It seems one Dr Satoshi Kanazawa, seemingly renowned for psychographics which illustrate Asian intelligence being higher, has spurned on massive criticism from people within the London School of Economics and across the world.
The piece has now been taken down from Psychology Today's website, however it can be viewed over at Something Awful in it's entirety.
Now science is based upon observation and builds rules based upon it's findings. It puts it out in the open for scrutiny and hence if left standing can be considered true (until further factors in the future require it to be reviewed and altered). So if his findings are true then it would seem the 'black' women are considered less desirable than women from any other ethnic background and that they consider themselves individually, according to the nice graphs, to be better looking internally and have a higher opinion of themselves than women from other ethnic backgrounds.
Now, the research is fatally flawed as his indicators for beauty haven't been disclosed and have bias which slants them towards particular groups rather than being independent of beauty. Their perception of beauty is an important factor in what makes these results the way they are. I personally don't find myself attracted to black women generally - however I have met some stunning black women who I would have loved to have tapped. I have more than a few white male friends who are infatuated with African woman and place them above all others in terms of beauty.
So whilst individuals are individuals and each get taken on their own merits, accepting that trends occur personally for what is considered attractive (redheads for me!) and the lack of transparency within the study combined with social balance for things such as racism and equality: What do you think about this study?
-Art|||I just do not buy these type of studies.|||According to wiki, PZ Myers called Dr. Kanazawa "the great idiot of social science." Says it all really.|||I think there are studies which seemed to show that individuals feel more attracted to other individuals when they perceive similarity with these to some degree.
If we assume that these studies weren't flawed, then it would be ridiculously easy to set up a study that "proves that one race is less beautiful than others". Just ask a bunch of asians and caucasians, in this particular case.
Anyway, that's a problem of studies done in the social sciences and in psychology generally: The studies are typically done on students of these disciplines, and then the results are generalized onto the whole of humanity. Even if the test subjects are recruited from a wider range, you still only get those who volunteer to be tested. If that isn't providing plenty of room for systemic errors, then I don't know.|||Oh no, politically incorrect science. This cannot possibly be real science.
|||Quote:
Oh no, politically incorrect science. This cannot possibly be real science.
Rather, incorrectly done politically incorrect science seems to loose some of its credibility. Since the good doctor will not release the needed details for a thorough analysis, he leaves his results at the mercy of conjecture. Not even conjecture really, but some some good rational problem points (as Art Yi Mor has given) concerning the validity of the study found within the results themselves.
I really just posted to say "...incorrectly done politically incorrect...", as it is 1AM, I am bored, and it sounded amusing to me.|||Quote:
Oh no, politically incorrect science. This cannot possibly be real science.
Yeah, good point, it's definitely not the massive statistical errors rife throughout Dr. Kanazawa's work, the huge and unsupported assumptions backing those numbers, or the total lack of scientific precision.|||Obviously, what is measured here (even if the study as such should be done "properly", and that is one ginormous if) is not some kind of innate beauty, but how different looks are regarded in our society. And it should come as a surprise to no one that our society (as an average) regard lighter skin and finer features to be more attractive. It is a power thing.
Due to inequality lighter skin and finer features are connected with "success" and therefore are also desireable from an aesthetical standpoint. Just take a look at all the covergirls on fashion magazines, runway models, billboards etc. On a lucky day there are 10% that are not light-skinned fine-featured women, most days even less. And the ones who are there are almost exlusively to market "the exotic". There is a reason skin bleach is a billion dollar market.
Although it is getting better, as equality improves. A few decades ago there were NO non-white covergirls, runway models or billboard ads. And I would imagine that back then the good doctor would have gotten an even "stronger" result.
There is of course some science that measure what we would call "innate" beauty (or evolutionary attractors if you will), but this is not is. In those cases it is more about amalgamations and general features. Like symmetry (indicative of health), jaw lines (bigger=better for males, smaller=better for females, indicative of sex hormone levels), shoulder/hip ratio (broader shoulders attractive on males, broader hips attractive on females) and so on.
But no matter how you cut it the individual variation on what is considered beautiful is still so large that even those kind of measurements are almost pointless. Eye of the beholder and all.|||Quote:
Yeah, good point, it's definitely not the massive statistical errors rife throughout Dr. Kanazawa's work, the huge and unsupported assumptions backing those numbers, or the total lack of scientific precision.
Why would any of that matter? Even if he did do everything right he'd still get flak. Look at this:
Quote:
Sherelle Davids, anti-racism officer-elect of the LSE students' union, said: "Kanazawa deliberately manipulates findings that justify racist ideology. As a black woman I feel his conclusions are a direct attack on black women everywhere who are not included in social ideas of beauty."
See that? She feels that his conclusions are a direct attack on black woman - as in that he would be attacking them (by calling them ugly). Do you think she cares how he got the results? She just thinks that they are wrong.
Quote:
Although it is getting better, as equality improves. A few decades ago there were NO non-white covergirls, runway models or billboard ads.
How is that better.|||Quote:
Why would any of that matter?
Well, just off-hand, it would probably have something to do with why this study is getting so much flak. Especially given it's not the first time this fellow has put out crappy research with a heavily politicized point.
Quote:
Do you think she cares how he got the results? She just thinks that they are wrong.
Uh, what? Did you read the quote you just posted? She's mad because he distorts his research to "justify racist ideology." She'd probably still be unhappy if he used proper science to get there, but of course she cares that his method is so flawed. The flaws prove that Dr. Kanazawa is just looking to prop up racism, instead of doing good research that incidentally affects racial ideologies. That's why she's mad.
Quote:
How is that better.
A little racism is better than a lot of racism?
No comments:
Post a Comment