Nonsense about Sutoshi Kanazawa

Psychology Today tries to explain what was wrong with Kanazawa\’s piece pointing out that black/African women are perceived as being less physically attractive than those of other genetic backgrounds.

It\’s a very politically correct and very bad fail:

The point is that there are also group differences, not in attractiveness (as Kanazawa claims), but in cultural messages about what is and is not attractive. Standards of beauty, like most other beliefs, are socialized and change not only from place to place but also over time.  In both the United States and England, (where Kanazawa lives and works), standards of beauty are essentially \”White\” standards, because whites comprise the majority of the population and have disproportional control over both media and fashion. And while it is not just White respondents who are socialized this way (internalized racism has been well documented), it is certainly the case that White Americans and Europeans (who are less likely to have received more positive messages about Black beauty) would show the strongest anti-Black bias.

As long as this is understood and framed accordingly, there is no problem with the data Kanazawa reports.  What they show is that because Black faces and bodies don\’t fit mainstream White standards of physical attractiveness, both respondents and interviewers show an anti-Black bias.

This does not explain the observed facts. That people consider (or those questioned consider) black/African females to be less attractive and black/African males to be more attractive.

\”Peeps don\’t like blacks\” or \”Whitey Power!\” or even \” people are acculturated to white standards of attractiveness and thus think darkies are ugly\” don\’t manage to explain that fact. And as we are at least attempting to talk about science a theory that doesn\’t explain all the facts is wrong. Plain, flat out, wrong.

However \”correct\” it might be.

7 thoughts on “Nonsense about Sutoshi Kanazawa”

  1. Dropping the article because it is non-PC is really bad, and the way they explain it is crap. But the question of social biases, more subtle than black=bad, was completely ignored by Kanazawa, because he wants perceived differences to be biochemically determined.

  2. It is called “genetics”. In evolutionary terms animals are most attracted to mates who are most like them and therefore most likely to produce fit and healthy offspring.

  3. In evolutionary terms animals are most attracted to mates who are most like them

    Not in sexually dimorphic species. Which is what this is about, really.

    The “whites are dominant” narrative doesn’t explain why far eastern females are held in such high regard. Unless you consider that a strong part of attractiveness is dimorphism. Robust males like gracile females, and vice versa. Of course there are many other factors, but that is a major one.

  4. “Robust males like gracile females”: it is no coincidence that I keep meeting Chinese women called Grace, often very suitably.

  5. “The “whites are dominant” narrative doesn’t explain why far eastern females are held in such high regard”

    That’s not strictly true. The ones in demand are those with a very Western look with just a touch of oriental mystery. The slab faced, short legged Han from behind the counter at the chinky take-away doesn’t get a look.

  6. Of course, you could same the same about the the double-chinned, fat-armed bird in the chippy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *