“But, that would require producing results that you can take to the bank.”
Is it conceivable that a study like this could establish usable market niches for specific types of looks and body types? I imagine that it’s already done to find models for advertisements.
While I understand your skepticism about evolutionary psychology, I find it to be a useful hypothesis. I can’t imagine that natural selection would affect body language habits but not mate selection.
I use the word “study” sarcastically because this guy evidently didn’t study anything. It’s just some crap that popped out of his head that makes no sense.
EP seems to be defined by, “We have eyes because eyes are for seeing,” type teleological reasoning. That doesn’t fly with me.
Fun fact: black people can jump higher and run faster because they’re socially conditioned to do so and because that’s their culture.
I find it funny that the same people who call evolutionary explanations bullshit will jump to attribute racial differences to some dubious “culturally” explanation, the working of which is never really explained. The study cited by the OP comes up with a testable hypothesis and it wouldn’t be difficult to find out ways to prove it. Our brains react in certain ways when we find an individual attractive, brain scans could be one way to test it, or just hits on a dating site.
BTW, when somebody turns around and expressed disbelief at the choice of a famous, powerful individual to sleep with a women who is considerably below par (Grant, Schwarzenegger and a few others come to mind), nobody points out that preferences are subjective.
It can be very teleological, but I think most EP advocates would say that we have eyes because eyes deliver a sensastion known as “sight” and “sight” helps us survive. I’ve always been under the impression that EPers look to evolution as a guide to understand why something may have evolved and if this did help us survive, it helps better understand certain functions when applied to psychology. If they can isolate the function of something like stress or depression, then it may lead to a way to “cure” it.
I find it funny that the same people who call evolutionary explanations bullshit will jump to attribute racial differences to some dubious “culturally” explanation, the working of which is never really explained. The study cited by the OP comes up with a testable hypothesis and it wouldn’t be difficult to find out ways to prove it. Our brains react in certain ways when we find an individual attractive, brain scans could be one way to test it, or just hits on a dating site
Nope, you’re not stating anything…and the second you are, that is when you can look at “brain patterns” or what ever the hell you think makes sense, it is no longer psychology and in the realm of doctors, mechanics, etc in the field of biology
Teleology isolates nothing. It’s just plain poor logic. There are higher standards than using a second rate method like that. It’s one thing to use it as a hint at what to test. It’s another thing to automatically explain everything as being such because of some perceived utility.
“Well we black women have something your white or asian girls cannot have. Our backsides are unrivalled, and thats why we continue to attract attention of the most fertile men to cherish us.”
LOL
seconded.
Fun fact: black people can jump higher and run faster because they’re socially conditioned to do so and because that’s their culture.
Actually, black people in the US are stronger/faster/etc for evolutionary reasons, but NOT because they are black. See, a large portion of black Americans are descendents of slaves, and slaves had to be pretty damn strong and/or lucky to survive the trip to the US and then survive a life of slavery. Thus, black Americans are usually stronger than average Americans. Black people in Africa are, by and large, about as fast/strong/etc as people everywhere else barring individual variance. The exception would be places like Kenya, but Kenyans live at a very high altitude, meaning less air to breathe, meaning their lungs are very strong compared to those of other people.
Of course culture can have a huge influence on even athletic ability. Take “Blacks are better in basketball” for instance, do people think that playing basketball every single day from the day you’re able to run has absolutely nothing to do with it? In every inner-city with minorities, playing streetball is what kids do as soon as they’re able to go on a playground, and they play whenever theres free time to be found. Hard work has a hell of a lot to do with it, why brush it off so quickly? They don’t start playing basketball beacuse its in their genes to throw a ball through a hoop, its because everyone around them plays and you earn respect by being a good player. Not that genetics doesn’t play a factor in some ways, but conditioning can certainly influence everything about you.
Got bored of this tiresome thread a while back, but just popped back to see if anyone had thrown in the old “black people can’t swim” bollocks that I used to hear a few years back. Now that’s what you call a bit of retro racism. I’m sure mises.org won’t fail to provide.
lol I can’t even explain why I post in threads like this, no one’s opinions are really influenced by anything anyone says and we go by on with our day. Ohh well its still kind of entertaining.
I find it funny that the same people who call evolutionary explanations bullshit will jump to attribute racial differences to some dubious “culturally” explanation,
Fun Fact: The same disgust you have in the “Hoppe” style elitism is the very same empty “science as religion” nonsense elitism you are demonstrating now. The philisophical underpinning / logic is the same. The only difference is this may not be heterodox conversation in polite upper west side polite society, as the way the “science” narrative was attempted is more mainstream - even though it isn’t science.
So what, Consumariat, are some thoughts forbidden thoughts? Calling people racist or closet racists doesn’t actually, you know, counter their arguments.
I just noticed your little quip at me from the first page, and while I can’t speak for the others, if you actually read what I posted, inferring racism or hidden racism from that is flat-out inane.
Yes, certain thoughts are forbidden. That’s the whole point of political correctness. It’s barriers in your mind, places you are not allowed to tread. That way you can never change your mind and stay a socialist.
Nope, you’re not stating anything…and the second you are, that is when you can look at “brain patterns” or what ever the hell you think makes sense, it is no longer psychology and in the realm of doctors, mechanics, etc in the field of biology
Wait, you’re saying you want to disconnect the mechanical functions of our brains from the way we think? We all evolved along similar lines, so I think it’s pretty reasonably to suggest that we have similar tastes, and in the grand scheme of things we all do. Thing is, when we make generalisations within racial lines as opposed to between them, they seem to be fairly uncontroversial. Guys with broad shoulders and strong jaws tend to be fairly attractive, other things equal. Females with such features are usually not particularly attractive.
I’m not saying there aren’t attractive black females, but in general the consensus is that they’re less attractive. Take a look at any list of the sexiest/ most attractive women in the world, they’re usually dominated by whites with a fair share of latin women and with a few black outliers.
Fun Fact: The same disgust you have in the “Hoppe” style elitism is the very same empty “science as religion” nonsense elitism you are demonstrating now. The philisophical underpinning / logic is the same. The only difference is this may not be heterodox conversation in polite upper west side polite society, as the way the “science” narrative was attempted is more mainstream - even though it isn’t science
I disagree with youre claim this isn’t science. As I said, he made a testable claim and one can think of a few ways to test it, even though they might not be perfect tests for attractive, I daresay they’d be highly correlated with general perceptions.
Why should they be highly correlated with general perceptions when it was based on the ratings of just three interviewers? Just what about this study looks thorough to you?
Anyway time for some character assasination because its fun, even if it has nothing to do with the study, here’s Mr. Kanazawa with more of his brilliance->
"As one El Al official says, “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.” No, not all Muslims are terrorists, but, as I explain in my previous post, half of Muslims worldwide are terrorists or active supporters of terrorism, who would encourage their sons, brothers, and nephews to blow themselves up in an airplane or in a crowded market. "
Superb, so either I want to blow myself up or my sister does. There’s a 50/50 chance here! Heres some more!
“Here’s a little thought experiment. Imagine that, on September 11, 2001, when the Twin Towers came down, the President of the United States was not George W. Bush, but Ann Coulter. What would have happened then? On September 12, President Coulter would have ordered the US military forces to drop 35 nuclear bombs throughout the Middle East, killing all of our actual and potential enemy combatants, and their wives and children. On September 13, the war would have been over and won, without a single American life lost.
Yes, we need a woman in the White House, but not the one who’s running.”
This is a bit silly. There’s all kinds of lists like that made by all sorts of different people, some of them just have just indian women , or just japanese women. Why the hell should I take Maxim or People magazine’s opinions on famous people they find to be the most beautiful to be the general consensus of humanity? Or anyone else’s?
You want to say you have certain preferences for attraction- ok go ahead and do just that- that would actually make sense. Where I grew up no one found white women attractive at ALL(haha except me), if I were to be an idiot I’d say that must be the general consensus of the world since literally hundreds of people I knew felt that way.
But nope, this guy had 3 interviewers so something MUST be wrong with their biological mechanism for attraction since it doesn’t fall in line with the study. If you’re saying men generally find black women to be the least attractive because its wired into us based on evolutionary lines, then whats wrong with the outliers? What happened to them that their feelings of physical attraction are trigged by the complete opposite?
I disagree with youre claim this isn’t science. As I said, he made a testable claim and one can think of a few ways to test it, even though they might not be perfect tests for attractive, I daresay they’d be highly correlated with general perceptions.
No there are no laws here that this covers or describes that are within the language of science. This is an ontological statement, and hence these terms are nonsensical unless they are utilized by an individual. At best it is history or philosophy - which aren’t science to begin with (though these subjects may utilize science to construct a narrative).
These subjective words are simply not testable in this manner - in the same way “law” as a thing iniself is not testable.
Besides, blacks outproduce whites on avg, reproduce at a younger age, lose thei virginity quicker, have more sex partners on avg, and get more STDS as well. I also wouldn’t be surprised if there were more in the sex industry as a whole - but who knows. Either way, that alone should tip you off to the BS to these jilted tests and methods. Even if what I said “doesn’t count” at least I am talking about real concrete things instead of ghost words such as “she is pretty, she is not”, “I prefer this over that”.
These things can do nothing in “the name of science” - they can only do things in the name of individual utilization, so it requires a different manner to approach these things.