Psychology Today

[BluPhire]

Looks like they started something. They posted a blog and then removed it because people didn't like it. Unfortunately I found out to late so I can't post the article.

Oh well. You all will hear about it in the news in a few minutes.

[KSUViolet06]

The article was titled something to the effect of "Why Black women are less attractive than other races."

[knight_shadow]

I was curious what it was about. My T_witter TL was buzzing about it, but I couldn't find details.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Am I violating GC's TOS by reposting a full article that has been taken down? Apologies in advance if I am.

“Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?"

Psychology Today

Published on May 15, 2011 by Satoshi Kanazawa in The Scientific Fundamentalist



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



Add Health measures the physical attractiveness of its respondents both objectively and subjectively. At the end of each interview, the interviewer rates the physical attractiveness of the respondent objectively on the following five-point scale: 1 = very unattractive, 2 = unattractive, 3 = about average, 4 = attractive, 5 = very attractive. The physical attractiveness of each Add Health respondent is measured three times by three different interviewers over seven years.



From these three scores, I can compute the latent "physical attractiveness factor" by a statistical procedure called factor analysis. Factor analysis has the added advantage of eliminating all random measurement errors that are inherent in any scientific measurement. The latent physical attractiveness factor has a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1.





Recall that women on average are more physically attractive than men. So women of all races are on average more physically attractive than the "average" Add Health respondent, except for black women. As the following graph shows, black women are statistically no different from the "average" Add Health respondent, and far less attractive than white, Asian, and Native American women.



In contrast, races do not differ in physical attractiveness among men, as the following graph shows. Men of all races are more or less equally less physically attractive than the "average" Add Health respondent.



This sex difference in the race differences in physical attractiveness – where physical attractiveness varies significantly by race among women, but not among men – is replicated at each Add Health wave (except that the race differences among men are statistically significant, albeit substantively very small, in Wave III). In each wave, black women are significantly less physically attractive than women of other races.



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. In Wave III, Add Health asks its respondents to rate their own physical attractiveness subjectively on the following four-point scale: 1 = not at all, 2 = slightly, 3 = moderately, 4 = very. As you can see in the following graphs, both black women and black men rate themselves to be far more physically attractive than individuals of other races.



What accounts for the markedly lower average level of physical attractiveness among black women? Black women are on average much heavier than nonblack women. The mean body-mass index (BMI) at Wave III is 28.5 among black women and 26.1 among nonblack women. (Black and nonblack men do not differ in BMI: 27.0 vs. 26.9.) However, this is not the reason black women are less physically attractive than nonblack women. Black women have lower average level of physical attractiveness net of BMI. Nor can the race difference in intelligence (and the positive association between intelligence and physical attractiveness) account for the race difference in physical attractiveness among women. Black women are still less physically attractive than nonblack women net of BMI and intelligence. Net of intelligence, black men are significantly more physically attractive than nonblack men.



There are many biological and genetic differences between the races. However, such race differences usually exist in equal measure for both men and women. For example, because they have existed much longer in human evolutionary history, Africans have more mutations in their genomes than other races. And the mutation loads significantly decrease physical attractiveness (because physical attractiveness is a measure of genetic and developmental health). 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.



The only thing I can think of that might potentially explain the lower average level of physical attractiveness among black women is testosterone. 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. In contrast, women with higher levels of testosterone also have more masculine features and are therefore less physically attractive. The race differences in the level of testosterone can therefore potentially explain why black women are less physically attractive than women of other races, while (net of intelligence) black men are more physically attractive than men of other races.

[agzg]

Satoshi Kanazawa is a racist sexist asshat. This is not the first nor the last of his ridiculousness.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by agzg

Satoshi Kanazawa is a racist sexist asshat. This is not the first nor the last of his ridiculousness.

Well, that's pretty much par for Psychology Today. I don't know that I've ever seen an article in PT that would pass even the most basic standards for scientific rigor.

[KSUViolet06]

Hopefully, people know that PT doesn't = an actual peer reviewed scholarly publication. I've heard it refered to a psych-related publishing's version of a tabloid.

In my psych classes, my profs were clear on the fact that PT didn't constitute an acceptable resource for our papers and such. So that should tell you something.

[DrPhil]

That article was on a few professional listserves. People were interested to read the article and its rebuttals. And then...poof the article and link are gone.

While the instant backlash and disappearance of the article and link are funny, I don't believe in censoring research and scholarly discourse. There's plenty of theory and research out there that some people don't personally and/or professionally agree with. Let the research, articles, and links exist and be available so that people can see information on all sides of these issues. Then people (scholars; researchers; practitioners; and laypersons who access research beyond snippets on msn) can be well-informed of the pros and cons of everything. Yes, EVERYTHING has perceived pros and cons.

ETA: As others in this thread have note, it's also important to note that there is a reason why this article is published on a non-peer reviewed source. I only read and cite peer reviewed sources for scholarly discourse, but I still believe that even non-peer reviewed sources should be allowed to exist without censorship.

[BluPhire]

My reaction, if you are gonna post it, keep it up. Don't punk out now.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

My reaction, if you are gonna post it, keep it up. Don't punk out now.

I agree.

[Drolefille]

PT is so shitty. I read it for a few months and never failed to be disappointed.

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06

The article was titled something to the effect of "Why Black women are less attractive than other races."

Wait, this is May, so it can't be April 1, right? What drivel.

[DrPhil]

http://www.voice-online.co.uk/content.php?show=19692

[psusue]

Wow, just wow. The only thing that frightens me though is that people will read this and think it's legitimate science. I, personally, had no idea that Psychology Today is not a peer reviewed news source (although I quickly gathered this through the lack of sources/evidence/statistics) and I know that other people won't either. I also had no idea that this man has done so much racist research, although that does put it in context too. Overall I don't think it should be censored, but there should be some sort of disclaimer posted on it, because like the article DrPhil posted said, racist thoughts can gain a foothold through this kind of perverse "research".

[BluPhire]

Good article from Evolutionary Psychologists.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-..._b_863359.html