Black Ladies, Just Like the Other Ladies
So … maybe we should just dismiss the Psychology Today writer who uses Science to prove that black women are uglier, dumber, fatter, and more masculine than other races of women? After all, this is the person who illustrated a post about how criminals look different from noncriminals with a picture of O.J. Simpson. He’s also the same person who says men are more intelligent than women, that we should profile Arabs who want to travel by air, that feminism is evil, and that all women are prostitutes.
I mean, he’s clearly a crackpot, right? Maybe we should just all move along.
But! Satoshi Kanazawa is doing this thing that a lot of people do: he’s using vaguely related facts to affirm his own biased beliefs. There’s even a name for it: confirmation bias.
So by using fake science — no, there’s no such thing as an objective measurement of attractiveness — Kanazawa can claim that some unknown sampling of people have “objectively” judged black women to be the least attractive women of any race.
The problem with race-based assessments of attractiveness or intelligence — particularly when it comes to black people — is that it completely ignores a couple of things. First, that black people can be Paul Robeson or Anatole Broyard or Butterfly McQueen or Lena Horne. There’s no one kind of blackness. This leads directly to point number two, which is that most black Americans have varying degrees of white genetic material, and, traditionally, fairer skinned black women — those who are closer to white — have been considered most beautiful.
That means that you could conclude that a) the blacker a lady is, the less attractive she is, that or b) in order for racism to work, people have to believe irrational, crazy things about other races — like that black women are less attractive and less feminine than other ladies.
Which, I say, is crazy!
Shani O. Hilton is objectively black, y’all.
Okay, I only made it through the "prostitution" link, but WTF? The title of his article has nothing to do with the actual article, his observances are embarrassing ("Wow, there are different levels of prostitution!") and who the hell in 2011 would say that a feminist is someone who thinks women should be more like men? How does this man get editorial space on the Psychology Today site? I feel dirty for giving him one more pageview…
@queensissy you just answered your own question … his crazypants articles bring in the page views. bottom line.
What is WRONG with people? Why would Psychology Today even publish this??
"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."
This is definitely important scientific info right here. The writer is totally not just trying to be a racist asshole!
Shut up, Psychology Today.
@clevernamehere I mean, not to nitpick, but I'm pretty sure he isn't TRYING to be a racist asshole at all. Seems to come pretty naturally to him, you know?
@clevernamehere Ack I know!! I am just finishing a masters in psychology and stopped reading PT LONG ago, primarily because of this Kanazawa guy–you know, the one who also said that people who smoke and drink are more intelligent and evolution dictates that women should be attracted to money. I just felt like I was getting dumber and being put at an academic disadvantage by reading him, and this confirms it.
Bullshit. Did he survey horses or aliens for his "objective" findings of racial attractiveness in women (or humans, for that matter)?
@applestoapples Okay. Time to make more sense: I think the sad thing (for me, at least) is that Kanzawa's views reflect a still-present confirmation bias that's not as easy to get upset about because there's this thing where you're not allowed to invalidate people's subjective views because people can see things how they want to. Always. And it's never wrong because it's subjective.
Which I guess makes sense on some level, but it's still kind of annoying when someone even does it subtly. Once you hear "pretty for a black woman" in context a few times, it drives you nuts.
Never has "what is this I can't even" been more apt.
@DorothyMantooth exactly. or this O_o
Wow. That is bs. The "interviewer" rates the attractiveness? Sounds like preferential treatment with no scientific data behind it.
Ok, the guy is racist and a jerk.
But why is this on The Hairpin?
I demand double the bug dialogue and doll posts to make up for this silliness.
@saythatscool oh, I held Edith up at gunpoint until she posted it.
@Shani Careful, Satoshi Kanazawa is going to cite tat comment as objective proof that African Americans commit more internet crimes than whites.
BTW, you're pretty.
@Shani You are the greatest, seriously.
@saythatscool ATTN: Edith, I am extremely distressed about information germane to the interests of women showing up on a site with the tag "Ladies first"
@saythatscool crap, you're right.
also, mind if I use your subjective assessment of my appearance for future research papers?
@Shani You may! But Satoshi Kanazawa will doubtlessly prove that all African American women are all plagiarists if you do so. So what's the point really?
@theinvisiblecunt I miss your sister, Silentcunt.
@saythatscool, she's left for a faraway land where stupid puns and 'your mom' jokes are the height of hilarity! Go find her
@theinvisiblecunt Well tell me the name of the cuntry at least. Your mother's a good mule but I can't take her all over the globe exploring for your sister.
@saythatscool, try looking in the land of "4chan." The perspectives of black women aren't of any interest there either, you'll fit right in
@theinvisiblecunt Are you coming on to me?
@theinvisiblecunt @saythatscool
Edgy!
@saythatscool bwaaahhaa…we are of no relation…
This study is unacceptable. New Yorkers, Psychology Today is at 115 E. 23rd Street if anyone wants to show up and throw rocks.
This kind of crap pisses me of in such a spectrum of ways. Of course, in the nasty racist arsehole way, but also because it is BAD SCIENCE and BAD SCIENCE can make GOOD SCIENCE look STUPID because it is all called SCIENCE. And it causes the double problem of people either believing it wholesale because it is SCIENCE or dismissing GOOD SCIENCE as shite because they read some BAD SCIENCE which they know to be untrue (cue "You can prove anything with stats"). Grrrr. Tosser.
@peenerbambina This is how all psychologists feel about Psychology Today. There's a reason these things are published there instead of, say, a real peer-reviewed empirical journal.
@alouette Absolutely. But I feel like publishing this kind of bad science veers away from just cruddy journalism and ventures into irresponsible journalism. It makes me so angry!!! Because the professionals may well know it is crap, but if even one person reading this believes it…well. Down with Psychology Today!!
@peenerbambina And they're also the same people who don't realize that the "theory" in evolution is the same as the "theory" in gravity.
@Ophelia YES. THIS.
@peenerbambina: YES
and i'm cancelling my subscription to psychology today… which is a magazine that up until this point, i loved. W-T-F kind of BS is this?!
@mpants I find myself wishing I had a subscription, so I could cancel it…
Wow that's just appalling. Why (do this study in the 1st place) how (did it get published ANYWHERE???) huh (MY BRAIN HURTS)?
This guy is a total a-holer and the reason that I begged my mother to end her subscription. Also, putting a science-y word like "psychology" on this rag of popular nonsense is ridiculous. There's no "physics" magazines that are like, hey, ya'll, look at this jello mold! Here's how to make it! The entire concept is so stupid and infuriating to me.
Just when I had almost forgotten that there is only one way to be attractive.
kaja@psychologytoday.com is the editor in chief. feel free to email your thoughts.
this is a serious insult to science (and ladies, too).
Okay, this made me nauseated. Literally. I looked for a "letter to the editor" link or a "comment" link, but PT has none, apparently. Also, I noticed they didn't post this article to their PT FB page. It's utterly disgusting and offensive on multi-dimensional levels of grossness. I'd never ever ever buy a PT or even look at one again. UGH.
@Karen Villarreal kaja@psychologytoday.com – that's the editor. i literally emailed this around to everyone i know in hopes that we can flood her inbox with our disgust.
Sorry, but last time I checked, black was still beautiful.
Quick, an antidote.
And my favorite comment:
Thank you
Submitted by tressie on May 16, 2011 – 6:30pm.
As a black woman and a doctoral student in social sciences I've dissected this nonsense all day. I grow weary. I am heartened, however, by a "mainstream" response. It's nice to have allies. We don't often have them.
And boxplots! LOL He used BOXPLOTS! For his reckless abuse of boxplots alone he should be shunned by all serious scholars. smh
@garge Good response article.
This is so Psychology YESTERDAY (actually, I'm not even bothering to read it)
@Kneetoe It's really Psychology Eugenics Era.
They've pulled the article. waiting for the lame apology…
I should be shocked by this but I'm not. The recklessness of Psychology Today though, goodness. That's certainly something.
I think we've found the next great Freakonomist.
haters gonna hate.
(oh crap! Have I just proved his "point" by being a fat, Black, testosterone filled, woman who thinks too highly of my own attractiveness?)
500 POINTS FOR THE CB4 REFERENCE.
Ughh Psychology Today is the worst. This is (one of the many reasons) why people start hatin' when they find out I am getting my PhD in psych.
what in god's name is this guy on about? i really can't see why that website is allowing him to parade his fake science around…..
This guy's little bio-box says he's an "evolutionary psychologist". It's only a matter of time before "evolutionary psychologist" reads like "phrenologist", "divination expert", or "old-time Roman guy who tells the future by watching a bunch of birds fly away."
According to his Wikipedia page, Satoshi Kanazawa has been called out repeatedly for his shoddy scholarship and misuse of "science." (Nota bene! Graphics and fancy words like "coefficients" do not make what you're saying valid.) I'm disappointed in Psychology Today for such obvious pandering for pageviews.
Hopefully he'll dazzle next with surprising empirical evidence about how people with the initials S.K. have more powerful orgasms than those with other letter combinations. Or how Japanese-born academics at the LSE shouldn't be held responsible for alimony payments. Or something.
Update: according to this site http://ulucampaigner.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/press-release-ulu-unanimously-calls-for-santoshi-kanazawa%E2%80%99s-dismissal/ the U of L's Union has called for his dismissal.
As a black woman, for years I was in denial about how dumb, fat, butch and ugly I was, but thanks Psychology Today for clarifying things for me! *blarf*
But doesn't Kanazawa actually demonstrate amazing, unprecedented scientific accomplishments? Clearly someone built a time machine and transported a 19th century phrenologist to 2011!
If you want to do something about it, sign the petition here: http://act.colorofchange.org/sign/psychtoday/