A psychologist posted that result from an attraction study and then removed the post after controversy followed. While the original psychology blog post has been removed, you can see it here. I first learned about this from an opinion on CNN.com about it. I was not surprised about the CNN columnist’s reaction: how dare you, except longer.
The closest he comes to directly criticizing the science is: “I question a methodology that asks random people to judge the attractiveness of other random people without taking into account the influence of background and culture. Without taking into account a Westernized standard of beauty that has not only haunted some black women into buying cream to bleach their skin but prompted some Asian-Americans to undergo surgery to make their eyes more European looking.”
Yes, beauty can vary, but the study (which did not even specify how large it was or where the samples were taken) was about who people (forever affected by background and culture) think are pretty.
He even called it racist. I always thought racism was supremacism by race, not you were not equally or the most liked, therefore you are racist, but I guess his accusation is more meant to shut people up. Disagree? Racist. See? It’s easy.
No infringement of property rights result in this case, and this is the most important thing. As for the topic itself, what is there to say? How dare people think outside the guide to political correctness?!
Well, this is pretty stupid. Again, he’s judging individual preferences that they don’t exactly have a choice in choosing. I’m reminded of the Schopenhauer quote, “Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot control what it is that he wants.” Anyway, the CNN opinion piece seemed to have taken it out of context by saying, “black women are ugly?” Well, according to that study, most of the individuals polled approached that sentiment, sure. They aren’t under an obligation to conform to whatever makes LZ Granderson happy.
Heck, I haven’t slept with a woman of any color in years because, well, I’m gay. But my sexual orientation doesn’t prevent me from simply showing respect for what continues to be the backbone of my community. Women like my mother. My sisters. My aunts, cousins, friends … the sisters who retwist my locks, fight for equal rights, usher in church or go to work every day in a society where a publication like Psychology Today thinks it’s OK to call black women ugly.
Wow, this is an absolute non-sequitur if I ever saw one. It’s an overly-emotional reaction sans any substance. That said, I personally don’t find anything unattractive about African-American women. There are plenty of attractive black women out there in showbiz. It probably does have a lot to do with culture though.
Scientism is for pious people, it is as empty as all other forms of religion - even with their stern talks at looking at “hard facts”. Besides as those of us sympathetic with austrian econ , this ought to be the type of empiricism that seems a bit nonsensical anyway.
I see what they are trying to do. There is an element of “objectivity” in what counts as being attractive. They measure the symmetry of facial features and that has a high correspondence to physical attractiveness. I think of something like aesthetics as being a two-way street–It’s not arbitrarily decided, but it is dependent on actual physical factors and then our individual interpretation of those factors.
I did read the study and the guy did conflate the polled population’s opinion with actual “attractiveness.” Instead of using a phrase like, “It is very interesting to note that, even though black women are objectively less physically attractive than other women…” with something along the lines of “it is very interesting to note that, even though black women are subjectively perceived as being less physically attractive than other women…”
Now if only the columnist could apply this line of reasoning to all forms of subjective preference. It’s nonsense to aggregate subjective preferences. “Black women less attractive than other women”… to who??? That’s the problem, all valuation is individual and subjective, aggregating preferences just spits out garbage… GIGO.
I wonder if there would have been the same controversy if the study had been based on hair colour, eyebrow shape or any other irrelevant physical feature. The entire concept seems strange, because ultimately, it comes down to: “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”
Also, I assume he used a limited number of different races, with the use of a sweeping average, one was bound to come last.
I’ve been with black, norwegian, mexican, canadian, white brazilians (southern european type) and mixed brazilian girls, ranging from 4’11 to 5’10, I would say that everyone was quite unique and women and that thing they carry between the legs are awesome.
The thing I learned was that hips are more important than breasts. Breasts may catch your attention at first, but the hips that make the magic happens when the action is really happening. I will never forget when I was with this very pretty but buttless girl on top of me. Her pelvic bone was stabbing me, so painful.
On the topic though, why should it be surprising that a study like this is going bring about emotionally charged responses? Considering the history of black people in this country it should be expected, I mean first if you were considered black then you weren’t really recognized as human then even after that all changed you are told from all sorts of studies that you are the least attractive and have a lower IQ as well. Who’s going to be ok hearing stuff like this especially if its not their personal experience?
I have known this for a long time, because I have eyes and use them to see with.
In any case, he gives a perfectly simple explanation. On average, black women have more testosterone than other races. Since testosterone tends to suppress features associated with feminine attractiveness, it’s a no brainer. (The same reason that black men are often considered more attractive in average).
The reaction to articles like this always amazes me. By default, we should expect to observe different average levels of things like intelligence and attractiveness between races. Why? For similar reasons that we expect to observe different levels of intelligence and attractiveness between families. Genetically, people of similar races are more closely related to each other. To the extent that traits such as intelligence and attractiveness are heritable, it would be a remarkably improbable coincidence if all the averages between races turned out to be equal.
That such aggregated empirical facts have nothing to do with racism cannot be said enough, apparently.
I don’t like cheesecake, but I have seen other people enjoy cheesecake. There are certain objective qualities that make a good cheesecake. Of course, some people will like their cheesecake slightly different, but there are common standards that “good cheesecake” approximates.
“Evolutionary psychology” is airmchair guess work with a pompous title. As soon as I see that term I know not to bother. This reminds me of the video about a “study” finding that men do not prefer big boobs. I saw a news ticker recently about a “study” finding that the size of the black rim around the iris determines attractiveness. The flow of trash never stops.
I think you’re selling evo psych short. Their methodology is sound as far as I can tell. Try reading the book Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters.
What exactly makes evolutionary psychology worthless? Perceptions of beauty are biological, just as many other things. Symmetry of facial features (especially when averaged out) are one such example. You can say, “that’s hogwash,” but then I have to ask, “what makes something beautiful at all?” If we evolved, then there is probably some type of evolutionary pressure at work in terms of how attractive we find people.