Archives for category: political correctness s*cks

you prolly heard by now that satoshi kanazawa says black women are ugly.

of course, he didn’t really, but who cares about silly little ol’ details like that.

what happened was kanazawa got some “attractiveness” data from add health. the evaluations were made “three times by three different interviewers over seven years” (during waves i – iii). the data showed that, consistently, black females scored lower in attractiveness than white, asian, or native american women; this did not happen in the case of black males.

andrew over @evolvify makes a good point about how attractiveness was rated:

“At this point, we have no idea who the interviewers who rated the students were. The attractiveness ratings would have been altered by varying degrees of prior familiarity between the individuals… whether the interviewers were of a certain age… the same sex or opposite sex breakdown… ingroup/outgroup… interviewer race… et cetera. There are simply a lot of variables that bring the reliability of attractiveness data into question. Perhaps this information is available, but it wasn’t in Kanazawa’s article, and I couldn’t find it on the study’s website.”

well, add health (a university of south north carolina entity) apparently outsourced its fieldwork positions to both the national opinion research center (norc) of the university of chicago (waves i and ii) and rti international (wave iii).

fieldworkers seem to be part-time, contract workers, afaics. with the connection to the unversity of south north carolina and the university of chicago, i was guessing that the fieldworkers were likely college students — maybe grad students interested in the field — sociology or whatever the heck it is (i’m talking about the interviewers here — i realize that the add health people are in the medical field). and, who winds up in sociology? mostly white women, with perhaps a few asian women thrown in. so, i was thinking that a lot of the interviewers might’ve been young white college women — and they might not find black women to be very attractive.

however, on the norc website, there are some videos of field interviewers explaining why they love their job, etc., etc., and they’re all older folks, i.e. not college students. of course, i’m sure this group is a pc-selected group — they’ve got almost all the races included there. but, still, three out of the five are white folks. if that is at all representative, then, yeah — there could, again, very well be some bias introduced here.

it’s still interesting that black women were consistently evaluated as the least attractive, but who were the evaluators? if they had been all black men, perhaps the results would’ve been different.

what i think is even more interesting is that blacks — both men and women — consistently rated themselves as attractive or highly attractive, more than members of the other races. black and proud! good for them!:

update 05/19 – charts with y-axes starting at zero:

update – see also ANOTHER watsoning in the air?!

update 05/27 – wicherts and kaufman’s criticism of kanazawa’s number crunching: An independent analysis of race differences in ratings of attractiveness in the Add Health Study. “Kanazawa interpreted his results incorrectly as having a bearing on attractiveness of women because the ratings were taken mostly when Add Health participants were teenagers.” update 06/07: see silly refutations of kanazawa’s blog post

update 06/07: see also on the add health interviewers

(note: comments do not require an email.)



“Recent media accounts have highlighted opposition to evolutionary theory among certain groups and individuals in the United States. At the same time, evolutionary psychology, which relies on evolutionary theory to explain and predict human behavior, remains a controversial academic discipline. In the following two studies, we investigated the relation between willingness to support evolutionary theory in general and willingness to support key tenets of evolutionary psychology. Our results revealed a double dissociation, whereby endorsers of human evolution displayed relatively weak support for claims derived from evolutionary psychology, whereas non-endorsers of human evolution displayed relatively strong support for such claims. This latter support remained strong, though diminished, when the relation between evolutionary theory and evolutionary psychology was made explicit to respondents. The results suggest that strong support or opposition regarding human evolution does not carry over into corresponding attitudes toward evolutionary psychology.

us folks of the altright|hbd-o-sphere have been aware of this … inconsistency … for some time. people have all sorts of cognitive dissonances, but this one is one of the most amusing — but infuriating as h*ll! — ones to me.

(note: comments do not require an email.)

eveh. (or, at least, this week!):

“The true White Man’s Burden turns out to be his intellectual distaste for reality, his need to believe in universal principles, even (or especially) when they are conspicuously counterfactual. The more disastrous your ideals, the more pure your heart must be and the more evil your doubters.”

yeah. what is with us? dudes!

(note: comments do not require an email. [i really gotta fix that.])

so, i guess some african-american rapper who goes by the stagename of ‘common‘ (never heard of him) will be attending some soirée at the white house. and i guess he’s not too keen on inter-racial relationships.

and here i thought we’d all moved beyond race in this country! huh. i musta been misinformed.

anyway. i respect the guy’s opinion, altho myself i don’t care who someone marries. (not that it really matters what i think!) (~_^)

what i do care about is that we can’t really have that honest discussion about race that what’s-his-name — holder — thought we should have.

i don’t care who anyone marries, but i think they should be well-informed before they make their choice.

(note: comments do not require an email.)

…if i lived in the uk. i sing this song all the time! no, really. i do!


…another watsoning.

this time it’s a (once) respected doctor by the name of lazar greenfield. here’s what he wrote that’s gotten him into hot water — this was in his st. valentine’s day editorial in the official newspaper of the american college of surgeons:

“As far as humans are concerned, you may think you know all about sexual signals, but you’d be surprised by new findings. It’s been known since the 1990s that heterosexual women living together synchronize their menstrual cycles because of pheromones, but when a study of lesbians showed that they do not synchronize, the researchers suspected that semen played a role. In fact, they found ingredients in semen that include mood enhancers like estrone, cortisol, prolactin, oxytocin, and serotonin; a sleep enhancer, melatonin; and of course, sperm, which makes up only 1%-5%. Delivering these compounds into the richly vascularized vagina also turns out to have major salutary effects for the recipient. Female college students having unprotected sex were significantly less depressed than were those whose partners used condoms (Arch. Sex. Behav. 2002;31:289-93). Their better moods were not just a feature of promiscuity, because women using condoms were just as depressed as those practicing total abstinence. The benefits of semen contact also were seen in fewer suicide attempts and better performance on cognition tests.

“So there’s a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there’s a better gift for that day than chocolates.”

ok. so maybe the closing joke is a little tasteless for a professional journal. but that, of course, is not what the good doc is in deep sh*t for. apparently, everyone’s now questioning if he — AND the whole american college of surgeons — is sexist, racist, hates gays & lesbians, pulls the wings off flies and kicks small dogs. ok, ok. not the last two. but the rest — i kid you not!:

“While women now make up almost half of all entering medical school classes in the United States, fewer than a third choose to go into surgery, in part because of a perceived male bias, negative attitudes of surgeons and a lack of female mentors. Once in practice, studies have shown, well over half of all women surgeons report feeling demeaned, and nearly a third say they have been the objects of inappropriate sexist remarks or advances….

“It is less clear what attitudes Dr. Greenfield or other leaders of the organization have toward the college’s gay and lesbian members. ‘I think race and religion have made a lot more progress in the college than women, and particularly gay women or men,’ Dr. Brophy said. ‘This is probably the first time I’ve ever seen the word ‘lesbian’ used in a piece or associated with the college. Ever.'”

ok. now even i got why watson was watsoned. i mean, i didn’t understand it, of course — but even i know that you can’t say anything even remotely implying any differences between the races, especially if it reflects badly on non-whites, and even if your intentions are good.

but i really don’t get how what greenfield said was politically incorrect. ok. the joke at the end was a bit tasteless (i found it funny, tho — of course, that prolly confirms that it’s tasteless!) — but the rest of it is sound, afaics. if people have a problem with the FACTS, why don’t they go and try to disprove them?! (that’s a rhetorical question. don’t worry. i get it. we’re talking about power and political correctness here.) i mean, here’s the original research about depression in women and semen. GO TEST THE HYPOTHESIS AGAIN and see if it holds up or not!


and what the h*ck did he say about lesbians (and gays) that was offensive? just that their menstrual cycles don’t synchronize when they live together? (i never knew that.) what — WHAT — is offensive about pointing out that (apparent) FACT?!

i know, i know. we’re ALL THE SAME! heaven forbid someone points out any differences between people. ’cause then it will be TEOTWAWKI!!!!

(*roll eyes*)

(note: comments do not require an email.)

lest we forget aaaaall of the fantastic contributions to science that (those three or four geeks — ok, five! — in) the muslim world made over the last (what is it?) 1400 years or so, scientific american has a slide show up: “the forgotten history of muslim scientists.”

i’d leave it at “no comment” — except they just had to go and try to include all the WOMEN in the islamic world who made fantastic contributions to science. *sigh*

(not surprisingly) this is the best that they could come up with. a cartoon drawing:

Fatima al-Fihri: It wasn’t just Muslim men. The oldest continuously operating university in the world—Al-Qarawiyyin founded in Fès, Morocco, in 859—was founded by a merchant’s daughter: Fatima al-Fihri. The university, on the grounds of a grand mosque built by al-Fihri, subsequently produced a slew of leading Muslim thinkers.”

well, that’s great that she founded a “university” — but if i were one of these women looking to be reassured that my sex had also contributed LOTS to science (which i’m not), i think i might be a little disappointed at this. some chick coughs up some of her inheritance to fund a madrasa? that’s all they got?

political correctness is sometimes just sad and pathetic. (oh wait … maybe that should read “always.”)

previously: the hard sciences are soooo sexist!

(note: comments do not require an email.)

at least they did in 2004 (from the gss):

Immigration and African-American Employment Opportunities: The Response of Wages, Employment, and Incarceration to Labor Supply Shocks

“The 1980-2000 immigrant influx, therefore, generally ‘explains’ about 20 to 60 percent of the decline in wages, 25 percent of the decline in employment, and about 10 percent of the rise in incarceration rates among blacks with a high school education or less.”

(note: comments do not require an email.)