In a recent article in Psychology Today, Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics, argued that black women are objectively less attractive than other races.
Yes, evidently Mr. Kanazawa has never heard of Beyonce, Nicki Minaj, Kerry Washington, Naomie Harris, Janet Jackson, Iman, Naomi Campbell, Taraji P. Henson, Keisha Cole, Christina Milian, Mya... man that’s a long list. I haven’t even mentioned Gabrielle Union, Zoe Saldana, Robin Givens, Naturi Naughton, and this girl at school I’ve had a crush on since last September.
(As I'm writing this, there's a very fine looking black woman working on one of the computers at my workplace. Oooh... she just asked me for fax paper!)
Anyway, his “proof” was an online study rating people’s attractiveness, which found black women coming in last behind white, Asian and Native American women. It’s Science so how could he be wrong? Look, he’s got graphs and everything, see?
Except it isn’t science. It barely qualifies as pseudo-science, and everything about Kanazawa’s study – from his methodology to his thesis – has been ravaged by real scientists, as well academics, students, and even journalists. So really, the issue isn’t whether he’s right or not, it’s how in the world Psychology Today could publish it?
An outcry, of course, was inevitable, and Psychology Today removed the offending piece and issued an apology two weeks later, but not before the damage had already been done. And while I’ll add my name to the list of people calling on the London School of Economics to fire this guy, Kanazawa’s piece made me think – we have so many awards for things like acting, singing, writing... even peace. But when it comes to outstanding acts of racism – from Kanazawa to Michael Richards to the Royal Canadian Legion idiots on down – there's nothing. So I am hereby awarding the first ever Most Racist Crap Ever Award to Mr. Kanazawa for keeping the spirit of bigotry and ignorance alive.
Why Kanazawa? It comes down to brazenness, really. Science has been used to denigrate blacks and justify racism for well over a century (read Harriet A. Washington’s fascinating Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present), but Kanazawa’s “study” is the first time I’m aware of someone calling all women of a particular race ugly. That’s not just racist, that’s player hater’s ball hateful.
(Really, anyone who constructs a scientific explanation for physical attractiveness is working on a whole new level of absurdity if you ask me)
So Mr. Kanazawa, to you I bestow this award. A shame I don’t have the design skills to whip up something befitting this dishonour. No matter, your work speaks for itself.
Agreed! Kanazawa'a argument was total bullshit. I think it's really shady that Psychology Today published it. All scientific journals should be free to publish any findings, even offensive ones. The scientific process demands no less. But any article must be backed by sound science and it's clear that that was absent in this case. Only a bias on the part of the journal could cause them to overlook such blatant deficiencies. It suggests to me that the editors secretly harboured feelings similar to those of Kanazawa.
I'm not exactly against this you know. He only reporting what he tested. He asked some men to rate some chicks and this is what the stats showed. It also explains why black women find it harder and therefore date less outside the race. It's stats people
"...and this girl at school I’ve had a crush on since last September." awesome!
also, dude doesn't look like he could get a black girl if he tried. sometimes i find guys do this pre-emptive rationalization where guys think that certain ethnicities that they think they can't get, they say aren't that good-looking.
wow... let me just say:
1) he has five decimal points on his y axis for no reason. not a scientist...
2) more testosterone as the reason black women are less attractive - really?! no evidence for that
3) grammatical errors throughout the entire 'peer reviewed' article - no better judgement/involvement from the editor
4) no methods section - aka you have no idea how he arrived at those graphs. lies, damned lies and statistics...
This type of shit bothers me because it undermines the trust people have in the scientific process and scientists in general. Although I have to say I'm happy to see the scientific community took the time to police their own and get this bullshit retracted
A well executed and succinct take-down.