific method. Sample size and taking the word objective to mean absolute are the wrong areas to take issue on.

    The parts that is areas of valid criticisms is, but not limited to, are things like what studies is he man using? In those studies, how many variables are controlled? Who is conducting the research? Who is funding the research? What did the scientific paper itself concluded?

    On a side note, I’ll read his the two linked articles soon. I will give that if he is speculating that gay men are getting laid more and thus less “productive,” that is a bold and possibly absurd statement that either he needs some kind of epic proof or he made an absurd statement (it wouldn’t mean he wrong on everything though).

  17. “Sample size and taking the word objective”
    I am sorry but sample size is important (otherwise its just a case study) and objectivity is objectivity. As King says some so called “sciences” tries to hijack scientific methodology, and fudge what objectivity is.

    There is no middle ground. Its either objective or not. Its either science or not. Calling things “soft science” is a cop out.

    Seriously, the very observation by the “scientist” that blacks consider themselves beautiful whereas others do not smacks of subjectivity. If beauty were an objective measure how do you explain the data.

  18. @ John Doe

    I’ll give an example.

    OK, so you poll Black people, and they seem to consider themselves to be beautiful, at a higher rate than any other race. But then, when you really look at it, it could be that they are just a lot more defensive about their looks than other people.

    If a White person comes up to them with a clipboard, and asks them, out of the blue, “Hey, do you think that you look good,” they might answer, “Hell yeah, I think I look good!” guessing that the person asking has already bought into the White-centric beauty ideal. It’s more of a defense mechanism when you find yourself at the polar opposite of the White beauty aesthetic.

    So what do you have? You can’t really read the person’s mind. Is it that they feel superior to everyone else, or is it just a reaction because they actually feel inferior?

    And that’s why they call it “Soft Science” because, in reality, you have no idea what’s really going on. You’re just going by what people SAY, and there’s no way to ever know WHY they have said it.

  19. I think that mostly everyone who is viewing this article is dismissing it because of their opinion of black women, and this article offends you so you dismiss it. some other guy saying that his other articles are stupid, but his other articles are true. guys do mostly everything to get laid. that is the main purpose of a mans existence. I am looking at it with a open mind and Its significantly possible that black women are less attractive than other women. you need to expose yourself around asian, white, Hispanic and black women to understand what he is talking about.

  20. Kanye West,

    “Expose yourself around” women? I’m too lazy to do an IP check, but are you Siegfried?

    Dreamer,

    It definitely doesn’t work the way most people use the word. But even with that third definition, it still doesn’t work. Look:

    “It is very interesting to note that, even though black women are, (Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices), less physically attractive than other women,”

    He is saying that black women are less attractive than other women, regardless of personal prejudices. More precisely, he is saying that people have prejudices when evaluating the physical beauty of black women regardless of prejudices. It makes no sense–unless he believes that black women are inherently less attractive, which I believe he does.

    That’s the problem with his analysis. He’s applying his own prejudices and trying to convince people that they are universal. If they took this survey in Nigeria where most people are black and the media is mostly black, they’d get very different results. If they took this survey only in Newark, they’d get different results.

    Someone not looking to push an agenda would probably say, “Within this study and within these limitations, people rated black women…” and then follow up from there. That’s the “scientific” way of doing it.

  21. I guess the article’s author should accept his genetic destiny and off himself, since by his own oh-so-objective theory he’s not attractive enough to procreate. I’ll even buy him the rope.

  22. I’m not going to read this without commenting that the way you are disagreeing is not persuasive.

    First, BigWowo, there was two parts of the definition. I noted there are two parts, and the he followed it.

    “It is very interesting to note that, even though black women are, (Based on observable phenomena; presented factually, uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices), less physically attractive than other women”

    So, since he presented such graphs (though from the screenshot, didn’t seem to link to who did the study, now that’s a valid thing to point out: we don’t know who did the study and its methodology from what we can tell, there’s no citation), the statement is fitting as he is using observable phenomena, per data from study. His use of the word “objective” is fine. Since he use of the word objective, with the understanding that h means that the data is saying that people are not finding black women attractive is correct. I will give to you that his analysis is questionable. It could mean people are being prejudice/racist against black women, consciously or unconsciously, brought forth by nurture or it could in an instinct forged by nature. This is why the citation of the actual study is important. But his use of the word objective, a very important word in science, is fine.

    I guess I see your main point of questioning his analysis is the main point anyway, I would agree it is reasonable to question his analysis. Though I wouldn’t condemn him of his speculation at this point as you did and the use of your counter example is flawed.

    @NottyBoy – That’s a strawman argument. Even if the data says something is not as optimistic as we like, it doesn’t mean the group the data is from resign. I am one to believe that any truth one denies automatically works against the person. Of course, you question the truth of this, but I ask for more investigation and better analysis based on strong logic, but condemnation with support by strawman. It’s the same with BigWowo’s statement that Asian men needs to make $24,000 more than the next race. Damming the messenger does nothing, except hurt us by our ignorance of the fact. Same applies here.

    @John Doe – your comment really infuriates me. Sample size matters not for the truthfulness of the result, but for the standard deviation (so calculating for a 99% confidence means a wider range than 95% confidence of the true result is within the range, increasing the sample size can help reduce that rage). What really matters is making sure one having a representative sample. I don’t care if the sample size is a thousand, a million, or even a billion, if it is not a representative sample (done by picking at random or compensated by some formal calculation), the sample size becomes crap.

  23. @Dreamer,

    I question the objectivity of the “experiment”. I gave you a possible scenario for an objective assessment. I understand that due to budgetary constraints the experiments cannot be carried out. There are many experiments that real scientists would like to carry out but we cannot either due to technological definition or budgetary limitation.

    Putting that aside, its not just the sample size I question but the whole notion of objectivity when it comes to beauty. Yeah, we can talk statistics but not before we agree on some objective definition of beauty.

    If you really want to get technical, I can go looking for my Bayesian statistics books and work with small sample size … maybe I will find my terminal degree certificates in math/science that seem to be missing somewhere.

  24. One more though experiment. Suppose we question people what they consider the best food/cuisine. Will we come to any objective outcome beyond/discounting the basic animal taste for high sugar and fat? Here is a data point: I can tell you I consider white people food very un-tasty, bland, …, Loading a large amount of sugar, fat (cheese, whatever) doesn’t count as cooking in my book.

  25. the guy is a Phd. I thought this site placed a premium on academic credentials?

  26. The liberal establishment has done much to defame Satoshi Kanazawa lately. Just because his articles are unpopular does not detract from the possible truth value of his statements. I will add that indeed some men may find black women more attractive than others, typically black men. I think most men would be biased towards females of their own race, but that doesn’t take away from the unattractiveness of black women by non-black men.

  27. Dreamer,

    You wrote:

    “So, since he presented such graphs (though from the screenshot, didn’t seem to link to who did the study, now that’s a valid thing to point out: we don’t know who did the study and its methodology from what we can tell, there’s no citation), the statement is fitting as he is using observable phenomena, per data from study. His use of the word “objective” is fine. “

    So you’re telling us that if we poll a bunch of spiders, we can say that animals “objectively” have eight legs.

    As you mention, I don’t know if I have no problem with the methodology since he doesn’t reveal anything about the methodology (which I think we agree is terribly sloppy and problematic for a professional academic). But I have lots of problems with the statement, because:
    a) In terms of reading the statement in standard English, one exception proves it untrue.
    b) Even if we try hard to stretch the definition and say that he’s being “objective” in his reading of the data, he really isn’t. If you read his entire article, he’s trying to make a statement about race, not about whatever isolated study he’s citing. Right? Otherwise, he would limit his discussion to the study, and not make statements about people in general.
    c) Another reading is that he’s using “objectively” to mean when black women are the “objects” of people who are evaluating them for attractiveness, but this too is poor English word usage. And this too is subject to the same problems of using undocumented data to extrapolate towards a larger truth.

    He could’ve said black women were rated as less attractive in the study. He could’ve said black women are less popular in the United States (assuming he documented this). But to say that they are objectively less attractive…I’ve seen this guy speak English, and I think his English is fine. I’ll just say that I think he’s got prejudices that he’s no longer hiding.

  28. Dali,

    The role of an academic isn’t to just make statements or generalizations. An academic needs to back his statements up logically. Kanazawa doesn’t do that. It’s not about liberal vs. conservative either. As a political analyst, the conservative columnist David Brooks and commentator Dinesh D’Souza are mostly spot on in their logic. Kanazawa doesn’t seem to care as much; his analyses are shoddy.

    ” I think most men would be biased towards females of their own race, but that doesn’t take away from the unattractiveness of black women by non-black men.”

    It’s probably similar to the $24k issue that most Asian men face (although black women don’t face it among black men), but I also think there are lots of attraction stories between non-black men and black women that just aren’t being told.

    If you have time, check out this site:
    http://www.blackfemaleinterracialmarriage.com/

    There are lots of powerful white men who wind up dating/marrying black women, including Matt Stone (South Park), Robert Deniro, Peter Norton, Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, George Lucas, etc. It’s a story that just isn’t out there. I was at a real estate seminar a few months ago, and Brian Buffini, who owns the #1 real estate sales training company in the country (probably the world), showed a family picture that revealed that he is married to a black woman.

    Keep in mind that a lot of these guys can marry black women because they’re at the top of their fields and are therefore more able to reject the pressures of families/societies on who they marry.

    Guys like Strom Thurmond and Thomas Jefferson were attracted to black women, but because of politics and social issues, they couldn’t or wouldn’t come out with their attraction. Average guys face similar opprobrium from their families and circles.

    If Kanazawa is not attracted to black women, and if he surrounds himself with people who dish it out on black women, he probably believes that the rest of the world thinks that black women are ugly. But if you ask around and look around, I think the story is far more complex.

  29. @NottyBoy – That’s a strawman argument.

    I wasn’t making an argument. I was making an excellent recommendation.

    Listen, the author can probably make an “objective” generalization that Black women are unnattractive in certain cultures. Ok, whatever. When white people first went to Africa, they scared the bejesus out of the Black natives because they looked like fucking ghosts to them– so much for the supremacy of white beauty.

    What’s really ridiculous about the article are the author’s claims about genetics and hormones, and what not– as if standards of beauty were genetically deterministic. Where the hell are the biological studies supporting his data? Who were his subjects? What was his methodology?

  30. There are lots of powerful white men who wind up dating/marrying black women, including Matt Stone (South Park), Robert Deniro, Peter Norton, Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, George Lucas, etc.

    A more complete list:

    George Lucas and Mellody Hobson
    Robert De Niro and Diahnne Abbott
    Robert De Niro and Grace Hightower
    David Bowie and Iman
    Brian Gibson and Lynn Whitfield
    Alvin Martin and Whoopi Goldberg
    Frank Langella and Whoopi Goldberg
    Ted Danson and Whoopi Goldberg
    Richard Holland and Chaka Khan
    Roger Larocque and Nell Carter
    Ivan Sergei and Tanya Sergei
    Boris Becker and non famous black woman
    Ron Breyer and Tonya Pinkins and
    Justin Chambers and Keisha
    Wolfgang Puck got and Gelila Assefa
    Roderick Spencer and Alfre Woodard
    Paula Patton with Robin Thicke
    Garcelle Beauvais-Nilon and Mike Nilon
    Chris Noth and Beverly Johnson
    Erica Dunlap & Brian Kleinschmidt
    Suzan Lori-Parks and Paul Oscher
    Chuck Tiller and Mary
    Angela McGlowan and John Venners
    Shantanella and McSerch
    Daniel and Marianne Pearl
    Alison Stewart and Bill Wolff
    Mildred and Richard Loving
    Dawn Simpson and Dan Falls
    Tina Frimpong and Brad Ellertson
    Wolfgang Puck and Gelila Assefa
    Stephanie Steward & Stefan Lust
    Oluchi and Luca Orlandi
    Diamond Dallas Page and some unknown black chick etc…

  31. His other articles shared by you in a comment above, had me going ‘WTF’ again. Seriously… what the… How is this guy making a living out of this, how can they keep employing him?

    Let me use some of his ‘evolutionary science’ right back at him:
    > Black women on average have thicker lips, which is also a sign on youth and femininity therefore they are more attractive than other races.

    > Black women are less prone to skin wrinkles because their skin is better equiped to deal with the sun than non-black women, therefore they appear more youthful.

    > Black women have on average have more rounded figures and are well endowed in the buttocks and breasts than non-black women, asccentuating female-ness and acts as a sexual marker. That makes me an Asian woman probably the least attractive.

    > Black women are the ‘original women’ therefore Eve wins, we all want to reproduce with the original looking humans. Schopenhauer said so.

    Obviously I conducted a ‘study’ to reach these ‘truths’.

  32. The exceptions only prove the rule. You could show me a list of famous Asian males who married non-Asian women, but similarly to the plight of the black woman it doesn’t detract from the unattractiveness of Asian men.

    @bigWOWO:
    You may be absolutely correct that Kanazawa’s argument is poorly constructed, but just because the premise is false, it doesn’t mean the conclusion is false. However, he does have the balls to speak out against PC and mainstream social science, which is commendable.

  33. @ Dali

    “just because the premise is false, it doesn’t mean the conclusion is false.”

    You could say that the theory that the moon is made of cheese has not been unequivocally proven to be false. However, we assume that it is false UNTIL it has been established to be true.

  34. King,

    Exactly. Benefit of the doubt is an American ideal.

    http://www.bigwowo.com/2010/09/benefit-of-the-doubt-and-our-american-blog-policy/

    Dali,

    You could show a list of famous Asian American dudes who married White, but could you show a list of famous White women who married Asian? (Or, for that matter, famous Asian American women who married Asian?) Women who have a wide variety of choices?

    Anyway, my point is that people often assume that non-black men find black women unattractive, but it’s not true in many cases. Attraction towards black women is much higher than what we commonly think. Remember, people used to not believe the connection between Sally Hemmings and Thomas Jefferson because they didn’t think it possible that a white guy of his social standing could like a black woman. People responded with the same level of incredulity with Strom Thurmond.

    Shouldn’t we be celebrating that the situation for black women is better than many people think? That they can find love, whether with black men or other men?

  35. “Anyway, my point is that people often assume that non-black men find black women unattractive…”

    Especially if it confirms one’s own personal likes and dislikes.

  36. I don’t feel that Black women’s beauty need to be defended by showing how much White men approve of them.

  37. Tommy Chong who is half-Asian was married his Black wife,Maxine Sneed. Although she is more famous than her husband, Arthelle Nevelle is married to a Japanese American man Taku Hirano.

    Carlos Santana who is Mexican, first and second wives are Black and/or Biracial.
    There is also a famous Samoan football player that I have in mind. I forget what his name is,but he has a Black/Greek wife. The only thing that stands out in my mind about him is that he’s cute and he is known for his ,thick,black hair(if anybody knows his name let me know). Stone Phillips, Ron Pearlman and Roger Ebert are married to Black woman( and was rumored to have dated Oprah Winfrey)Even Prince Albert dated Black women and has a kid by an African woman.

    Some stars, like Nikki Minaj and Tatyanna Ali have Black mothers, Asian( Indian) fathers. Other stars who are half includes Tina Turner( Native American/Black),

  38. Incredible! I see a bunch of Asian guys defending white men’s standard of beauty.

    Wow. Just wow. Without even a scientific definition of beauty, wanna be scientists are conducting “scientific” studies of what people find objectively beautiful.

    Maybe London School of Economics professors should stick to economics where they are unable to predict anything of significance. No wonder Alfred Nobel didn’t want to give economists a nobel prize.

    “ Just because his articles are unpopular does not detract from the possible truth value of his statements. ”
    Just because this guy speaks something controversial doesn’t mean it is of any significance.
    How about this possible truth: Satoshi has been browning his nose too much.

  39. I think these studies might be part of an agenda. A few years ago didn’t big name magazines and newspapers start going on about “global standards of beauty” and other shiet like that?

    In my opinion all of that was just a massive, coordinated PR campaign to promote yet another facet of the globalization ideal. Was there a trickle down effect? I remember beauty pagaents becoming revitalised, with so much commentary and discussion on them regarding standards of beauty, when in previous times beauty pagaents had almost been doomed to obscurity.

  40. King:

    “Especially if it confirms one’s own personal likes and dislikes.”

    I absolutely agree. And it’s not to say that people can’t have likes or dislikes. People are welcome to have likes or dislikes. It just happens to be a fallacious assumption to think that everyone else has the same preferences or tendencies as everyone else, even though it’s easy to make that assumption.

    Kind of semi-related, but I once saw this episode of Judge Mathis, which is by far the best daytime court TV show. There was a Black woman suing a White guy, and the White guy said, “Your honor, she said she liked me, but I’m only into White woman. No offense.” Judge Mathis said, “That’s fine. You don’t have to apologize for that.” When it turned out that this Black woman was paying for his car, his meals, and other stuff, Judge Mathis exclaimed, “WHAT? You’re telling me you couldn’t find a White woman to leech off of???” It was pretty funny.

  41. He’s going to be in trouble…

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/19/london-school-economics-probes-lecturers-posting-race/?test=latestnews

    “Kanazawa could not be reached for comment Thursday by FoxNews.com, but officials at the London School of Economic confirmed an investigation into the matter is ongoing.

    “The views expressed by this academic are his own and do not in any way represent those of LSE as an institution,” the school said in a statement to FoxNews.com. “The important principle of academic freedom means that authors have the right to publish their views – but it also means the freedom to disagree. We are conducting internal investigations into this matter.”

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/20/london-school-economics-probes-lecturers-posting-race/#ixzz1MvLZYIaK

  42. UPDATE: Some ppl wonder if what he said was politically incorrect but somewhat true. NO:
    1. It was a 4-part study and Kanazawa only reported the first 3 studies which were men who were rating the attractiveness of young girls (grades 7-12) ew! and even that analysis was done wrong.
    2. the 4th study rated the attractiveness of adult women and it showed all women rated relatively the same; with Black and White women rating exactly the same on attractiveness and Asian women rated slightly higher. He did not report this part of the study.
    3. He stated that Black women were unattractive b/c they had higher testosterone levels (w/ no scientific backup) but it is known by health practitioners, and the Scientific American article reported, that black women have lesser testosterone levels and higher estrogen levels than whites, so high that in some black women it causes health problems.

  43. I am Siegfried. I’ve seen black women that are hot. I was on the bus she wore tan short shorts. She was 18 and a senior in high school. She wore braces on her teeth. But black women still have that atittude which makes them unattractive.

  44. That loud talking, agressive and in your face attitude. If you go to the mall and some bus stops, you’ll see what I mean. But I’m not a fan of white women either, so don’t call me racist. I love Asian, Hispanic and middle eastern women.

  45. She wasn’t bad at all. Most black women are pretty stack up front and the don’t need implants. I’m not ruling out black women. Except for the racist among us, many white guys admire black women. I just prefer Asian women more. I should have asked that black girl out on the bus.

  46. No I wasn’t talking about their breasts, I was talking about their Black attitudes.

  47. Ha!

    Sieg, I was originally going to say that it was good to see you expanding your repetoire of creepiness. But I guess creepiness is creepiness regardless of the color, and narrow creepy is just as creepy as broad creepy.

    I’d be interested in the attitudes question too.

  48. this was funny! I’m not even upset… I am a beautiful black woman an i know just asmany beautiful black sistas. Just like I know some very ugly caucasians, asians, hispanics, dominicans, brazilians come on guy!! Is this for real? If per say the black woman is soooo ugly how come all these “other” women are paying thousands to look like us? LMBO!!! Butt implants, hip implants, lip injections, cheekbone implants… wow he should have done a lot more homework…

  49. @ king and what exactly is a black attitude? you sound pretty ignorant… all women have a tude’ about them it just requires you pushing the right or shall i say wrong buttons… :-) the only thing that may make the black woman different is that she is not going to hold her attitude for as long as some other may… any you know what for all the abuse, neglect and well shit we have taken off all races over the many years I think we have the right to it! This column is just another article trying to manipulate the world and consiquently that black man into believing such trash… But baby Black is and always will be BEAUTIFUL and BLACK DONT CRACK!!!

  50. “king and what exactly is a black attitude? you sound pretty ignorant…

    Yes, I do don’t I?

    But I don’t really really believe that there is some kind of “Black woman attitude” that is pervasive among most Black women. I think that the most ghetto examples are used to paint all Black women, because these are the most visible and the most interesting behaviors to notice. When Black women are being sweet, and feminine, and vulnerable, and girly, nobody takes note because it’s “normal.”

  51. @ king… thanks for being able to come back and speak intelligently and not like i was condemning you of racism or something lol… what you said is absolutely true… there are some ahem “ghetto” blacks out there and they are put in the limelight attempting to portray a 99% of Blacks when its more like just 10% of them… but all cultures have some forms of ghetto… people just dont talk about the latter so often and so BOLDY!!! the white ghetto is called what… white trash or red necks… i’m not fond of this term but its what is used. The latinos; well, i have no idea what they are called lol but guess what get on a latino girls bad side and you will get one hell of a neck rolling blade slinging ghetto attitude. And no, your wrong when blacks act sweet feminine and vulnerable we are acknowledged for it but society deems it as acting white.. NOW isnt that a damn shame….?

  52. Hi Gabrielle, I think when King mentioned the “black attitude” and gave that example of those two girls with different personalities he was actually using sarcasm against Siegheil. I mean Siegfried… who was the original originator of that ‘ignant remark.

  53. Well, the Black ghetto in America is often not distinguished from the Black community at large. Historically, when integrated neighborhoods were either illegal, or strongly and violently discouraged, all Black people had to live in the same neighborhoods. Then, for a short time, more upwardly mobile Blacks moved out of the ghettos, and into upper/middle class neighborhoods like Baldwin Hills in Los Angeles.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_Hills,_Los_Angeles#Demographics

    However, as housing choices have became more open to people of all races, upwardly mobile Blacks simply move into upper/middle class neighborhoods, without regard to racial considerations. Therefore, most well-to-do Blacks are no longer forming “Black neighborhoods.” As a result, the most recognizably Black neighborhoods that are left, end up being the ghettos—full of poorer, less educated Blacks. If you want to find a concentration of Blacks all living together in the same place, you are much more likely to find that in the ghetto.

    This causes people to make the mistake of thinking that the ghetto = Black culture. When Black people don’t act ghetto, they are accused of not “acting Black.” The reality is that there are at least equal numbers of Black people who live pluralistically among everyone else. They may like Lady Gaga (barf!) they may ride skateboards, they may eat sushi, they may attend renaissance fairs, and read science fiction. But they are not all together in concentration, so when they are encountered, they seem as if there are a lot less of them, so they thought of as outliers and exceptions to the rule. Everyone knows that REAL Black people act like the ghetto.

    This is where the “Black attitude” idea comes from. what most people are really talking about is a “ghetto attitude” but they consider the two to be the same thing. They are not.

  54. @ WoWo

    This is why I keep saying that Asians need an organization like Color of Change (or others) But y’all don’t hear be tho.

  55. All right, I thought you guys understood what I was talking about. I was referring the when some blacks get loud and nasty sometimes. Not all black women are like the girls on Bad Girls Club. Maybe it’s a culture thing. Some black women don’t act feminmn enough. Man! I wished I never made this comment.

  56. Sieg, I DO know what you’re talking about. That’s why I took the time to explain Black vs. Ghetto. What you’re talking about (for want of a better word) is often described as a “Ghetto attitude.” But you should be able to tell if a Black girl is Ghetto in the same way that you could tell if a White girl is Trailer Park.

    *disclaimer: not every black person who lives in a ghetto area has a Ghetto attitude.

  57. King,

    It’s really hard to get that among Asian Americans. I don’t know why. Maybe it’s because our culture downplays the humanities, but it’s really hard to create. We have the Media Action Network for Asian Americans, but it doesn’t come close in terms of clout or support.

    Abagond, Field-Negro, and all those other Black sites–lots of people love talking about Black issues, Black rights, etc., and they love trying to understand and debating the subtleties of the Black experience. That kind of excitement generates momentum.

    With us, well…it’s going to take some effort to get us where we need to be in order to be able to have the same cultural power and momentum that groups like Color of Change has. People on this site are passionate about AA issues, but I don’t know how far that passion extends beyond people actively engaged in AA issues.

  58. You’ll find various equivalents of “ghetto” culture everywhere. You could argue that Jersey Shore’s guido culture is ghetto Italian-American. The UK has its “chav” culture, which is not restricted to any particular ethnicity. In Australia, we have “bogans”, which are something akin to American trailer trash. Malaysia and Singapore have their “ah bengs” – which is something like the ethnic Chinese equivalent of a guido.

    But the stereotype is more widely held about African-Americans for a couple of reasons, I’d guess. Firstly, the entire world is a consumer of black ghetto culture via hip-hop and its expressions in TV and film. Secondly, “ghetto-ness” is largely a result of lower socioeconomic status, and since Af-Ams on average are lower in wealth and status than many other groups, it’s only logical that ghetto-ness is somewhat widespread amongst them.

  59. They have mad millions of dollars with their “Ghettoness” with their rap music and clothes that are like gangs.

  60. Most of the rappers themselves never make millions. They come out with one album or maybe two, and then fade away into obscurity. The number of high profile rappers who are consistently earning millions, at any one time, can usually be counted on your fingers.

    However, the White run music industry makes multiple billions of dollars using “ghetto culture” as a stamp of authenticity. That is why they don’t discourage their artists from landing in jail… it ads a certain credibility to their product.

    The majority of people who actually buy rap music are White kids and it is sold to them primarily by large White run music conglomerates. So that is where the money in rap music is coming from, and that is where it is going.

    “According to Charles Aaron of Spin Magazine, 71% of rap listers are in
    fact white.”

    http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=34291

  61. “The majority of people who actually buy rap music are White kids and it is sold to them primarily by large White run music conglomerates. ”

    Being an old fashioned (just old maybe) Asian, I dislike rap. Most of the time I hear the annoying booming racket coming down the street, what do I see? Some white boy playing it. Listening to the lyrics, and then looking at the expression of some rich white kid is the most ridiculous thing. Is there any thought that goes thru the mind of these white kids? Bunch of wannabe Eminem, the great white hope. Yup, I said it.

  62. Eminen is a white dope. He’s an embarrassment me as a fellow white man.

  63. He’s what some would called a “W”. And I don’t mean Bush. Now I like it when blacks call themselves the “N” word like Chris Rock. Eminen is white. He can’t say the “N”word like black guys. Besides, blacks are always were good for entertainment . Just like the in the time of the minstrels. They are then as they are today. I just love def comedy.

  64. I don’t see why everyone is getting upset. His theory on why black women are less attractive may be incorrect, but the data shows black women are rated lower compared to other women. The reason may not be testosterone, it could be something else. Or it could be that his data is wrong. But without your own research data to counter his, how is it you can be certain women of every race is equally attractive?

  65. @BigWowo :”I disproved beyond a reasonable doubt his statement about black women being “objectively” less attractive. Disproved it 100% by linking abagond.”

    I am not sure why you think you disproved his statement. He didn’t everyone found black women less attractive, just that in general, black women are less attractive compared to other women. When a man prefers black women, does that disprove Kanazawa’s statement? You only disprove him when you can show that more men prefer black women or somehow women of every race is equally preferred.

  66. @ JT:

    One of the problems with Kanazawa’s thinking is that he treats the findings of this survey as factual, immutable evidence, and immediately assumes there must be a evolutionary, biological reason for it. He doesn’t consider that attractiveness is strongly socially constructed.
    Put it this way: if you conduct the same survey in an Asian country, or an African country, the results would be very different. Kanazawa used survey results conducted in a Western country, and thus they reflect the beauty norms of Western countries. But even then, it is debatable whether the results even reflect that, since it’s based on the opinions of such a tiny number of people.

  67. Seriously, I wonder what type of black women does the author think is unattractive? Dark black women or in between color? Or light skin black women with green or blue eyes? There are a lot of color of black women. They can’t all be ugly.

  68. “I don’t see why everyone is getting upset. His theory on why black women are less attractive may be incorrect, but the data shows black women are rated lower compared to other women.”

    JT, it’s like saying that Green is a more beautiful color than Orange, then “proving it” based on a small survey, conducted in only one country.

    Anybody would be forced to say that this doesn’t make sense, and that even the person making the assertion would know that it doesn’t make sense.

  69. @ King, he only made a theory according to the data. Based on what I read, he didn’t make an assertion that black women are less attractive and then went to trying to prove it. Take your green vs orange color example, in your mind you assume there should be no preference for green or orange, so therefore it must be true. But is that really correct? Different wavelength of light have slightly different effects on your optic neural receptors. Just because something doesn’t seem to make sense at first blush doesn’t mean it has no scientific basis for it.

  70. @Eurasian Sensation,

    I didn’t get the sense he treated his theory as immutable fact. He basically offered up a theory on why the data turned out the way it did. Can evolution play a role? Does social constructs play a role? Can they both play roles? I don’t see why not. If everyone is so sure he is wrong, why not prove it? Why the need to silence him? A study could be done like you suggested in an Asian country and also in an African country and see if results show black women are less attractive or not.

  71. “Take your green vs orange color example, in your mind you assume there should be no preference for green or orange, so therefore it must be true. But is that really correct?”

    Yes, it’s correct, because there is no objective criteria for one color to be “scientifically more beautiful” than another. There may be a point in time where more people prefer a certain color over the others, but taking a poll does not establish objective superiority, only a snapshot of subjective preference.

    Kanazawa simply used clearly flawed science to try to support something that is – by it’s very nature, logically unprovable. You must understand that there are some things that science cannot test. This is one of them.

  72. JT,

    How can you take a preference and say that it is “objectively” right? It’s an entirely subjective measure to begin with. A real scientist–and I studied sciences in college–knows and discloses the limits of his analyses.

  73. I think you guys are focusing on the word “objective” as a basis to invalidate the entire study. Just because someone wrote the abstract poorly, doesn’t mean the findings are invalid. I’d really like to see his raw data, the sample size, what statistical analysis he used, what the p value was, too bad the article was removed, so we’ll just have to go with whatever our preconceived biases on this topic as opposed to something more scientific. Anyway, back to the bigger picture, my question is: can women of a certain race be found to be statistically significantly more or less attractive than another race?

    When you measure an individual preference, it is subjective, but when you apply that to a large population, it becomes objective. Because what the population values can objectively determine its value or worth. Take gold for example, to an individual, gold may be worth something or worth nothing if that individual has no use for it. The value of gold is subjective to that individual. But in a large population, you can objectively assign a value to gold based on the overall individual subjective valuation of gold. You can apply the same reasoning to the value of women’s physical looks as well. To the individual it’s a subjective preference, but to a large population, you can begin to objectively measure the values of the different groups of women.

  74. @ JT

    Here’s the article, if you haven’t seen the full text of it.

    http://tishushu.tumblr.com/post/5548905092/here-is-the-psychology-today-article-by-kanazawa

    Anyway, back to the bigger picture, my question is: can women of a certain race be found to be statistically significantly more or less attractive than another race?

    Yes, but it would still be subjective. In the next decade opinions could change, and then the “scientific facts” would change. That is why it isn’t science.

    When you measure an individual preference, it is subjective, but when you apply that to a large population, it becomes objective.

    No, it’s still subjective, it’s just popular (at that moment in time).

    The same is true of your example of the valuation of precious metals. The atomic weight of gold is scientifically derived. But the price of gold is never “scientifically” derived.

  75. @JT: I’d also have to question the gold analogy. if you heard of something called “tulip mania” from the Netherlands, then at one point prices of one tulip bulb could cost more than somebody’s yearly salary. as a society everybody “invested” into the craze.

  76. @King, so in your view, black women are less attractive right now, but that can change in 10 years? Actually that is science. Science is what we use to explain and understand what we observe in nature or in the real world. Scientific methods are used to explain preferences all the time, and there’s nothing scientifically incorrect about it. Politically incorrect, yes.

  77. “King, so in your view, black women are less attractive right now, but that can change in 10 years?”

    No, that was just an example. Beauty isn’t really measurable, it’s an abstract concept. You can measure how beauty is “perceived” at any given time, but that is still subjective perception. If you have 80 people who say, “I think roses are most beautiful,” and 20 who say, “I think it’s daffodils” then the rose crowd does not have a scientific basis to back up their preference based on a majority vote.

  78. “Actually that is science. Science is what we use to explain and understand what we observe in nature or in the real world.”

    Let me explain. There are a lot of things that we associate with science because we are talking about the methodologies by which we observe and and analyze them. But that does not make the thing itself scientifically based. For instance, some people call Economics a science. Economics is basically market psychology, but the actual actions of people within the market are not usually driven by scientific reasoning. They are not being scientific, they are only being observed by scientific methods.

    If you were to say that Company A was the best, because more people were buying their stock, that would not be a scientific valuation of Company A, even if you used scientific data collection methods to find out how many people were buying the stock. It’s the same thing with beauty. Taking a survey and asking people who they think is beautiful does not establish any objective rule of beauty, it just presents unscientific preferences, within the framework of a scientifically conducted study. The study can be scientifically conducted without the beauty preferences being scientifically founded.

  79. @ JT:
    If more people find the music of Britney Spears more appealing than Aretha Franklin, can we then say conclusively that Britney Spears’ music is more appealing, and thus she is a better artist?

  80. thank you–my asian brothers and sisters–for rejecting (and humorously mocking) this racist pseudoscience. as a black woman from america, i salute you!

  81. @Eurasian Sensation:
    How would you define a better artist if it’s not for her appeal? If more people find person A to be more attractive than person B, doesn’t that mean person A is more attractive?

  82. @King:
    Beauty is measurable. I think people can instinctively distinguish between a beautiful person and an ugly person. We may not have the right tools right now to measure it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not measurable.

  83. @ JT

    Of course there are certain extremes. I’m not saying that NOTHING can be measured across individuals, but trying to bean count beauty by race is nonsensical.

    I can say that orange sherbet tasted better than vomit. That still doesn’t mean that there is a scientific way of proving that orange sherbet is somehow objectively better tasting than strawberry sherbet.

  84. @King

    The reason you can say orange sherbet tastes better than vomit is because the preference for one over another is statistically significant. My feel is that there probably isn’t a statistically significant preference for orange sherbet over strawberry sherbet. However, if out of 1000 random people you sampled, 990 preferred orange sherbet over strawberry sherbet, then you can objectively say orange is the better tasting one.

  85. Yeah but again, how about if the next day, year, or decade, the statistic is different? There was a time, not too long ago, when statistically, most people liked bell bottom pants and mutton chop side burns. Did that mean that they were scientifically proven to be aesthetically superior?

  86. @JT
    How would you define a better artist if it’s not for her appeal? If more people find person A to be more attractive than person B, doesn’t that mean person A is more attractive?

    So using my Aretha / Britney example before, then Britney must be better because she has sold more and thus more people like her, no? Of course, anyone who actually tried to give any serious argument that Britney is somehow a better artist than Aretha would probably be derided as a moron. Because if Aretha (arguably the greatest female singer in pop music, ever) is not as popular as someone as relatively talentless as Britney, then doesn’t that say something about the tastes of the audience?

    Btw Britney is also “better” than Prince, Johnny Cash, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, Nat King Cole, Nirvana, Bob Marley and The Doors.

  87. @King

    The time factor is something to take into consideration. Perhaps it’s a weak point in Kanazawa’s study. I suppose it is possible one day vomit would taste better than orange sherbet, but I would highly doubt it. Kanazawa could repeat his study every decade or so to see if the results would change significantly or not. That could go a long way to support your hypothesis if physical beauty preferences of different races changed dramatically.

  88. @Eurasian

    Well that depends on how you want to go about measuring popularity. What would your experimental setup be? Right now, “sold more” is a very vague term. Does that mean most CDs sold? Most downloaded? Most listened to? If you can come up with a reasonable measure of popularity, and Britney Spears comes out ahead of all those other artists, then what basis would you have to say she isn’t better?

  89. “The time factor is something to take into consideration. Perhaps it’s a weak point in Kanazawa’s study. I suppose it is possible one day vomit would taste better than orange sherbet, but I would highly doubt it.”

    Well, my point was that SOME things have little chance of changing (like vomit vs. sherbet) and some things have a much better chance (orange sherbet vs. strawberry). A burn victim is not going to look better than a beauty pageant winner. That will never change. But when you’re talking about relatively small things like hair texture, skin tone and small variations in features, then those things clearly can change.

    Consider how far attitudes had changed towards Black beauty back in the 20th Century. Tremendous changes in perception occurred, particularly in the latter half of that century. So, you are already tracking something that has demonstrated a drastic change in perception. It is unreasonable, to arbitrarily predict that NOW the current perception is set and will change no more.

    “Kanazawa could repeat his study every decade or so to see if the results would change significantly or not. That could go a long way to support your hypothesis if physical beauty preferences of different races changed dramatically.”

    Or he could do a more thorough and scientifically based study now. His methodology was poor the first time around.

  90. “Consider how far attitudes had changed towards Black beauty back in the 20th Century. Tremendous changes in perception occurred, particularly in the latter half of that century. So, you are already tracking something that has demonstrated a drastic change in perception. ”

    What exactly are you using to track that? If you track the out marriage rates of successful black men, then the black beauty movement is an utter failure.

  91. “Well, my point was that SOME things have little chance of changing (like vomit vs. sherbet) and some things have a much better chance (orange sherbet vs. strawberry)”

    Well that’s probably because there wasn’t a statistical significant difference in preference between orange sherbet vs strawberry sherbet to begin with. If you sampled 1000 people and 523 said they preferred orange over strawberry that’s not enough of a significant difference to say yes, there is something about orange that makes it better than strawberry and not due to chance or coincidence. However if you did a survey and 923 people said they preferred orange sherbet over grapefruit sherbet, then the difference is statistically significant and not likely due to chance or coincidence.

  92. @King

    Are you going to seriously tell me tracking Black Miss America winners judged by a panel of a handful of people is more scientifically rigorous than Kanazawa’s study?

  93. And then of course you have winners in other pageants, like

    Meagan Tandy – Miss California USA 2007
    http://i56.tinypic.com/2j4rslt.jpg

    Kenya Moore – Miss USA 1993
    http://abagond.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/kenya57.jpg

    Carole Gist – Miss USA 1990
    http://www.behindthecrown.com/picweek10.42.jpg

    Chelsi Smith – Miss Universe 1995
    http://www.diendan.eva.vn/upload/images/2008-07-15/44-1995USA-ChelsiSmith.jpg

    Not that this tells the whole story, but it should give some indication that attitues regarding Black beauty have changed from those held at the beginning of the 20th Century. There is no point in denying that.

  94. “Are you going to seriously tell me tracking Black Miss America winners judged by a panel of a handful of people is more scientifically rigorous than Kanazawa’s study?”

    I didn’t say that this was a scientific methodology. You were using casual outdating figures, I simply assumed that I was also free to use casual observations to make my point as well.

  95. If you are saying Kanazawa’s methodology was poor, why would you use an example to support your argument that uses even poorer methodology? I am not sure how you can say selections made by a handful of pre-selected judges is an indication of any standards of anything.

  96. Casual outdating figures are a lot more representative than seven pre-selected judges with extreme liberal points of view.

  97. Because we are having a conversation, not writing a scientific paper. I would think that was rather obvious. I am using a somewhat anecdotal observation in an argument. I am not saying that my observations are the result of a scientific study, and then publishing them in Psychology Today. See the difference?

  98. “Casual outdating figures are a lot more representative than seven pre-selected judges with extreme liberal points of view.

    Are judges who are selected on the spot, somehow better than “pre-selected” judges? Are you aware of any campaign to select only “Extreme Liberal” judges for Miss America???

    What exactly are the outdating figures that you’re talking about? I didn’t see any actual figures, just an assumption.

  99. JT:

    If you track the out marriage rates of successful black men, then the black beauty movement is an utter failure.

    If you track the outmarriage rate of successful white men to black women, then the black beauty movement has been an absolute success. Of course you’re also ignoring social pressures and conventions–Thomas Jefferson was more or less unable to marry Sally Hemmings no matter how much he loved her–but in keeping with Kanazawa’s method, you seem to purposely ignoring the obvious outside influences.

    About arts and popularity–take a humanities class and learn why most authors, including popular fiction authors, place literary fiction above popular fiction on the quality scale, even though popular fiction almost always outsells literary fiction. Learn why rap artists respect and look up to jazz artists, more so than vice versa, even though they outsell jazz artists. I’ll bet even Britney looks up to Aretha more than the other way around.

    Also, just a friendly reminder that we have a blog commenting policy that addresses obtrusive and unsubstantiated comments:

    http://www.bigwowo.com/2010/09/benefit-of-the-doubt-and-our-american-blog-policy/

    This isn’t against you personally, but if you’re going to make a point that one race is “objectively” better looking than another, you need to have solid proof. Otherwise, it comes across as personally insulting for no reason, and it makes it hard for us to maintain a democratic atmosphere of free exchange. Again, nothing personal, just please keep the comment policy in mind.

    (And we also talked about the “Alpha Aryan” thing here.)

    King,

    Are judges who are selected on the spot, somehow better than “pre-selected” judges? Are you aware of any campaign to select only “Extreme Liberal” judges for Miss America???

    Well, Trump owns a lot of beauty pageants. He’s a conservative, but maybe he likes to stack his payroll with extreme liberals. Kinda like the way the Koch brothers give money to Greenpeace and MoveOn.org. Oh, wait, they don’t. Never mind.

  100. Satoshi Kanazawa is objectively ugly. I rate him a 2/10.

    We must give all individuals and groups the benefit of the doubt. It should be assumed, apriori, that all groups are equally beautiful, intelligent, and above all else, equal, in every observable and non-observable trait. The idea of completely uniform equality across groups is much more likely than the idea of differences. If you have ever taken a course on mathematical probability, you would find that this is always true. God created the world so that every group would be equal. If groups were unequal, then God would be unjust, and he can’t be unjust, because he is God.

  101. @ King:

    clearly only someone with “extreme liberal views” could find those women attractive, it seems.

    @ JT:
    By mentioning the alleged “extreme liberal views” of the judging panel (how you know their political orientation I do not know), you are acknowledging what King and I are saying: that instead of there being an objective way to measure beauty, people’s judgements are subject to societal influences. Otherwise, “extreme liberal views” or any other kind of views would be irrelevant.

  102. “Gook ideas” is The Artist Formerly Known As “Oriental Right” and “Asian of Reason”, yeah? Dude is a clear believer in reincarnation.

    I’m sure we’ve all missed his valuable insights into what’s wrong with NAMs.

  103. @BigWowo,

    This is your blog post on the topic. I am merely commenting on how everyone is crapping on Kanazawa because they didn’t like his conclusions, and the fact that you cannot rule out one race is better looking than another. I find it curious no one is offering up solid proof that every race is equally good looking, and yet that seems to be the claim that is being made here.

    Also, what exactly am I purposefully ignoring? Everything has outside influences.

    I am sure Bruce Lee looks up to his Kung Fu master too. Does that mean Bruce Lee is not as good? Can the student not surpass the teacher and still look up to the teacher?

  104. @Eurasian
    Sure it is relevant. And it doesn’t have to be extreme liberal views, it could have easily been extreme conservative views. The point is their views are not representative of the population at large. King was making the argument Miss America pageantry is a reflection of the views and attitudes of the general population. I don’t know how 7 pre-selected individual from the entertainment industry with the same political world view is representative of anything other than liberal Hollywood views. This is no different than going to a trailer park and select 7 people, have their views on beauty as standards that represent the general population.

  105. @King

    Is there a concerted campaign to select only liberal judges? I don’t know, but they select people from the same pool of Hollywood entertainers, who are mostly very liberal. If they were selecting judges from a pool of very conservative people, the results would be equally unrepresentative.

    I am not asking you to write a research paper. I am saying your use of 7 pre-selected people from the same industry, with similar political world views as a reflection of the general population is a very unsound argument. You don’t need to write a research paper in order to make a sound argument.

  106. the fact that you cannot rule out one race is better looking than another

    According to who and whose standards?

  107. JT, I sited THREE national beauty pageants:

    1) The Miss America Pageant
    2) The Miss USA Pageant
    3) The Miss Teen Pageant

    All three of these pageants draw from an entire network of 50 statewide contests, which draw from regional contest, which draw from local contests. In other words, there is an entire web of feeder competitions that go on the entire length of a year before you get to the final pageant. We are NOT talking about “7 pre-selected judges,” we are talking about hundreds of judges that have eliminated thousands of contestants that were finally distilled into the Statewide winners. And besides that, Miss America now also calculates part of the overall final score based on AUDIENCE VOTES.

    If you combine all 3 of the contests that I mentioned, you are then talking about thousands of judges, eliminating tens of thousands of contestants.

    Are ALL of these organizations riddled with extreme liberals, at every level of the competition? What institution would you think is a better reflection of national beauty standards than the pageant industry?

  108. @ JT:
    I think King is arguing not that Miss America is a true reflection of the tastes of broader America, but rather it is but one piece of the broader picture. It doesn’t mean everything, but it’s hard to argue it means nothing either.

    From what I’ve read of Kanazawa’s methodology (and I may have misinterpreted it), his sample was no more representative of wider views than either 7 people from a trailer park, or 7 liberal Hollywood people on a judging panel.

    At best, the study he cites can only reflect the tastes of the USA, a predominantly white country. It’s a society that places white and black men, and white and Asian women, nearer the top of its beauty ideal, with black women and Asian men near the bottom. Do a study in China, and black men and women will be down the bottom, with Asian men closer to the top. Do one in Kenya, and Asian men and women will probably be bottom and black women and men at the top.

    So at best, the study is only relevant to a particular society with its own beauty norms. So how is it a sound basis for reasoning that black women are genetically less attractive based on testosterone and other factors?

  109. @Eurasian

    You are right, having black women win Miss America or other beauty pageants isn’t meaningless. But not having it mean nothing, isn’t exactly supporting the argument he is trying to make.

    Why would a predominantly white country like the US place white men and black men, and white women and Asian women at the top of its beauty ideal? That doesn’t seem to be very logical. Why is there a disparity in desirability between black males and black females, and also between Asian males and females? Are you saying Kanazawa’s testosterone theory is plausible, at least in the US?

  110. @king

    Knowing the preferences of the national pageantry judges, the state judges would naturally want to send the girls they think would give them the best chance of winning. It’s the same reason why Hollywood is so overwhelmingly liberal. If you weren’t very liberal, you probably would have been weeded out long ago before you can ever make it big in Hollywood.

    Practically every one of those judges from your links are related to the Hollywood entertainment industry in one form or another. Makes me wonder if you’d even bother to read your own links.

  111. JT, you asked me a question, and I gave you an example. That doesn’t mean that there is no more evidence to be had, but we also don’t want the be here examining this for the next six months. Clearly the pageants aren’t the ONLY indications, but given that they are “BEAUTY pageants,” they are a better indication than most other things would be.

    My original point was that national perceptions of Black beauty have changed dramatically from 1911 to 2011. It really doesn’t take a genius to see this. The point was that black Beauty perception has been a moving target. Moving targets don’t make good science, when you take a study at just one point, and then base your conclusions on the one study.

  112. @King
    “Are ALL of these organizations riddled with extreme liberals, at every level of the competition? What institution would you think is a better reflection of national beauty standards than the pageant industry?”

    I would find the results to be very representative if the winners were all based on audience voting.

  113. @King

    Has it really changed dramatically from 1911 to 2011? Why after 100 years the ranking order still remains unchanged? You can say it’s a moving target, but is it really all that hard to measure the ranking order? Say you are running a race, and at 10 seconds, you ran 10 meters, and at 20 seconds, you are now at the 20 meter mark, but everyone else running the race is already past the 50 meter mark. Yes, you are a moving target, but it’s not very difficult to say you are the slowest runner in the race.

  114. How are you accounting the “ranking order?”

    What do you consider the ranking order to be?

  115. “Knowing the preferences of the national pageantry judges, the state judges would naturally want to send the girls they think would give them the best chance of winning.”

    So the same organizations didn’t have a single Black pageant winner, on a state or national level, since their founding. Then, in the early eighties, all the feeder organizations suddenly realized that the Almighty 7 Pre-Selected Judges, wanted to have a Black girl win (out of Liberal guilt or pity) and so they sent Vanessa Williams to the finals to placate them? Are you serious?

    Most of the contestants are still White, most of the winners have been White since 1983 when Vanessa Williams won. Exactly what “kind of girls” do you think the Almighty Panel of Pre-Selected Judges is looking for?

  116. “Has it really changed dramatically from 1911 to 2011? Why after 100 years the ranking order still remains unchanged?”

    The problem is that you don’t understand the scope of the problem. These racial hatreds and ethnic tensions take GENERATIONS to fade. Most of the real change that we’ve seen has been rapid and recent. People thought much the same about black beauty in 1945 as their predecessors had in 1905. It was during the late 50s into the mid 70s that the most visible social pivots occurred. Since then it’s been a slow but steady progression.

    It is a miracle that race relations have made the progress they have in the time that they have. And perceptions still are changing.

  117. JT wrote:

    This is no different than going to a trailer park and select 7 people, have their views on beauty as standards that represent the general population.

    That’s more or less what Kanazawa was doing when he cited a study that took a small American sample and declared it as an “objective” truth. (See Eurasian Sensation above.)

    Also, what exactly am I purposefully ignoring? Everything has outside influences.

    You cited the increase in BM/WF intermarriage as an indication that black women were viewed as less attractive, and you ignored the social stigma that influences such decisions. You didn’t cite WM/BF intermarriage, which is logically more relevant if we’re talking about black women’s desirability–since unlike BM/WF, it actually involves black women. Right?

    What you’re doing is throwing out absurdities. It’s like the Bible dude who argues against the Big Bang Theory by saying it’s too unlikely to happen while theorizing the existence of an even more unlikely Supreme Being. Maybe God does exist, but it’s absurd if you’re arguing it from a purely rational perspective. I think you’re seeing this as you’re using the “trailer park” argumentation that disproves your original assertion/assertion-through-questions.

    I am sure Bruce Lee looks up to his Kung Fu master too. Does that mean Bruce Lee is not as good? Can the student not surpass the teacher and still look up to the teacher?

    Sorry, I don’t follow the connection. Are you saying you surpassed Kanazawa? I have no idea where this comes from, but check out my post on coaching. A coach doesn’t have to play the game as well as the player.

    King:

    People thought much the same about black beauty in 1945 as their predecessors had in 1905.

    They probably thought pretty much the same in 1845 or 1745.

    JT, check out the history of the Black is Beautiful movement:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_is_beautiful

    It started during the 60’s, really the mid-60’s. If you’re expecting overnight change in terms of social views, it doesn’t happen. Not on this, not on anything. Check out Robert Putnam’s book Bowling Alone and how he describes the most common process of real social change as measured by real polls–people dying. This is why it’s important to know and study history. You can’t really predict the future without knowing the past.

  118. @JT:
    Why would a predominantly white country like the US place white men and black men, and white women and Asian women at the top of its beauty ideal? That doesn’t seem to be very logical. Why is there a disparity in desirability between black males and black females, and also between Asian males and females? Are you saying Kanazawa’s testosterone theory is plausible, at least in the US?

    If the testosterone thing was plausible in the US, why wouldn’t it be plausible everywhere?

    Masculinity, feminitity and physical attractiveness are all, at least to a certain extent, socially constructed notions.

    Black men just so happen to correspond in many ways with the the USA’s predominant notion of what makes a man “manly” (which plays into the attractiveness factor). Asian men don’t. Does that mean Asian men are less manly than black men? Hell no.
    Some other examples: Western societies currently tend to few tanned skin as attractive. Asian societies don’t. African societies like women to have some booty, Western societies not so much.
    White women tend to have considerably more body hair than black women, yet whites don’t take that as evidence of white women being mannish. Yet Asian men are less hairy, and this sometimes IS seen as a sign of them being less manly than white men.
    A lot of shit doesn’t really make sense, unless you see that each society constructs its own peculiar standard of beauty for males and females. People who are attractive in one society are not necessarily attractive in another.

  119. i just had to say this because it seems to have been repeated often with no pushback: thomas jefferson did NOT love sally hemings!! that’s a rewriting of history, a romantic fantasy! you don’t enslave and rape someone you love! whew–had to get that off my chest!

    also, are we really using beauty pageant contestants as verification of black beauty? seriously? lol

  120. “..also, are we really using beauty pageant contestants as verification of black beauty? seriously? lol”

    No we are using them as ONE indication of a graduated increase in the perception of Black beauty in popular American culture. lol

  121. Whoa…she was raped? Are you sure about that?

    I just checked wiki, and I just found something unexpected–Sally Hemings was 75% White.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Hemings

    “Sally was born to Elizabeth Hemings (1735-1807), who was the mixed-race daughter of Susannah, an enslaved African woman, and John Hemings, an English sea captain.”

  122. I think the matter of consent when it comes to a master/slave relationship is questionable. I think that’s what she means.

  123. @BigWowo

    “That’s more or less what Kanazawa was doing when he cited a study that took a small American sample and declared it as an “objective” truth.”

    I don’t see how you can say having a randomize sample (thousands?) of people from all races is pretty much the same as picking 7 people from the same industry which is notoriously uniform in their political worldview. But even if Kanazawa did go out and hand select a handful of people who had a certain view on beauty and used them to do his study, then the only argument you are making is that King’s example of beauty pageants is a terrible one.

    “You cited the increase in BM/WF intermarriage as an indication that black women were viewed as less attractive, and you ignored the social stigma that influences such decisions. You didn’t cite WM/BF intermarriage, which is logically more relevant if we’re talking about black women’s desirability–since unlike BM/WF, it actually involves black women. Right?”

    It shouldn’t be very hard to figure out that when I mentioned the disparity between black interracial dating, that there aren’t a lot of BFs dating out vs BM. I could have easily talked about BF out dating rates, but I would still have to compare them to BM out dating rates, so I don’t know what point you are trying to make here.

    “What you’re doing is throwing out absurdities. It’s like the Bible dude who argues against the Big Bang Theory by saying it’s too unlikely to happen while theorizing the existence of an even more unlikely Supreme Being.”

    What are you talking about? I have not put forth my own theory, I merely said Kanazawa’s theory is plausible, not that it is correctly. It is you who is saying his theory has no possibility to be right. Thus your Bible thumping example applies better to yourself.

    “It started during the 60′s, really the mid-60′s. If you’re expecting overnight change in terms of social views, it doesn’t happen. Not on this, not on anything. Check out Robert Putnam’s book Bowling Alone and how he describes the most common process of real social change as measured by real polls–people dying. ”

    What do you mean by “overnight”? It’s been half a century already. Plenty of people have died since the movement’s inception. Let me ask you this, what do you expect the end point result of the black beauty movement to be? Black women are considered equally attractive, more attractive, or still less attractive vs women of other races? If the BM and BF dating disparity widen, and black women are still found to be less attractive in the future, then is that really progress or are you really falling further behind? See my track running example.

  124. JT:

    I don’t see how you can say having a randomize sample (thousands?) of people from all races is pretty much the same as picking 7 people from the same industry which is notoriously uniform in their political worldview.

    If those thousands of people are from the same country, watching the same media, interacting with the same people, it would be ludicrous to expect such results to give you an “objective” truth, the same way it would be illogical to have 7 people or even hundreds of judges (which is closer to the actual decision process) making an “objective” proof. On this blog, we’ve got White people, black people, Asian people, and Hispanic people all reading the same media. If we polled them, I doubt we could call it “objective” in any sense of the word. Hell, we could probably poll bigWOWO to prove “objective” universal love for Asian people.

    The difference between King’s example and your example is that King wasn’t trying to claim a universal truth. It was just an indicator. And to a certain extent, it does indicate something about the way people view beauty–they wouldn’t tune in otherwise.

    It shouldn’t be very hard to figure out that when I mentioned the disparity between black interracial dating, that there aren’t a lot of BFs dating out vs BM.

    Let me refer you to Tierney’s research to describe why this is and which is the pickiest race/gender combination.

    http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/single-female-seeking-same-race-male/

    Or you can just read my other blog post.

    http://www.bigwowo.com/2010/02/where-the-black-man-is-kingflashforwards-ir-pairing/

    In either case, it’s interesting that you cited evidence that had nothing to do with black women, whom you were analyzing. That’s a huge omission. It would’ve made much more sense to omit in the other direction.

    What are you talking about? I have not put forth my own theory, I merely said Kanazawa’s theory is plausible, not that it is correctly. It is you who is saying his theory has no possibility to be right. Thus your Bible thumping example applies better to yourself.

    That’s because we proved it was not objective–it’s so ri-dunc-ulously easy to prove that there is no objective measure of beauty. It’s a fact–King and abagond do not hold your truth to be objectively true. Disproven. Done. To ignore this proof is absurd. You need to stop saying the beauty is objective.

    What you’re doing is throwing out absurdities in the face of proof, like the flat-earthers claiming that the earth is flat because the Bible talks about the four corners of earth. “It could be true. You’ve never actually seen all the earth at one time, have you? How do you know that those claims of seeing a circular or a spherical earth from space aren’t part of a conspiracy?”

    Again, here’s the blog commenting policy:

    http://www.bigwowo.com/2010/09/benefit-of-the-doubt-and-our-american-blog-policy/

    I have no problem with you saying why you don’t believe people will change, why black women will always be less popular in America, or why you doubt that change can occur. That’s fine. Talk away. I think most people would be fine with that. But you need to drop this “objective” truth thing, because you’ve not provided a shred of evidence that it’s true on the international or the human level. It’s obstrusive and unsubstantiated. This is not an issue with what you think. You have a right to your own views. It’s an issue of how you interact. If someone were to come here and allege that Asian men have small dicks or question your mother’s integrity or that it was “objectively” true that people found Asian men less attractive without a shred of proof, they would similarly be in violation of the policy. Obtrusive and unsubstantiated comments are not allowed.

    So you can drop it or start over, but you need to follow the rules of engagement. Why do you think black women will always be viewed on average as less attractive by AMERICANS? Darker skin? Curlier hair? Larger back sides? Take a stand on what you think indicates this to be the case.

    What do you mean by “overnight”? It’s been half a century already. Plenty of people have died since the movement’s inception.

    C’mon, half a century is a drop in the bucket. Read Putnam’s book. You’ll be glad you did. He shows through data how dying changes a country’s perspective. It’s not a fast process. Most of the people running the country–including almost all the senators, congressmen, the President, people on the Forbes 400, governors, Hollywood producers, the people who own the beauty pageants, etc., were alive during or before the sixties. And in another thirty years when many of them have passed, there will still be their children. It takes generations to make change. If, in another 200 or 300 years things have not changed, you’ll have a point, and it’ll be up to one of your descendents to try to explain it.

    I mean, really. What you’re expecting of human beings has no historical precedent. Slavery started in American during the 1500’s and ended in 1865, but it didn’t mean most Americans thought highly of black people fifty years later. If you think 50 years is a long time with respect to the development of humanity, I’ll suggest that you take a look at history. Aside from technical adaptation, there’s no historical precedent for the speed of change that you’re describing.

  125. i cant believe people are still talking about this guy. Looking at some of his other articles, I deem Kanazawa a professional troll.

    OK, on a national level I strongly suspect that there are an unfortunate number of people who think black women are less attractive then women of other races. Yet, is he really blaming testosterone levels for this?

  126. “Yet, is he really blaming testosterone levels for this?”

    Testosterone does lead to secondary masculine traits, such as sharp jawline, high cheekbones, etc.

    Look at porn for instance, not much black female porn because there’s not much demand for it. The penis doesn’t lie: If you’re male and you’ve never sought out black porn, that should be enough evidence for you that black females are less attractive than others.

  127. Dali!!! Stop being ridiculous.

    TESTOSTERONE does NOT effect high cheekbones!!! It certainly does NOT effect your jawline!!! And obviously there is no way that you know the percentage of porn that have been produced over the years by ethnicity.

  128. @Dali

    Maybe it has to do with the fact that the companies producing porn are run by trashy white dudes that thinks they know what the market is (not unlike Hollywood). Using the same logic, are Asian-looking guys ‘objectively’ uglier and that’s why we are less-represented in everything from porn to movies to literature?

    In any case, I never understood why people consider these trashy looking, silicone bodied porn stars attractive in the first place.

  129. Dali:

    Look at porn for instance, not much black female porn because there’s not much demand for it. The penis doesn’t lie: If you’re male and you’ve never sought out black porn, that should be enough evidence for you that black females are less attractive than others.

    I have a friend who is a porn connoisseur (and likes all women), and he said that black female porn is actually numerically bigger than Asian female porn AND has a longer history. I googled and can’t find info on that. You might want to check into this.

    I do know this–several years ago, a big Asian female porn star–I think it was Asia Carrera or Mimi Miyagi, said that her fans were very tame and seldom harassed her at the conventions since so many of them were tame Asian men. So whether black female porn is big or small, Asian female porn can’t be all that big if Asia or Mimi say that a significant part of their fanbase comes from the small 5% of the population in Asian American men. In any case, minority female porn is dwarfed in size and reach by White female porn.

    When you say that black females are less attractive, do you mean less attractive to you personally, or less attractive universally? That’s part of my point–it’s personal. Just because you haven’t sought black porn, doesn’t mean that no one else has–obviously someone is paying these actresses to produce. Many people prefer their own race, which is why I find this conversation a bit ridiculous–some people on this thread are taking either their own preferences or mainstream (White) preferences and assuming everyone else thinks the same way.

    Dali and JT:

    Blacks on average have the highest levels of testosterone, and Asians have the lowest.

    I’m not sure what each of you is thinking or saying, but if facial features caused by higher testosterone levels make women less attractive (and JT, I’m not sure if your link was necessarily relevant to Dali’s or King’s comment since the Wiki was only talking about puberty and said nothing about jawlines becoming sharper because of more testosterone), then shouldn’t Asian porn be the biggest seller? Shouldn’t Asia Carrera have more name recognition than Jenna Jameson?

  130. @ Dali:
    I sincerely hope you don’t base all your understanding of human beauty and attraction on porn.

    Besides, I imagine the sort of women most guys prefer to look at in porn are not the sort of women they would choose for a partner in real life. And I imagine porn audiences are drawn to certain kinds of um, “acting talent” rather than simply physical attractiveness.

    Or is Ron Jeremy everyone’s physical ideal?

  131. @BigWowo
    “Dali and JT:

    Blacks on average have the highest levels of testosterone, and Asians have the lowest.

    I’m not sure what each of you is thinking or saying, but if facial features caused by higher testosterone levels make women less attractive (and JT, I’m not sure if your link was necessarily relevant to Dali’s or King’s comment since the Wiki was only talking about puberty and said nothing about jawlines becoming sharper because of more testosterone), then shouldn’t Asian porn be the biggest seller? Shouldn’t Asia Carrera have more name recognition than Jenna Jameson?”

    All I said was testosterone does change facial features, and it’s not just at puberty but at all times because bone is always being remodeled. Just look at female body builders, their facial features look very masculine. Testosterone has masculinizing effects, that’s why it’s a MALE androgen. If testosterone was the only factor that determines physical beauty of females, then your rationale would be valid. But there are various other factors other than testosterone that would make Jenna Jameson a bigger draw than a hapa like Asia Carrera.

  132. @Eurasian
    I don’t think most guys are watching porn because of Ron Jeremy’s physical attractiveness.

  133. @BigWowo
    “I have a friend who is a porn connoisseur (and likes all women), and he said that black female porn is actually numerically bigger than Asian female porn AND has a longer history. I googled and can’t find info on that. You might want to check into this.”

    Many people are under the mistaken notion that Asian females are “hyper-sexualized”. They are more sexualized than AMs that’s for sure, but in the grand scheme of things, they are not very sexualized relative to other races. I would not be all that surprised if there are more black female porn than Asian female porn as your friend suggests. My own gut feel is that there may be more AF porn than BF porn, although not by a huge margin.

  134. @N
    “Maybe it has to do with the fact that the companies producing porn are run by trashy white dudes that thinks they know what the market is (not unlike Hollywood). Using the same logic, are Asian-looking guys ‘objectively’ uglier and that’s why we are less-represented in everything from porn to movies to literature?

    In any case, I never understood why people consider these trashy looking, silicone bodied porn stars attractive in the first place.”

    Porn is a very cut throat business, pron producers have to sell a product or they will lose money very quickly. Unlike Hollywood, which has high entry barrier, anyone with a camera can produce his/her own porn. The porn market is also very much saturated, so they very much have to cater to market demands.

  135. JT:

    All I said was testosterone does change facial features, and it’s not just at puberty but at all times because bone is always being remodeled. Just look at female body builders, their facial features look very masculine. Testosterone has masculinizing effects, that’s why it’s a MALE androgen. If testosterone was the only factor that determines physical beauty of females, then your rationale would be valid. But there are various other factors other than testosterone that would make Jenna Jameson a bigger draw than a hapa like Asia Carrera.

    I don’t know if I necessarily agree with that. Female bodybuilders may look more “masculine” because they’re walking around at around 2% bodyfat and have very little fat in their faces–their bone shows more. Some of them juice up, which is highly unnatural and artificial and therefore causes unnatural changes–this people know, but it only happens at highly concentrated levels of an artificial hormone. Even if it’s true that testosterone causes changes in bone structure at older ages, I don’t know if one race has a significant testosterone advantage over another, nor is it evident that minute differences matter. They have blood tests in MMA, and everyone gets the same criteria.

    But since we’re talking about testosterone, masculinity, porn, etc., what other factors would make Jenna Jameson a bigger draw than Asia Carrera or Mimi Miyagi?

  136. @BigWowo
    No, just because a woman is lean or has very little body fat, it does not make her look masculine. There is no different between chemical compound whether they are made in the lab or naturally occurring. If I combined oxygen and hydrogen in the lab to make water, it is no different than the water you find in nature. Body builders are the extreme example of course, but females are much more sensitive to small variations in testosterone levels than males. Like I said before bone matrix is constantly being reabsorbed and new bone is being laid down throughout your life, this is not something that occurs only at puberty. Maybe Jenna Jameson is better looking, maybe Asian women aren’t all that sexualized and desirable as many mistakenly think.

  137. JT:

    Having less fat on your face, considering men on average have a lower percentage of bodyfat, would seem to be more masculine. Seems that way to me, anyway.

    You’re saying that having your body producing testosterone is the same as injecting and is not unnatural? Hmm. I don’t know about that. The doctors who busted Chael Sonnen and Nate Marquardt might disagree. I have heard though of athletes claiming that their T level is just naturally high, so I won’t necessarily disagree with you here. I still think you need to show that black women’s T levels are high enough to be significant, even if they are higher (and I haven’t seen your link to this either; I’m just taking your word for the sake of debate).

    In any case, you linked a source that specifically addressed puberty. If it’s true that this occurs at another time, feel free to link up a more relevant source.

    Maybe Jenna Jameson is better looking, maybe Asian women aren’t all that sexualized and desirable as many mistakenly think.

    Whoa…you just said that Asian women aren’t all that “sexualized.” Do you mean by society? “Sexualized” is a passive verb. That would imply that beauty/sexuality is at least in part due to social influences. Am I understanding you correctly?

  138. To the above commenters:
    The reason I brought up the subject of porn is that people will seek out what they are attracted to, especially online. Unlike the old days where porn was distributed in seedy magazines and other physical media, it’s widely accessible and there’s porn of everything (Rule #34). What you are not accounting for in your argument is that there is a huge import porn market especially from Japan and an endless amount of amateur porn, so just looking at big name porn stars is not very relevant.

    “what other factors would make Jenna Jameson a bigger draw than Asia Carrera or Mimi Miyagi?”

    Good marketing, and also the fact that males are naturally more attracted to females of their own race. There is a fetish factor to Asian porn among non-Asian people.

  139. That reminded me of certain Asian American women accusing AA men of having a fetish for Asian girls… lol. Could you imagine if white female porn was considered a fetish among white males? It’s absolutely ridiculous because people are generally attracted to others of their own race.

  140. And speaking of the Jenna vs. Asian women debate, if you go to Japan, most of their porn stars Japanese women. They have White women in their porn too, but their own women outsell.

    Dali,

    Good marketing, and also the fact that males are naturally more attracted to females of their own race. There is a fetish factor to Asian porn among non-Asian people.

    I would say “usually” instead of “naturally” since it’s not natural for every male, nor has it been shown to be an effect of nature rather than nurture, but I think I agree with the gist of what you just said–that it’s influenced by marketing and fetishes.

  141. @BigWowo
    I am saying the chemical compound is the same, although there maybe some slight side effects as the body will try and re-establish its normal set limits, but the main targeted effect should be the same. You are correct in that getting steroid injections will cause a much more dramatic change than naturally high testosterone levels in female body builders, because their bodies cannot naturally produce that high a level of testosterone. But if it could, it should produce similar effects.

    Here are a couple of studies on testosterone levels between men of different races.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18364385
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12376505
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19639516
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19423525

    BTW, I never said Kanazawa’s theory has to be correct, only that it could be plausible, and should not be dismissed out of hand. It could be something else, other than testosterone, whether biological or not, that causes lower attractiveness ratings for BFs.

    It’s getting late and I will explain the AF part tomorrow.

  142. Props to Jaehwan for having the stamina to patiently debate confused dorks grasping at straws to justify their own thorough and utterly complete mental colonization.

  143. @BigWowo
    “Whoa…you just said that Asian women aren’t all that “sexualized.” Do you mean by society? “Sexualized” is a passive verb. That would imply that beauty/sexuality is at least in part due to social influences. Am I understanding you correctly?”

    There is a common belief among those in the Asian American (especially male) community that AMs are asexualized while AFs are hypersexualized in the US. AFs are more sexualized by society than AMs for sure, but compared to women of other ethnicities, AFs aren’t very all that sexualized at all. The theory that AFs are hypersexualized in the US is largely a myth, there isn’t much evidence to back that up. That’s one of the reasons Jenna Jameson is a much bigger draw than Asia Carrera.

  144. “BTW, I never said Kanazawa’s theory has to be correct, only that it could be plausible, and should not be dismissed out of hand.”

    That s not the way it works. As a scientist you don’t just think out loud and divulge unproven hypotheses to the general public. Responsible scientists do enough homework to substantiate their theories before stating them to the general public. That’s the way it works.

    The testosterone theory is just that sort of irresponsibility. Even a heightened level of testosterone, in women would have to measured against the level of estrogen in each case. If estrogenic levels are consistently, metabolically balanced with testosterone levels than there will be no appreciable effect.

    Besides that, a great deal is dependent on how any particular subject’s body is synthesizes and metabolizes the the testosterone in question. Testosterone is not all used and can be deactivated by other enzymes (hydroxylation) when there is an excess. The fact that testosterone is present does not mean that it is necessarily being metabolized.

    In any case, the levels of testosterone in ALL women are significantly lower than in men. The levels are not high enough to produce significant masculization. In order to produce adequate levels of testosterone to achieve such effects, a woman would have to have testicles, or take daily injections of significantly higher quantities than can be biosynthesized in a female body by thecal cells.

    All of this should have been taken into account before postulating a theory that does not make sense.

  145. @ JT

    BTW, the original title of Kanazaw’s article was:

    “Why Are Black Women Rated Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women, But Black Men Are Rated Better Looking Than Other Men?”

    Do you then agree that Black men are better looking than all other men? After all he was using the exact same survey techniques and the same methodology to come up with that part of his hypothesis.

  146. @King
    I thought this was the title of his article?

    “Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?Why black women, but not black men?
    Published on May 15, 2011 by Satoshi Kanazawa in The Scientific Fundamentalist”

    And this was the very sentence of the article:

    “There are marked race differences in physical attractiveness among women, but not among men. Why?”

    Didn’t seem like his study found black men to be better looking.

  147. @King
    “That s not the way it works. As a scientist you don’t just think out loud and divulge unproven hypotheses to the general public. Responsible scientists do enough homework to substantiate their theories before stating them to the general public. That’s the way it works.”

    That is how it works. A hypothesis is nothing more than a proposed explanation on an observed phenomenon. If you already know how something works, then it would not be a hypothesis anymore. It seems you are confused with the definition of hypothesis.

    “The testosterone theory is just that sort of irresponsibility. Even a heightened level of testosterone, in women would have to measured against the level of estrogen in each case. If estrogenic levels are consistently, metabolically balanced with testosterone levels than there will be no appreciable effect.”

    What do you mean? Are you saying estrogen cancels out testosterone? Therefore having high levels of testosterone is normal as long as you also have high estrogen levels to cancel out the testosterone effects?

    “Besides that, a great deal is dependent on how any particular subject’s body is synthesizes and metabolizes the the testosterone in question. Testosterone is not all used and can be deactivated by other enzymes (hydroxylation) when there is an excess. The fact that testosterone is present does not mean that it is necessarily being metabolized.”

    That is true of all enzymes, substrates, metabolites, hormones, etc.. in the body. That’s how the body maintains homeostasis. You never have 100% of any hormone in the all metabolized. It’s all about the concentration levels that produce different effects. When you have more of a hormone you see more of that hormone’s effects because more of that hormone is acting on that specific hormone’s receptors.

    “In any case, the levels of testosterone in ALL women are significantly lower than in men. The levels are not high enough to produce significant masculization. In order to produce adequate levels of testosterone to achieve such effects, a woman would have to have testicles, or take daily injections of significantly higher quantities than can be biosynthesized in a female body by thecal cells.

    All of this should have been taken into account before postulating a theory that does not make sense.”

    We do know that there are more masculine men and more feminine men, just as more masculine women and more feminine women. I don’t think Kanazawa was making the point black women’s testosterone levels are equivalent to that of men. He was saying black women tend to be a bit more masculine compared to other women.

  148. JT:

    It’s getting late and I will explain the AF part tomorrow.

    Okay, sounds good. (I’m assuming you have more to say than just the paragraph at 12:32 pm?)

    BTW, I never said Kanazawa’s theory has to be correct, only that it could be plausible, and should not be dismissed out of hand. It could be something else, other than testosterone, whether biological or not, that causes lower attractiveness ratings for BFs.

    So you’re saying it’s not biological or maybe not biological. (Kanazawa was implying it was.) If by “Kanazawa’s theory” you mean the idea that black women score lower on attractiveness tests in America, I don’t think anyone would dispute that, the same way Asian men rank on the bottom of similar tests. But that wasn’t his theory. His theory was that it was universal, and he proposed testosterone as the reason.

    Anyway, rather than beat around the bush about what you may or may not think, what is your plausible theory? (Not sure I want to hear it, but go ahead.)

  149. JT said: “Didn’t seem like his study found black men to be better looking.”

    Direct Quotes:

    “Net of intelligence, black men are significantlymore physically attractive
    than nonblack men.”
    Kanazawa page 8. (first paragraph)

    “But since both black women and black men have higher mutation loads, it cannot explain why only black women are less physically attractive, while black men are, if anything, more attractive.” Kanazawa page 8. (second paragraph)

    “Africans on average have higher levels of testosterone than other races, and testosterone, being an androgen (male hormone), affects the physical attractiveness of men and women differently. Men with higher levels of testosterone have more masculine features and are therefore more physically attractive.” Kanazawa page 8. (third paragraph)

    Here is your link, old chap

    http://creativeseven.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/satoshi-kanazawa-article.pdf

    I assume that you will spare us any prevarication—much less. naked hypocrisy—and immediately admit that you consider this part of the theory to be just a plausible as the other half .

  150. @BigWowo
    “Okay, sounds good. (I’m assuming you have more to say than just the paragraph at 12:32 pm?)”

    That’s just the main points I want to say about AF sexualization in the US. I just didn’t want to think about how I wanted to write it last night. Did you want further clarification what I meant originally?

    “So you’re saying it’s not biological or maybe not biological. (Kanazawa was implying it was.) If by “Kanazawa’s theory” you mean the idea that black women score lower on attractiveness tests in America, I don’t think anyone would dispute that, the same way Asian men rank on the bottom of similar tests. But that wasn’t his theory. His theory was that it was universal, and he proposed testosterone as the reason.”

    BFs and AMs are found less desirable are not a theory but observed facts. You can repeat these tests over and over and end up with similar results. His theory is to explain the observed difference. I find the testosterone theory to be plausible, maybe it doesn’t contribute enough to make a significant difference, but we don’t have the data to definitively say that.

    “Anyway, rather than beat around the bush about what you may or may not think, what is your plausible theory? (Not sure I want to hear it, but go ahead.)”

    I don’t have a good theory to explain it. I believe there is a biological component to it, but I don’t know exactly what. I do not think it is purely social due to my own personal experiences. I was born in China, and came to the US around 10, I was never exposed to western media influences and before I came to the US, I didn’t even know what a white or black girl looked like. But after coming to the US, I noticed right away that white girls were in general much prettier than the Chinese girls I have known all my life. My view is that in general white girls are better looking than Asian girls, and Asian girls are better looking than black girls. So are you offended now?

  151. @King
    “I assume that you will spare us any prevarication—much less. naked hypocrisy—and immediately admit that you consider this part of the theory to be just a plausible as the other half .”

    Throughout the article you linked, his data didn’t show any significant differences between the males except in wave 3 where there was a statistical significant different but it was small, and white men had the highest rating, not black. At the end, he did write: “Net of intelligence, black men are significantly more physically attractive
    than nonblack men.” But what does that mean? I didn’t see any intelligence data nor any data that showed black men being most attractive.

  152. Do you agree that Black men are more physically attractive?

    After all, they have higher levels of testosterone, it is the exact same argument he is making regarding women but in this case it would naturally make men more attractive.

    Do you agree? Or is there some problem now?

  153. All thee of the statements that I quoted are in the article one after the other. Did you have trouble finding the other two?

  154. @King
    Of course I won’t agree to it. That line you cited is not supported by the data.

  155. So, what you are saying, is that Satoshi Kanazawa included, in his “scientific article,” three quotes, one right after the other, that were COMPLETELY UNSUPPORTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC DATA THAT HE HAD JUST PRESENTED A FEW PARAGRAPHS EARLIER?

    Is that correct?

  156. It’s possible I might have missed it. Why don’t you show me which part of his data showed black men to be the most physically attractive?

  157. I don’t find it in his data either… but yet he repeats his claim three times. Isn’t that curious?

    What are the possibilities?

    1) He’s extremely sloppy
    2) He’s so stupid that he contradicts his own data within a page of presenting it.
    3) He’s lying
    4) He must be siting information from another part of his research without making it clear that this is what he is doing.

    Did I miss an option?

  158. Maybe that link wasn’t the entire original article? He mentioned intelligence yet I didn’t see it addressed at all.

  159. I haven’t found any data to back up his claims in any version of the article posted online.

    Do you believe then that it’s probable that he does have evidence that Black men are the most attractive of all men, or do you think that he is simply an inept scientist?

  160. JT:

    You wrote:

    BFs and AMs are found less desirable are not a theory but observed facts. You can repeat these tests over and over and end up with similar results.

    Well, no, not exactly. You can repeat these tests over and over in the U.S. with similar results, but if you did the tests in Tokyo or Tanzania, you’d get different results. Hell, you’d probably get different results in just Compton. That’s the point that everyone was trying to make–it’s related to your background.

    I do not think it is purely social due to my own personal experiences. I was born in China, and came to the US around 10, I was never exposed to western media influences and before I came to the US, I didn’t even know what a white or black girl looked like. But after coming to the US, I noticed right away that white girls were in general much prettier than the Chinese girls I have known all my life. My view is that in general white girls are better looking than Asian girls, and Asian girls are better looking than black girls. So are you offended now?

    No, not offended. I get annoyed when you misrepresent the truth (such as your contention that Obama was never a professor) or exaggerate (blaming everything on the “liberal” media), but aesthetics are aesthetics. That’s your personal preferences. But as I said before, it’s not about you.

    If you took a poll on bigWOWO or any of the Asian American blogs, I can almost guarantee you that Asian women would win such a poll hands down when it comes to attractiveness. If you did the same on abagond’s site or field-negro’s site, black women would dominate. The same would happen if you took this poll to different continents. Through my activism, I’ve done the job of asking what people think. And it depends a lot on background.

    In short, you’ve got an unusual set of tastes given your background, which is fine. Just don’t make the mistake of thinking everyone shares your view because they don’t.

  161. If it wasn’t for BigWowo’s blog post, I wouldn’t know Kanazawa from a hole in the wall. I don’t know his track record, so I have no idea if he is inept or not. 8 pages seem pretty short for a study. I didn’t see any tables of raw data, just graphs in the link you provided. Too bad Psychology Today removed his original article. If that was his entire article in total, then I would agree with you, he is inept and sloppy. But I don’t know for sure that is the case.

  162. @BigWowo
    Well obviously you repeat the test with similar conditions. If you run tests with different conditions then you aren’t repeating the study, you are running a different study. Kanazawa didn’t generalize his conclusion to populations he didn’t cover, you are the doing that.
    I didn’t blame “everything” on the liberal media. But the stuff I did blame them for, I don’t remember anyone show me where I was wrong.
    Nothing I had been talking about has anything to do with my own preferences, I only mentioned them because you asked. Did I impose my own preference on others? I don’t know why you think I mistakenly did something I didn’t do.

  163. JT, I saw the article the day that it was posted, before Psychology Today took it down. I assure you, that’s all that there was.

    That’s why people keep saying WTF??? Why did he do an article on this? There was just no substance to it. You can’t make a big claim like that and have nothing to back it up. It’s not kosher. Not in a scientific journal.

  164. JT:

    Well obviously you repeat the test with similar conditions. If you run tests with different conditions then you aren’t repeating the study, you are running a different study. Kanazawa didn’t generalize his conclusion to populations he didn’t cover, you are the doing that.

    Well, no, not exactly. He said they were “objectively” less attractive, which means he was generalizing his conclusion.

    I didn’t blame “everything” on the liberal media. But the stuff I did blame them for, I don’t remember anyone show me where I was wrong.
    Nothing I had been talking about has anything to do with my own preferences, I only mentioned them because you asked. Did I impose my own preference on others? I don’t know why you think I mistakenly did something I didn’t do.

    You didn’t prove a “liberal” correlation. You said that the media supported Obama, and then you agreed they supported Schwartzenneggar and Giuliani too, although you also said that it wasn’t as much as they supported Obama.

    I never said you imposed your preference on others; I said that you assumed others think the way you do. Which they don’t.

  165. BigWowo,
    “Well, no, not exactly. He said they were “objectively” less attractive, which means he was generalizing his conclusion.”

    No, objective just means it’s something you can measure, it has nothing to do with generalizing his conclusion, you are trying to connect two dots that aren’t related. You seem to not understand how this term is used scientifically. Incidentally, the exact term was used in the speed dating study you cited, you didn’t seem to have much objection when that study used objective measurements to define attractiveness. Is it because you liked their conclusions but not so much Kanazawa’s? Is your fixation on Kanazawa’s use of the term just a red herring?

    “You didn’t prove a “liberal” correlation. You said that the media supported Obama, and then you agreed they supported Schwartzenneggar and Giuliani too, although you also said that it wasn’t as much as they supported Obama.”

    I never said the media supported Schwartzenegger and Giuliani, I only said they got more favorable treatment than other Republicans like Bush and Palin, but less than Democrats.

    “I never said you imposed your preference on others; I said that you assumed others think the way you do. Which they don’t.”

    Do you have any examples to back that statement up?

  166. “No, ‘objective’ just means it’s something you can measure, it has nothing to do with generalizing his conclusion.”

    Site the source of this definition please. Thank you.

  167. I was going to say the same thing, King. There is nowhere I know of that defines “objective” as “something you can measure.” I guess I’d be okay if that’s what the word means, but I don’t know anyone else who defines it as such. Just as I don’t know anyone else who argues with the University of Chicago over their definition of “professor”.

    JT wrote:

    “I never said you imposed your preference on others; I said that you assumed others think the way you do. Which they don’t.”

    Do you have any examples to back that statement up?

    After you wrote that post about your personal experience, here is what I wrote:

    Just don’t make the mistake of thinking everyone shares your view because they don’t.

    I’m really not sure why you couldn’t find this yourself. It was in my immediate previous comment.

  168. JT:

    Incidentally, the exact term was used in the speed dating study you cited, you didn’t seem to have much objection when that study used objective measurements to define attractiveness.

    I just opened the speed dating study, and no, they don’t use that term the way Kanazawa does. Notice they put the word in quotes. There’s a very good reason for that.

    Also–there are two studies from that Tierney blog. I usually talk about the second study, which is no longer linked, the one that mentions the $24k.

  169. @BigWowo
    “I just opened the speed dating study, and no, they don’t use that term the way Kanazawa does. Notice they put the word in quotes. There’s a very good reason for that.”

    So you’d be OK with Kanazawa’s study if he put quotes around objective? So your argument before was Kanazawa used the word objective, now’s it’s that he used objective without quotes? Am I getting that right? Can you also explain how the quotes change the meaning of the study?

    http://www.rasch.org/define.htm

    “I’m really not sure why you couldn’t find this yourself. It was in my immediate previous comment.”

    I didn’t take issue with your first statement. But your second statement said I assumed everyone thought the way I did, which is totally different from the first statement.

  170. Sorry, JT, exactly what is it that you study? Where are you studying it? Are you a science major? A humanities major?

    That definition you posted above does NOT define “objective” as “something you can measure.” In fact, that definition doesn’t even define “objective!” It defines “objective measurement.” Of course, “measure” is going to be a part of the definition of “objective measurement.”

    Again, link something that defines “objective” as “something you can measure.” If you can’t find any reputable dictionary that does so, then admit you’re wrong. It’s a waste of time for you or anyone to sit here and spout stuff if you know you’re wrong. It’s a waste of time for you not to learn something new. I say this in a nice way too. There’s a golden learning opportunity here.

    But your second statement said I assumed everyone thought the way I did,

    Nope, wrong again. My second statement said that I said that you assumed everyone thought the way you did. There’s a logical difference. But this is more advanced stuff. I think you’ve got a definition problem to work on first.

    It’s kinda like Malcolm X’s training. You have to go back to the dictionary to truly understand what people are trying to convey, to understand the words they use. I actually think it’s a great idea to study the dictionary. You not only learn what words mean, you learn the history, context, etymology, etc.

  171. @BigWowo
    The definition is right there. It’s something you can objectively measure repeatedly and give you a result that is within a reasonable error range. That’s pretty much described what Kanazawa was saying. I mean what kind of scientific study doesn’t do measurements? It should be clear to those who read the article that is what he is talking about. Just as the speed dating article talks about using their objective measurements to measure attractiveness. You are just nitpicking any little detail you can find and use that as an excuse to say Kanazawa is wrong. At least King is making the argument Kanazawa is a sloppy researcher, which may very well be true. But your whole rationale is nitpicking unrelated stuff. I am not the one losing this argument. You need to come up with better substantive arguments than saying quotes are missing or the word “measurement” was omitted, when it’s clear that is what we are talking about. And yes, I am a science major.

    “Nope, wrong again. My second statement said that I said that you assumed everyone thought the way you did. There’s a logical difference. But this is more advanced stuff. I think you’ve got a definition problem to work on first.”

    To which I asked you to give an example, and you referred me back to your original different statement. Yes, maybe your level of thinking is too advanced for me, but I’d still like an example where I assumed everyone thought the way I did. If you can’t come up with any, then maybe you shouldn’t claim to know what I am assuming.

  172. JT:

    The definition is right there.

    Where???

    It’s something you can objectively measure repeatedly and give you a result that is within a reasonable error range.

    What’s “something you can objectively measure?” An “objective measurement?” Well, duh. But I wasn’t interested in the definition of “objective measurement.” I was interested in the definition of “objectively” or “objective,” which you defined as “something you can measure.” (thereby defining “objective measurement,” according to your original definition, as “measurable measurement.”)

    I think you’re being intentionally obtuse, acting like you’re not as smart as you really are. You really know you’re wrong, but you’re trying to wear everyone out. That’s what you’re doing, right? Haha, jokes on all of us. A simple definition is all I asked for (and all King asked for, so stop trying to play “turn A against B.”)

    “And yes, I am a science major.”

    In college? (sorry, I had to ask.) :)

    No, really, I want to know where you got your definition of “objective.” If you just made it up, you ought to go back to the dictionary. It’s not nitpicking. If you read the OP, that was the main part of the disagreement.

  173. @BigWowo
    “What’s “something you can objectively measure?” An “objective measurement?” Well, duh. But I wasn’t interested in the definition of “objective measurement.” I was interested in the definition of “objectively” or “objective,” which you defined as “something you can measure.” (thereby defining “objective measurement,” according to your original definition, as “measurable measurement.”)

    I think you’re being intentionally obtuse, acting like you’re not as smart as you really are. You really know you’re wrong, but you’re trying to wear everyone out. That’s what you’re doing, right? Haha, jokes on all of us. A simple definition is all I asked for (and all King asked for, so stop trying to play “turn A against B.”)”

    You can objectively measure something like taste, see my discussion with King on vomit vs orange sherbet. If you can repeat the test and get the same results, then the measurement is objective. That’s just how the term is used in science. Scientific terms have very specific meanings and often times they don’t match up exactly with the meaning in lay terms. People often make this mistake of insisting on the lay meaning when the term is very much legitimate in a scientific sense. All I saying is your argument against Kanazawa has no scientific basis, you are arguing semantics, and even then his use of “objective” is perfectly fine, just as it was used in the speed dating study. I gave you the definition of objective measurement, it’s the same meaning I’ve been talking about all along. It’s pretty obvious, when Kanazawa says “objective” he was talking about the “objective measurements” in his data. If his use of “objective” really bothers you, then simple replace that term with “objective measurement”. Would that make his study more acceptable to you? I think we all know the answer to that.

  174. @JT:
    Ok, so I gotta ask… what is your investment in this issue?

    Why is it so important to you that Kanazawa might be right and black women are indeed less physically attractive?

  175. @Eurasian
    I think you are asking the wrong person that question. If there is an investment in this issue it’s with people making the argument Kanazawa must be wrong even though their argument has no scientific basis. It doesn’t matter to me if Kanazawa is correct or not, but I don’t want to see the scientific method subverted by political motivations.

  176. JT:

    “You can objectively measure something like taste, see my discussion with King on vomit vs orange sherbet. If you can repeat the test and get the same results, then the measurement is objective. That’s just how the term is used in science. Scientific terms have very specific meanings and often times they don’t match up exactly with the meaning in lay terms. “

    That’s a lie, and you know it. Totally false. In science and in lay terms, “objective” means the exact same thing. If scientists had a different definition, you’d be able to produce a link that defined it on their terms, maybe a science dictionary. First you claim that it means “something that can be measured,” and now you’re saying that it means…something that can be repeated? Which is it? And why are neither of these two totally different definitions in any reputable dictionary? I think we both know that you’re making garbage up because you can’t admit being wrong.

    You’re being intellectually dishonest. I may find Asian of Reason’s/Oriental Right’s views disagreeable, but at least he’s courageous and honest enough to admit when he calls something wrong.

  177. @BigWowo,
    “That’s a lie, and you know it. Totally false. In science and in lay terms, “objective” means the exact same thing. If scientists had a different definition, you’d be able to produce a link that defined it on their terms, maybe a science dictionary. ”

    I gave you a link. Apparently you didn’t think it was reputable. Maybe you’ll consider wikipedia to be more reputable?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)

    Note the definition is very specific and not the same as the lay meaning. I am not going to accuse you of being dishonest, because I simply don’t think you have enough of a science background to effectively make scientific arguments. It’s clear from our exchanges, you don;t have a good grasp of some very basic concepts of the scientific method. You can’t seem to differentiate between data, hypothesis and theory. You also don’t seem to understand basic requirements of a scientific experiment. You argue from a lay person’s point of view and don’t understand the basic scientific vocabulary.

    This is not about refusing to admit being wrong. I’ll gladly admit it when I am wrong. I was wrong to say Obama was a guest lecturer, he was a senior lecturer and I admitted it. There’s nothing wrong with being wrong, you end up learning something new. You on the other hand, don’t seem very interested in learning about the scientific method, a topic you obviously don’t have much knowledge in, and instead of making logical arguments based on science, you resort to making semantic arguments.

  178. Nope, again your link shows something completely different. In this case, it shows how to demonstrate or indicate objectivity, but it doesn’t define it.

    For the fourth or fifth time, show us a link that DEFINES “objective” as either “measurable” or “repeatable.”

    You on the other hand, don’t seem very interested in learning about the scientific method, a topic you obviously don’t have much knowledge in, and instead of making logical arguments based on science, you resort to making semantic arguments.

    I’ve got a science degree from an Ivy League university (oh that’s right, there’s a liberal bias!), but regardless–if so many scientists defined “objective” as “measurable” or “repeatable,” there would be at least one dictionary or scientific text that would define it as so. But you already knew that.

  179. @JT:
    Did you actually read the bit in Kanazawa’s article where he describes how the subjects’ attractiveness was rated?

    “The physical attractiveness of each Add Health respondent is measured three times by three different interviewers over seven years.”

    So basically, “objective measurement” comes down to what three people thought. Three.

    So even if you ignore that… as I’ve stated above, there are different cultural norms for physical attractiveness, so even if the Add Health study was based on the opinions of 10,000 people, it would only tell you who was considered more attractive by the residents of whatever locale it was held in.

  180. @Eurasian
    It says each respondent is measured by 3 interviewers, but it doesn’t say the same 3 people interviewed all the respondents. But if what you are thinking is true, then I agree with you, the measurements of 3 judges would not be representative. However, if it was 10,000 and it was randomly chosen from the sample population, then it would be representative. The limitation of all such studies is that you can only make conclusions based on the population it was sampled.

  181. @ JT, the problem is that I can’t find any more information on his testing methods than what Eurasian just posted (can you?) This is where it becomes obvious that he’s doing shabby work. Should it be this hard to understand clearly what his sample size was? No scientific research should be this hard to pin down. It’s either sloppy, or deceptive.

  182. @BigWowo
    “Nope, again your link shows something completely different. In this case, it shows how to demonstrate or indicate objectivity, but it doesn’t define it.

    For the fourth or fifth time, show us a link that DEFINES “objective” as either “measurable” or “repeatable.””

    Objectivity in science is often attributed with the property of scientific measurement that can be tested independent from the individual scientist (the subject) who proposes them.

    That’s the first sentence from the wikipedia definition, I think anyone without an Ivy League degree should be able to understand it. Is your point my exact words “measurable” and “repeatable” aren’t contained in the definition? Look, I am not here to say I am right or make you say you are wrong. I explained why the term “objective” was used correctly and how it was used similarly in other studies. I already provided the links and definitions, if you choose not to accept them and instead choose to engage in sophistry, that’s fine it doesn’t bother me.

    What kind of science did you major in? Political science? I find it hard to believe you received a hard science degree and not be able to make distinctions between very basic scientific terminology.

  183. @King
    If that is the entirety of his work, then I agree with you. As I said before, since his work was removed, I don’t know if that’s actually true or not. It would have made much more sense to leave his work in place so others can critically evaluate it as opposed to buckling to political pressure so now it’s hard to say what the whole story is.

  184. Do you mean that because his article was removed from Psychology Today Magazine that others cannot critically evaluate his work? I suppose that would be true… if he had only reported his findings in a single article, and in only one magazine.

  185. That’s the first sentence from the wikipedia definition, I think anyone without an Ivy League degree should be able to understand it.

    Anyone with an Ivy League degree–or a high school degree for that matter–should be able to understand that that’s not a dictionary, nor is it a definition.

  186. What kind of science did you major in? Political science? I find it hard to believe you received a hard science degree and not be able to make distinctions between very basic scientific terminology.

    I find it hard to believe that not a single dictionary agrees with you that “objective” means “repeatable” or “measurable.” Actually, I don’t find it that hard to believe. It’s easier to believe what’s obvious–you’re intellectually dishonest.

    C’mon, man–one dictionary definition. You’ve got lots of choices–Random House, Webster, Collins English. Can you do it? Don’t tell me that I’m arguing semantics if there isn’t one dictionary that says it means “measurable” or “repeatable.”

  187. @BigWowo
    I already explained to you, scientific terminology doesn’t always coincide with lay meaning of the word. Words in the dictionary gives you very broad and general meanings while in science, words have very specific meanings. That’s why the wikipedia entry had “(science)” written next to it. Let me break it down for you, since you weren’t able to read it understand for yourself.

    “Objectivity in science is often attributed with the property of scientific measurement that can be tested independent from the individual scientist (the subject) who proposes them.”

    See the first 3 words? “Objectivity in science” not in lay terms. Kanazawa published a scientific article, your insistence on using the lay meaning is wrong right off the bat.

    Let’s look at the second part: “attributed with the property of scientific measurement”, “measurable”/”measurement”. So we’ve covered the “measurable” portion. Good so far?

    And the last part: “that can be tested independent from the individual scientist”, if you didn’t understand this part, it means someone else is able repeat the experiment and get similar results, thus the “repeatable” portion. Clear now?

    Now that everything’s been explained to you, and if you still insist on using the lay meaning to define a scientific term in a scientific article, then the only person being intellectually dishonest is you.

  188. @King
    “Do you mean that because his article was removed from Psychology Today Magazine that others cannot critically evaluate his work? I suppose that would be true… if he had only reported his findings in a single article, and in only one magazine.”

    Has it been published elsewhere? I already said if your claims are true, then I agree with you. So I don’t know what else you’d want me to say.

  189. “Has it been published elsewhere?”

    Not to my knowledge. (and I looked) But that was my point. What kind of a “scientific study” is only published in a magazine? It’s just another indication of what we’re dealing with here.

    I’m not trying to get you to say anything else. I just thought that it bears pointing out that there don’t seem to be any academic sources to refer to, once the magazine pulled the article.

  190. JT:

    I already explained to you, scientific terminology doesn’t always coincide with lay meaning of the word. Words in the dictionary gives you very broad and general meanings while in science, words have very specific meanings.

    This is getting tiresome.

    The “lay” dictionary defines “tetrachloroethylene,” so why wouldn’t it define “objective?” If “objective” has a very specific meaning in science, you’d be able to produce a dictionary, scientific or not, that SPECIFICALLY defined it as “measurable” or “repeatable.” Not wiki–even though wiki clearly doesn’t define it as you say–but a scientific text. I’m not interested in how you demonstrate objectivity (measurements, experiments, etc.); I’m interested in what it means. That’s all I’ve been asking you.

    Kanazawa made a derogatory comment against black women. I know you agree with him, but you can’t hide behind an alternative definition that no one else uses. I can’t call you a “dipshit” and then say that “dipshit” means “nice guy.” It’s not an ethical, courageous, or honorable way to debate.

    You have exactly one more comment to prove that “objective” means “measurable” or “repeatable.” Otherwise, your participation on this thread is over.

  191. from dictionary.com:

    objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts

    fact: a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true

    observe: to watch, view, or note for a scientific, official, or other special purpose

    from merriam webster:

    objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers, expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

    i guess you could try and argue “observe” and “note for a scientific purpose” doesnt REALLY mean “measure”, but i’m pretty sure objective means based on fact and from a scientific standpoint, facts are measurable and the measurements are repeatable by anyone (within the accuracy of your instruments).

    in engineering, stress has a very specific meaning: force per unit area, given usually in pounds per square inch for example. strain also has a very specific definition: the amount something stretches or deforms, given in units of inch per inch or sometimes a percentage. stress causes strain, or vice versa, but they are NOT synonymous nor interchangeable. however when i look it up in dictionaries, they are treated as being synonymous.

  192. @BigWowo
    The dictionary does define “objective” but that definition is too general and is not a suitable scientific definition. The lay dictionary may have an entry on tetrachloroethylene, but it does not tell you what its physical or chemical properties. Just saying it’s a dry cleaning solution will not suffice in a scientific setting. The definition is wikipedia is correct, many scientific terms are defined by their operational procedure, however if you insist on a definition out of a science text I suggest: Design and Analysis of Experiments, by Dean, Voss. It says basically the same thing.

    I know none of this makes any difference, because you are invested in Kanazawa being wrong. This isn’t about science, but politics. So why bother to pretend to make a scientific argument when you don’t have one? Just make a political argument and say Kanazawa’s research is unethical or something along those lines.

  193. Are you saying that in the field of science, that usually, if a subject is controversial, that it will not get published anywhere? Because, if you like, I think that I can find more than a few controversial studies that did get published in more than one magazine. Do you need links?

  194. Aight,

    I’m a man of my word, so your time on this particular thread is over, JT. There’s a great big World Wide Web, and you couldn’t find a single link that defined “objective” as “measurable” or “repeatable.” It’s really sad because you have lots to learn, but you close your mind and therefore don’t.

    I was waiting for you to admit wrongness so that we could fix your understanding, but you’re just so damn stubborn, even in the face of logic.

    I’ll tell you what happened with your understanding of the word “objective.” In science, scientists must prove objectivity. Objectivity means “not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts.” (Thanks, Mr. Hartung.) In order to show this, an experiment must be repeatable in a different environment. Scientists therefore demonstrate that their experiments are without prejudice by having other scientists repeat them. And of course they do this with measurements.

    You therefore conflated the experimental side of demonstrating objectivity with the definition of objectivity itself. Objective still means “not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts.” It’s just that scientists use measurements and experiments to demonstrate this. In your laziness, you dismissed the difference as semantics. But it really isn’t. Scientists, of all people, need to be precise. And they usually are precise.

    I’m sure you know this. But you just couldn’t admit you were wrong.

    In the case of the speed dating study, they weren’t even using it in a scientific sense. They used “objective” to show that there was a standard of beauty the all the races followed in their study, but they didn’t believe it was really objective, which is why they put it in quotes. It was just a way to demonstrate that within their study group, perceptions of beauty rankings were the same.

  195. And for the record, I don’t believe that Kanazawa was using “objective” to mean either the science or the “lay” meaning. He was using it as a counterpoint with the word “subjectively,” meaning that black women as “objects” of people’s views are seen one way, while they view themselves a different way when they are “subjects.”

    But it’s a terrible use of language. Especially with an article as insulting as this one, one would think he’d use a proofreader.

  196. You know, I think I’m just going to close this thread down entirely. It makes no sense to continue; I think everyone has said everything that needs to be said. People have their views. Let’s move on. There are tons of other issues we can discuss.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


+ 4 = twelve

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>