linkfest – 06/10/12

Consanguinity and Corruption“Computing simple, unweighted averages for each country for which studies and surveys have been conducted and subsequently recorded on consang.net and then comparing them to Transparency International’s 2011 Corruptions Perception Index yields a correlation of .44 (p = 0).” – from the awesome epigone! see also steve sailer.

Does cooperation require both reciprocity and alike neighbours? – the answer is yes: “The researchers conclude that human societies can best achieve high levels of cooperative behaviour if their individuals interact repeatedly, and if populations exhibit at least a minor degree of structure.” – in other words, if the members of a society are related to some degree.

Re-Examining the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasoids) in Light of DNA Genealogyopen access [pdf].

An Asian Origin for Human Ancestors?“Researchers agree that our immediate ancestors, the upright walking apes, arose in Africa. But the discovery of a new primate that lived about 37 million years ago in the ancient swamplands of Myanmar bolsters the idea that the deep primate family tree that gave rise to humans is rooted in Asia. If true, the discovery suggests that the ancestors of all monkeys, apes, and humans—known as the anthropoids—arose in Asia and made the arduous journey to the island continent of Africa almost 40 million years ago.”

Exercise benefits black girls less than whites, study shows“Physical activity seems a nearly sure way to prevent obesity in white adolescent girls, but does not have the same effect on African American girls, researchers say…. The study … falls in line with research that finds black women oxidize fat more slowly in response to exercise, and that their resting metabolic rates are lower than those of white women.”

[White] Americans’ heads have been growing, scientists say“Over the last 150 years or so, it appears that skulls got narrower from side to side by about 5 to 7 millimeters, and higher from top to bottom by an average of nearly 10 millimeters, Jantz said. And the overall size of the head has, on average, increased by an amount equivalent to the size of a tennis ball, he said.”

Menstrual huts protect Dogon men from cuckoldry“Women who practise the traditional Dogon religion, unlike those who are Muslim or Christian, spend five days a month around the time of menstruation in a highly visible ‘menstrual hut’. Strassmann tested paternity in 1700 Dogon father and son pairs and found that those who practised the traditional religion were four times less likely to be raising someone else’s son than those who practised Christianity.”

Lady Liaisons: Does Cheating Give Females an Evolutionary Advantage?“‘This is one of the most careful and most robust studies to explore whether polyandry is adaptive in females,’ says Tommaso Pizzari, a University of Oxford biologist who was not involved in the research. ‘The answer is: not really.'” – at least not in canadian song sparrows.

bonus: Plants may be able to ‘hear’ others

bonus bonus: Parasitic plants ‘steal’ genes from their hosts

bonus bonus bonus: Skeletons treated for vampirism found in Bulgaria – vampires!

(note: comments do not require an email. awwww!)

Advertisements

silly refutations of kanazawa’s blog post

there’ve been a lot — a LOT — of refutations of kanazawa’s post on the attractiveness of black women. i haven’t read them all — in fact i’ve read hardly any of them ’cause most of them just scream and yell WAAAAAAYCIST!! BURN HIM, BURN HIM!!

*facepalm*

some of them, however, appear to be more scientific refutations. bering in mind links to another psychology today blogger (scott barry kaufman) who (along with someone named jelte wicherts in the netherlands) has supposedly (according to bering in mind) “failed to replicate” kanazawa’s findings.

i took at look at kaufman’s post — and the technical summary of their analysis — ’cause i thought, well gee — not able to replicate the findings — that’d be interesting.

IF IT WERE TRUE!

here’s the evidence that kaufman and wicherts present (in the blog post) to show that kanazawa’s analysis was incorrect:

looks like black women were rated nearly as attractive as white women, right? and they were. in wave iv.

here’s how they fudged the data.

the add health thingie (from whence all the data comes) involved four waves of surveys over the course of several years (a couple of decades?). kaufman and wicherts decided that the only wave that should be included in any analysis on the attractiveness of women is wave iv, because in that wave the females were of legal age and, therefore, women.

no, i’m not kidding. they really said that!

now, i would agree with them if the subjects in the previous waves had been pre-pubescent children. but the ages in the waves were:

wave i = mean age 15.9 years
wave ii = average age 16.5 years
wave iii = mean age 22.1 years
wave iv = mean age 28.9 years

now come on! ok, so in waves i-iii most or all of the subjects were not of legal age, but probably the vast majority (except maybe for some late bloomers in wave i) were “reproductively of age” — meaning they could make babies. which is what the whole discussion is about! attractiveness, after all, is about attracting a mate.

*cough, cough* cherry-picking *cough, cough*

kanazawa didn’t include wave iv in his analysis, which is the wave when the attractiveness of whites and blacks was rated the most similar. don’t know why he didn’t use the data from that wave. kaufman mentions that the data from that wave has been available “for over a month.” well, maybe kanazawa didn’t realize the newest data had been published when he ran his analysis. i really dunno, but it’s definitely possible.

in any case, waves i-iii show that black women were rated as less attractive, altho i think the numbers in wave iii are not statistically significant. in wave iv, as i’ve said above, the rating for whites and blacks were pretty similar:

i still wanna know who the interviewers|evaluators were. were they all white folks? all asians? all illegal mexican workers picked up outside home-depot? their characteristics might’ve influenced the results.

actually, now that i mention it, the fieldwork for waves iii and iv was contracted out to a different company than waves i and ii. wonder if that made any difference in the evaluations?

btw, some real word data from okcupid maybe lends more support to kanazawa’s findings:

“Men don’t write black women back. Or rather, they write them back far less often than they should. Black women reply the most, yet get by far the fewest replies. Essentially every race—including other blacks—singles them out for the cold shoulder.”

that’s too bad.

previously: the offensive mr. kanazawa and african-american porn stars

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

(note: comments do not require an email. or an eharmony.com subscription.)

african-american porn stars

(<< seo! oh, yeah.)

there's something of a discussion over @dennis' about the popularity (or lack, thereof) of african-american women in porn. (i know, i know. the standards over @dennis' are just dropping daily…. (~_^) ) some are claiming that white females dominate (*ahem*) in porn, while others are saying that anything goes.

well, i decided to check it out for you (so that you wouldn't have to).

here (NSFW. really NSFW!) are the top 100 most popular porn stars for 2010, according to some site called porn-star.com (which i’ve never seen before, i swear!). now, i dunno if porn-star.com is reliable, but they have been around since 1997 … and claim to have 250,000 uniques per day. if that’s true, then … yeah … that prolly means it’s a good sample size (which is prolly also global).

afaics, there’s only one african-american woman on the list — jada fire @ #67:

one out of a hundred. that’s not much.

now the rest aren’t all white — there’s an indian (from india) woman @ #5 and an asian woman @ #25, but that’s about it, i think.

attractiveness in women (at least in porn) = white women.

btw — here’s a list of porn actresses by decade. and here’s a list of african-american porn stars, which only has 23 female actresses listed (if i counted right). these include actresses going back to the ’70s.

p.s. – of course, the top 100 list could be totally bogus, i.e. not really based on (*ahem*) hits. but presumably the site does try to cater to the interests of its viewers, soooo….

previously: the offensive mr. kanazawa

(note: comments do not require an email. oh, my eyes, my eyes! i need some bleach….)