Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/05/17/136399684/bloggers-ugly-conclusions-anger-some-in-the-black-community



So the guy's racist -- or stupid, or wants attention -- but what I don't get is everything else.

Why does an evolutionary psychologist work from the London School of Economics?
Who on the PT staff thought publishing a blog called The Scientific Fundamentalist was a good idea? And with zero oversight?

inb4 POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS DESTROYING US!

Um, tell that to Nia Long, Vivica Fox, Tyra Banks, Beyonce, Alek Wek, etc. Lol at that fail.

Originally posted by Genius Grace
Um, tell that to Nia Long, Vivica Fox, Tyra Banks, Beyonce, Alek Wek, etc. Lol at that fail.

Creole
Half Native American
Hideous
Half Creolo
Thats a man, baby.

trollface.jpg

Well, the guy seems like he's out to target blacks.

Though I am wondering, is the outrage about the claims he made, or the lack of scientific rigor and apparent baselessness for them, coupled with his odd speculations?

I would actually assume that on average in England, the US, and Japan people would rate black women lower in attractiveness based on the cultures and society white/Japanese Asian focus and standards of beauty (rather than actual inherent lack of attractiveness based on hormones and God's law of what's pretty). Though this part of his claim sounds possible to me for certain cultures. It would perhaps be interesting to contrast that with the view of ones own attractiveness split up on race.

What we can definitely say is that even black celebrities are tried to be marketed as whiter, such as the bleaching them for covers or giving them nose jobs for traditionally more white features.

true, lots of attractive black women in the world, but in general, i am attracted to a higher percentage of white girls than black girls, so i wouldn't have disagreed with the study. Does that make it racist? or just more controversial than we want to deal with?

Yeah, black women are less attractive: that's why white women get perms, shoot up their lips and bake in the sun for darker skin.

Ah, psychology.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Creole
Half Native American
Hideous
Half Creolo
Thats a man, baby.

trollface.jpg Lol at that fail. All African Americans are creole, part native, mixed, etc. Alek Wek is a Woman. She is very pretty.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Creole
Half Native American
Hideous
Half Creolo
Thats a man, baby.

trollface.jpg so they're not black?
because black is a race right?

Originally posted by Mindship
Yeah, black women are less attractive: that's why white women get perms, shoot up their lips and bake in the sun for darker skin.

Ah, psychology. Marry me.

Oh, also, the London School of Economics is actually a quite good school, which contrary to its name does not only specialize in Economics.

see, just looked up alex wek, and i don't find her attractive. nothing against her, i just don't.

Originally posted by truejedi
true, lots of attractive black women in the world, but in general, i am attracted to a higher percentage of white girls than black girls, so i wouldn't have disagreed with the study. Does that make it racist? or just more controversial than we want to deal with?

That's not what they guy said (and he didn't perform a study). Read the article.

He claims "black people are objectively less attractive" not "western often people find black people less attractive".

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, also, the London School of Economics is actually a quite good school, which contrary to its name does not only specialize in Economics.

Well that explains, that. Thanks.

Originally posted by Genius Grace
Marry me. It just sounds like I'm worthy.

*resisting urge to Continually post beautiful black women* argh arrgh ah

OS: I'm not at all disagreeing with the fact that there are very many beautiful black women, don't worry. : )

Personally I agree, but that's subjective.

The point is that this "professor" said that "objectively" they "are" less attractive. Had he provided a large, lengthy study on what percentages of each race find attractive and came to something like:

asians find the following women attractive in descending order:

asian - 50%
caucasian - 30%
native american - 15%
african american - 5%

cacuasians find the following women attractivein descending order:

....
....

etc. etc.

Then he COULD have written a very interesting piece, and presented it as a study on women of which race are considered most/least attractive by members of other races.

As it stands, sounds like the dude's just out for blood.

On the African poverty vs. low IQ thing, I can't comment, I have way too little knowledge regarding that particular subject. I do think that parts of the Middle East and Africa are the most backwards places on Earth, but I doubt that is IQ-related alone .

probably more culturally instead of deciding by race, race is simply a social construct, after all. How else do we say someone with one white parent and one black parent is black?

Originally posted by truejedi
probably more culturally instead of deciding by race, race is simply a social construct, after all. How else do we say someone with one white parent and one black parent is black?

"Culture" is a word I tend to avoid when discussing the areas I previously mentioned, since it doesn't seem to belong there. I'd say "way of life" seems better suited.

ugh, so much wrong with this I don't know where to start... The worst of it is that it is data mining, rather than an actual study, ie: worthless. I had written out a more proper criticism of some aspects of the data, but then I read this guys methods, and cried at all the time I had wasted criticizing him...

this would be like saying the Pepsi Challenge proves that sports teams with blue in their logo are objectively better

its a shame people get to say such nonsense things under the auspices of "psychology" whereas people who spout nonsense about physics are rarely given so much legitimacy.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Who on the PT staff thought publishing a blog called The Scientific Fundamentalist was a good idea? And with zero oversight?

psychology today, despite the deceiving name, is a popular magazine, not a scientific journal. their standards, or lack there of, are notorious among those in the field

Originally posted by inimalist
its a shame people get to say such nonsense things under the auspices of "psychology" whereas people who spout nonsense about physics are rarely given so much legitimacy.

Parapsychology always pisses me off the most.

Originally posted by inimalist
psychology today, despite the deceiving name, is a popular magazine, not a scientific journal. their standards, or lack there of, are notorious among those in the field

I'm aware that they're a pop science magazine and of the horrors of "science" journalism. I just thought they'd have the the foresight not just post blogs without looking to see what was written.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Parapsychology always pisses me off the most.

you and me both

I'm going to strangle the next person who brings up the "10% of our brain" thing

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm aware that they're a pop science magazine and of the horrors of "science" journalism. I just thought they'd have the the foresight not just post blogs without looking to see what was written.

it gets hits on their blog though, and since they don't have "editorial control" of the blog, complete plausible deniability.

this guy writes "prepare to be offended" on his website, I have to believe psychology today knew what they were getting into.

I'm curious, how does he define what is "objectively" good looking?

I did read we only use 2% of our brain, can you imagine what we could do if we used all of it? Then we'd also knew what objective attractiveness is, I'm sure.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'm curious, how does he define what is "objectively" good looking?

ratings on a 5 point scale among interviewers that we have no demographic details of

Originally posted by Bardock42
I did read we only use 2% of our brain, can you imagine what we could do if we used all of it? Then we'd also knew what objective attractiveness is, I'm sure.

amazingly, I just found a PT article that endorses the 10% myth

"conventional wisdom holds"

holds my dick

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200604/how-train-your-brain

Originally posted by inimalist
ratings on a 5 point scale among interviewers that we have no demographic details of
So he asked people's opinions? Isn't that basically as subjective as you can get?

Originally posted by King Kandy
So he asked people's opinions? Isn't that basically as subjective as you can get?

No, he read about people having asked people opinions.


But if you were to do it, I think that's probably how you had to do it, since attraction is obviously the opinion of a person. Making it more "objective" would be having a big representative sample. It wouldn't be for absolute reasons though.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So he asked people's opinions? Isn't that basically as subjective as you can get?

not entirely

as part of a humongous dataset, people who interviewed participants also gave them a rating of attractiveness.

at least if he ran a study where he asked people's opinions, he might have been able to control for some of the, literally, dozens of confounds with that. In this, he just took someone else's data and found patterns in it. imho, worse than asking people to make subjective ratings.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But if you were to do it, I think that's probably how you had to do it, since attraction is obviously the opinion of a person.

there are better things you could do, but ultimately, unless you define objective criteria about what is "attractive" a priori, it is really just an opinion question.

not to mention, physical attractiveness is based on things like, how much you like or respect the person, etc, which is going to influence the interviewers

Originally posted by Bardock42
Making it more "objective" would be having a big representative sample. It wouldn't be for absolute reasons though.

yes and no. There is a problem with large sample sizes. Just because of the way stats work, the more people who are in a study, the greater the chance that you can find significant differences between the groups. this set is already over 6500 people, measured 3 times. Type 1 error refers to claiming something is true because of statistical probability (there is a chance you will find significant results based on random chance alone). The probability of Type 1 error increases hugely as set size increases. I can't say that is what is going on in this dataset, but simply just taking a huge sample isn't the best strategy.

You would need to try and identify a manipulation where people of equivalent physical features are "racialized" in different ways to see if ratings change based on racial category alone, and it would need to be cross cultural. honestly, I have no idea what such a manipulation would look like.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, he read about people having asked people opinions.


But if you were to do it, I think that's probably how you had to do it, since attraction is obviously the opinion of a person. Making it more "objective" would be having a big representative sample. It wouldn't be for absolute reasons though.
That's why I think trying to determine what is "objectively" attractive is an exercise in futility...

Originally posted by Bardock42
I did read we only use 2% of our brain, can you imagine what we could do if we used all of it?

Suffer a grand mal seizure?

I know some super duper hot "black chicks." However, I probably find less black women attractive than other "racial demographics."

Oddly, I find the most attractive females to be mulattos. This is just my personal experience and not some sort of perfect population assessment of mulattos.



Originally posted by King Kandy
That's why I think trying to determine what is "objectively" attractive is an exercise in futility...

Not necessarily. There are certain "things" our genes tell us to look for on the "physical" side of attractiveness. Fortunately and unfortunately, that can come at odds with what our complex social brains assess about the person.

When we unlock many more secrets of our genes AND how the brain works, we can objectively determine human sexuality more perfectly. This is not to imply that we are close to perfect, already, though. There are definitely things we know, in general, for sure which are very obvious things: symmetry and health. In other words, we find un-deformed healthy people almost universally attractive or at least not ugly. That much should be obvious, however.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not necessarily. There are certain "things" our genes tell us to look for on the "physical" side of attractiveness. Fortunately and unfortunately, that can come at odds with what our complex social brains assess about the person.

So you can imagine a scientist being able to tell someone that they are wrong about who is attractive? Because that's what having an objective standard of beauty would imply to me.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not necessarily. There are certain "things" our genes tell us to look for on the "physical" side of attractiveness. Fortunately and unfortunately, that can come at odds with what our complex social brains assess about the person.

When we unlock many more secrets of our genes AND how the brain works, we can objectively determine human sexuality more perfectly. This is not to imply that we are close to perfect, already, though. There are definitely things we know, in general, for sure which are very obvious things: symmetry and health. In other words, we find un-deformed healthy people almost universally attractive or at least not ugly. That much should be obvious, however.

at some point we may understand statistically significant qualities that lead to higher evaluations of beauty that are shared cross culturally and may have roots in biology and evolution

we certainly will never have the ability to say, for certain, who is attractive to whom.

Like, the best we would ever be able to do is assign a statistical probability to how likely you might be, in a situation by situation basis, to claim one person is more attractive than another.

this is a huge stretch from any sort of "objective beauty" and certainly not universal.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not necessarily. There are certain "things" our genes tell us to look for on the "physical" side of attractiveness. Fortunately and unfortunately, that can come at odds with what our complex social brains assess about the person.

When we unlock many more secrets of our genes AND how the brain works, we can objectively determine human sexuality more perfectly. This is not to imply that we are close to perfect, already, though. There are definitely things we know, in general, for sure which are very obvious things: symmetry and health. In other words, we find un-deformed healthy people almost universally attractive or at least not ugly. That much should be obvious, however.
OK, well that's not even remotely like what the guy was doing in this case. And even in this sense, it still would not represent any "fact" of attractiveness, simply what the general human feeling for it is.

Originally posted by inimalist
at some point we may understand statistically significant qualities that lead to higher evaluations of beauty that are shared cross culturally and may have roots in biology and evolution

Yes, so what I said and have said in other threads.

Well, what I've said is more along the lines of, "statistically significant traits whose roots are in functional biology and their role in evolutionary adaptation and coincidental (vestigial) behaviors that stem from those evolutionary adaptations."

Originally posted by inimalist
we certainly will never have the ability to say, for certain, who is attractive to whom.

I disagree. Imagine a computer that could analyze both our genes and every single memory we have. Imagine that this computer can "calculate" to such a degree that the "print" of our genes are "print" of our brain can create a very clear map on how a person would act and behave. Such a computer or system is so far advanced over what we have now and understand that it is almost inconceivable. However, when we do reach the point to where we understand the brain completely, this would not be impossible, at all.

I cannot rule out the possibility that we will never be able to invent a machine that can tell us or at least measure what one is thinking. Doing so would be so difficult because of the different "flavors" of how one thinks. Sure, there are similarities but I think the way our mind thinks would be slightly different from person to person making it difficult to decipher and reconstruct those thoughts into interpretable information. I don't know how to put this into words, but I don't think telepathy would be as "awesome" as people think it is. When people think, they cut many corners that they would not normally have to because they "know" what they are "thinking" in relation to other thoughts. Wow, this is such a huge tangent.



Well, for instance, when I think of how I am going to plan my workout, if someone could "hear" the thoughts I thought, they would have no clue what the actual plan was. It would be a very empty set of plans, to them, because they have no idea how the "data" fits together in my mind because of all the shortcuts my mind takes to piece that information together in a relational sense. The same with you on a different sense. I actually think that some of our thoughts are not "words" but more concepts. For instance, some may think of the concept of breakfast rather than "saying" breakfast with their "inner-voice." This flavor (the best way I can describe how they describe this abstraction of concepts) of what constitutes "breakfast" for that person may almost be entirely unique to that person.


Indeed, we do get to see how some create these concepts into tangible forms in a more direct fashion: synesthesia. These concepts are almost "different" for people with the same kind of synesthesia symptoms (for instance, colors to numbers.)

Do you understand what I'm trying to say or am I failing horribly to convey my thoughts on this? It is a tangent but one I was thinking about a few years ago that makes the whole "telepathy" thing a bit difficult to be reasonable with the current way we think.


How many people do you know think in a very clear, well-spoken, and "loud" "inner-voice"? That's basically my point.

Originally posted by inimalist
Like, the best we would ever be able to do is assign a statistical probability to how likely you might be, in a situation by situation basis, to claim one person is more attractive than another.

I agree but that probability could be so high that it's almost impossible to defy the predicted action or the outcome of the individual's assessment on a stimulus. Unless, of course, you are implying some sort of "quantum unpredictability" in the way we think (meaning, despite everything pointing towards decision A, sometimes, person 1 will choose decisions B...assuming that "perfect understand" of human genes and the human brain)? In which case...I could have sworn you criticized that concept when Mindship brought it up?

Originally posted by inimalist
this is a huge stretch from any sort of "objective beauty" and certainly not universal.

I disagree as, again, there is a fairly obvious but low-level of sexual attraction that we can determine: symmetry and lack of deformation.

Sure, it's not universal, but it is almost universal. You'll always have those people that are attracted to people missing limbs, "midget porn", and stuff like that. But, almost universally, we don't find those that are "whole" and symmetric to be "ugly." That's about as close as we can get at the moment.

i dont know about everyone else but i get alot of my therapy. Of course it could have something to do with the fact that my therapist is one of the finest ladies i've ever seen and i would pretty much do anything she suggested.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Suffer a grand mal seizure?

I don't know what that is, but I'll trust the parapsychology blog I read over your opinion, thank you!

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, so what I said and have said in other threads.

Well, what I've said is more along the lines of, "statistically significant traits whose roots are in functional biology and their role in evolutionary adaptation and coincidental (vestigial) behaviors that stem from those evolutionary adaptations."



I disagree. Imagine a computer that could analyze both our genes and every single memory we have. Imagine that this computer can "calculate" to such a degree that the "print" of our genes are "print" of our brain can create a very clear map on how a person would act and behave. Such a computer or system is so far advanced over what we have now and understand that it is almost inconceivable. However, when we do reach the point to where we understand the brain completely, this would not be impossible, at all.

I cannot rule out the possibility that we will never be able to invent a machine that can tell us or at least measure what one is thinking. Doing so would be so difficult because of the different "flavors" of how one thinks. Sure, there are similarities but I think the way our mind thinks would be slightly different from person to person making it difficult to decipher and reconstruct those thoughts into interpretable information. I don't know how to put this into words, but I don't think telepathy would be as "awesome" as people think it is. When people think, they cut many corners that they would not normally have to because they "know" what they are "thinking" in relation to other thoughts. Wow, this is such a huge tangent.



Well, for instance, when I think of how I am going to plan my workout, if someone could "hear" the thoughts I thought, they would have no clue what the actual plan was. It would be a very empty set of plans, to them, because they have no idea how the "data" fits together in my mind because of all the shortcuts my mind takes to piece that information together in a relational sense. The same with you on a different sense. I actually think that some of our thoughts are not "words" but more concepts. For instance, some may think of the concept of breakfast rather than "saying" breakfast with their "inner-voice." This flavor (the best way I can describe how they describe this abstraction of concepts) of what constitutes "breakfast" for that person may almost be entirely unique to that person.


Indeed, we do get to see how some create these concepts into tangible forms in a more direct fashion: synesthesia. These concepts are almost "different" for people with the same kind of synesthesia symptoms (for instance, colors to numbers.)

Do you understand what I'm trying to say or am I failing horribly to convey my thoughts on this? It is a tangent but one I was thinking about a few years ago that makes the whole "telepathy" thing a bit difficult to be reasonable with the current way we think.


How many people do you know think in a very clear, well-spoken, and "loud" "inner-voice"? That's basically my point.



I agree but that probability could be so high that it's almost impossible to defy the predicted action or the outcome of the individual's assessment on a stimulus. Unless, of course, you are implying some sort of "quantum unpredictability" in the way we think (meaning, despite everything pointing towards decision A, sometimes, person 1 will choose decisions B...assuming that "perfect understand" of human genes and the human brain)? In which case...I could have sworn you criticized that concept when Mindship brought it up?



I disagree as, again, there is a fairly obvious but low-level of sexual attraction that we can determine: symmetry and lack of deformation.

Sure, it's not universal, but it is almost universal. You'll always have those people that are attracted to people missing limbs, "midget porn", and stuff like that. But, almost universally, we don't find those that are "whole" and symmetric to be "ugly." That's about as close as we can get at the moment.

it isn't a matter of anything you are speaking of, but merely the fact that our statistical analysis can only say things with specific probabilities

it is impossible for science to ever say anything with 100% certainty or claim universality, just based on the tools of science. Even if these things were universal qualities, our statistical analysis doesn't let us say anything is universal.

though, I disagree with a lot of that anyways

I know what type of woman I find attractive (see my avatar). I really don't care what anybody else thinks about the subject.

Originally posted by Mindship
Yeah, black women are less attractive: that's why white women get perms, shoot up their lips and bake in the sun for darker skin.

Ah, psychology.
Light skins want to be a shade or two Darker while darker skins bleach themselves BIG MONEY Biz!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/05/17/136399684/bloggers-ugly-conclusions-anger-some-in-the-black-community



So the guy's racist -- or stupid, or wants attention -- but what I don't get is everything else.

Why does an evolutionary psychologist work from the London School of Economics?
Who on the PT staff thought publishing a blog called The Scientific Fundamentalist was a good idea? And with zero oversight?

inb4 POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS DESTROYING US!

He doesn't work for London School of Economics, it says he's associated with them.

Also, I don't get what the drama is. He complied the study based on questionnaires - ie, he asked males and females of all races who they find most attractive, and the least attractive ones happen to be black women.

OKCupid did a study too (I think it's recently, although I could be wrong) where they found that black women get contacted the least on the dating site, even thought they tend to send out the most messages.
They also get the least replies.

Besides, I don't believe that any research associated with 'race' is racist. Instead of screaming racism, maybe people should do further research to debunk his claims.
Are scientists, social and natural, to completely avoid this topic for the fear of offending people? Ridiculous.

The point isn't that he said most people found black women unattractive... it was that he claimed this proved they were "objectively" unattractive, when i think its clear this evidence does nothing of the sort.

The whole study was a whole lot of shit to begin with. The best way to deal with this isn't to go on a racist screaming sprees but to debunk him using scientific method.
Discrediting a scientist is the worst thing anyone can do to a scientist.

All this is going to do is, people will get upset, scream about it for a bit then forget about it. Then a year later, this man will come up with some other ridiculous claims, and so on in circles.
He already did a study claiming reason Africa is a mess is because Africans have low IQs or something.

Someone should do a study debunking everything he'd ever done. People do that to tons of sociologists and psychologists all the time.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Someone should do a study debunking everything he'd ever done. People do that to tons of sociologists and psychologists all the time.

Though it must be hard since those aren't sciences anyways.













I kid, I kid....maybe

Originally posted by Bardock42
Though it must be hard since those aren't sciences anyways.













I kid, I kid....maybe

Oh no, you didn't!

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Oh no, you didn't!

Which reminds me of this blonde joke:

What happens when a blonde transfers from a psychology to a math degree?


- The average IQ in both departments drops.




Department rivalries aside, I agree with you. The outrage shouldn't be the "racism" of the findings, but that is seems like the methods were unscientific and the conclusions unfounded.

Oh hell! Even though I'm a social scientist, I found that hilarious. I'll tell it to the psychology majors I know around here.
Trollin' in real life, is what I do.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Besides, I don't believe that any research associated with 'race' is racist. Instead of screaming racism, maybe people should do further research to debunk his claims.
Are scientists, social and natural, to completely avoid this topic for the fear of offending people? Ridiculous.

there are some problems with this, however

we don't have full acess to the data, we don't have a lot of money to do properly controlled experiments, etc, etc, etc

my first post was going to be more about the actual issues with the study, but it is often hard to make talking about statistical analysis or methodology into something worth discussing, especially on a forum where the required age to post is 13

that, and if you look at it, the methods are so poor in this instance that it really shouldn't require such an in depth analysis. It is either that this guy is a terribly sloppy scientist (totally possible, there are lots of them) or he has some a priori bias he wants to prove going in. Advertising that he wants to offend people on his website, to me, suggests that it is the latter, and he just thinks he is being persecuted for "bringing the truth".

I agree with you entirely though, and there are racial things that most people wouldn't even think of that are in dire need of study. One really interesting article I came across a few years ago talks about how being in a racial minority might be better if you are part of the "unpopular" group.

Basically, if you are black in a white society, and people don't like you, you can adopt racial identities against these "in-groups" that protect your self esteem and make you feel valid, whereas if a white child is ostrasized by white peers, they have no such identity to cling to, and actually show worse signs of depression and other coping strategies. I'm not pointing that out as a type of "white victimhood", just trying to agree with you entirely, saying there are things we shouldn't be afraid to study, just because it might be a little taboo.

However, I don't think we should confuse good research on race issues with what this guy has done.