"But, that would require producing results that you can take to the bank."
Is it conceivable that a study like this could establish usable market niches for specific types of looks and body types? I imagine that it's already done to find models for advertisements.
While I understand your skepticism about evolutionary psychology, I find it to be a useful hypothesis. I can't imagine that natural selection would affect body language habits but not mate selection.
I use the word "study" sarcastically because this guy evidently didn't study anything. It's just some crap that popped out of his head that makes no sense.
EP seems to be defined by, "We have eyes because eyes are for seeing," type teleological reasoning. That doesn't fly with me.
Fun fact: black people can jump higher and run faster because they're socially conditioned to do so and because that's their culture.
I find it funny that the same people who call evolutionary explanations bullshit will jump to attribute racial differences to some dubious "culturally" explanation, the working of which is never really explained. The study cited by the OP comes up with a testable hypothesis and it wouldn't be difficult to find out ways to prove it. Our brains react in certain ways when we find an individual attractive, brain scans could be one way to test it, or just hits on a dating site.
BTW, when somebody turns around and expressed disbelief at the choice of a famous, powerful individual to sleep with a women who is considerably below par (Grant, Schwarzenegger and a few others come to mind), nobody points out that preferences are subjective.
It can be very teleological, but I think most EP advocates would say that we have eyes because eyes deliver a sensastion known as "sight" and "sight" helps us survive. I've always been under the impression that EPers look to evolution as a guide to understand why something may have evolved and if this did help us survive, it helps better understand certain functions when applied to psychology. If they can isolate the function of something like stress or depression, then it may lead to a way to "cure" it.
I find it funny that the same people who call evolutionary explanations bullshit will jump to attribute racial differences to some dubious "culturally" explanation, the working of which is never really explained. The study cited by the OP comes up with a testable hypothesis and it wouldn't be difficult to find out ways to prove it. Our brains react in certain ways when we find an individual attractive, brain scans could be one way to test it, or just hits on a dating site
Nope, you're not stating anything...and the second you are, that is when you can look at "brain patterns" or what ever the hell you think makes sense, it is no longer psychology and in the realm of doctors, mechanics, etc in the field of biology
If they can isolate the function of something like stress or depression, then it may lead to a way to "cure" it.
Teleology isolates nothing. It's just plain poor logic. There are higher standards than using a second rate method like that. It's one thing to use it as a hint at what to test. It's another thing to automatically explain everything as being such because of some perceived utility.
"Well we black women have something your white or asian girls cannot have. Our backsides are unrivalled, and thats why we continue to attract attention of the most fertile men to cherish us."
LOL
jay: "Well we black women have something your white or asian girls cannot have. Our backsides are unrivalled, and thats why we continue to attract attention of the most fertile men to cherish us." LOL
seconded.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
>Fun fact: black people can jump higher and run faster because they're socially conditioned to do so and because that's their culture.
Actually, black people in the US are stronger/faster/etc for evolutionary reasons, but NOT because they are black. See, a large portion of black Americans are descendents of slaves, and slaves had to be pretty damn strong and/or lucky to survive the trip to the US and then survive a life of slavery. Thus, black Americans are usually stronger than average Americans. Black people in Africa are, by and large, about as fast/strong/etc as people everywhere else barring individual variance. The exception would be places like Kenya, but Kenyans live at a very high altitude, meaning less air to breathe, meaning their lungs are very strong compared to those of other people.
Of course culture can have a huge influence on even athletic ability. Take "Blacks are better in basketball" for instance, do people think that playing basketball every single day from the day you're able to run has absolutely nothing to do with it? In every inner-city with minorities, playing streetball is what kids do as soon as they're able to go on a playground, and they play whenever theres free time to be found. Hard work has a hell of a lot to do with it, why brush it off so quickly? They don't start playing basketball beacuse its in their genes to throw a ball through a hoop, its because everyone around them plays and you earn respect by being a good player. Not that genetics doesn't play a factor in some ways, but conditioning can certainly influence everything about you.
Got bored of this tiresome thread a while back, but just popped back to see if anyone had thrown in the old "black people can't swim" bollocks that I used to hear a few years back. Now that's what you call a bit of retro racism. I'm sure mises.org won't fail to provide.
lol I can't even explain why I post in threads like this, no one's opinions are really influenced by anything anyone says and we go by on with our day. Ohh well its still kind of entertaining.
I find it funny that the same people who call evolutionary explanations bullshit will jump to attribute racial differences to some dubious "culturally" explanation,
Fun Fact: The same disgust you have in the "Hoppe" style elitism is the very same empty "science as religion" nonsense elitism you are demonstrating now. The philisophical underpinning / logic is the same. The only difference is this may not be heterodox conversation in polite upper west side polite society, as the way the "science" narrative was attempted is more mainstream - even though it isn't science.
So what, Consumariat, are some thoughts forbidden thoughts? Calling people racist or closet racists doesn't actually, you know, counter their arguments.
I just noticed your little quip at me from the first page, and while I can't speak for the others, if you actually read what I posted, inferring racism or hidden racism from that is flat-out inane.
Eric080:So what, Consumariat, are some thoughts forbidden thoughts?
Yes, certain thoughts are forbidden. That's the whole point of political correctness. It's barriers in your mind, places you are not allowed to tread. That way you can never change your mind and stay a socialist.
Wait, you're saying you want to disconnect the mechanical functions of our brains from the way we think? We all evolved along similar lines, so I think it's pretty reasonably to suggest that we have similar tastes, and in the grand scheme of things we all do. Thing is, when we make generalisations within racial lines as opposed to between them, they seem to be fairly uncontroversial. Guys with broad shoulders and strong jaws tend to be fairly attractive, other things equal. Females with such features are usually not particularly attractive.
I'm not saying there aren't attractive black females, but in general the consensus is that they're less attractive. Take a look at any list of the sexiest/ most attractive women in the world, they're usually dominated by whites with a fair share of latin women and with a few black outliers.
Fun Fact: The same disgust you have in the "Hoppe" style elitism is the very same empty "science as religion" nonsense elitism you are demonstrating now. The philisophical underpinning / logic is the same. The only difference is this may not be heterodox conversation in polite upper west side polite society, as the way the "science" narrative was attempted is more mainstream - even though it isn't science
I disagree with youre claim this isn't science. As I said, he made a testable claim and one can think of a few ways to test it, even though they might not be perfect tests for attractive, I daresay they'd be highly correlated with general perceptions.
Why should they be highly correlated with general perceptions when it was based on the ratings of just three interviewers? Just what about this study looks thorough to you?
Anyway time for some character assasination because its fun, even if it has nothing to do with the study, here's Mr. Kanazawa with more of his brilliance->
"As one El Al official says, “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.” No, not all Muslims are terrorists, but, as I explain in my previous post, half of Muslims worldwide are terrorists or active supporters of terrorism, who would encourage their sons, brothers, and nephews to blow themselves up in an airplane or in a crowded market. "
Superb, so either I want to blow myself up or my sister does. There's a 50/50 chance here! Heres some more!
“Here’s a little thought experiment. Imagine that, on September 11, 2001, when the Twin Towers came down, the President of the United States was not George W. Bush, but Ann Coulter. What would have happened then? On September 12, President Coulter would have ordered the US military forces to drop 35 nuclear bombs throughout the Middle East, killing all of our actual and potential enemy combatants, and their wives and children. On September 13, the war would have been over and won, without a single American life lost.
Yes, we need a woman in the White House, but not the one who’s running.”
This is a bit silly. There's all kinds of lists like that made by all sorts of different people, some of them just have just indian women , or just japanese women. Why the hell should I take Maxim or People magazine's opinions on famous people they find to be the most beautiful to be the general consensus of humanity? Or anyone else's?
You want to say you have certain preferences for attraction- ok go ahead and do just that- that would actually make sense. Where I grew up no one found white women attractive at ALL(haha except me), if I were to be an idiot I'd say that must be the general consensus of the world since literally hundreds of people I knew felt that way.
But nope, this guy had 3 interviewers so something MUST be wrong with their biological mechanism for attraction since it doesn't fall in line with the study. If you're saying men generally find black women to be the least attractive because its wired into us based on evolutionary lines, then whats wrong with the outliers? What happened to them that their feelings of physical attraction are trigged by the complete opposite?
No there are no laws here that this covers or describes that are within the language of science. This is an ontological statement, and hence these terms are nonsensical unless they are utilized by an individual. At best it is history or philosophy - which aren't science to begin with (though these subjects may utilize science to construct a narrative).
These subjective words are simply not testable in this manner - in the same way "law" as a thing iniself is not testable.
Besides, blacks outproduce whites on avg, reproduce at a younger age, lose thei virginity quicker, have more sex partners on avg, and get more STDS as well. I also wouldn't be surprised if there were more in the sex industry as a whole - but who knows. Either way, that alone should tip you off to the BS to these jilted tests and methods. Even if what I said "doesn't count" at least I am talking about real concrete things instead of ghost words such as "she is pretty, she is not", "I prefer this over that".
These things can do nothing in "the name of science" - they can only do things in the name of individual utilization, so it requires a different manner to approach these things.
i read somewhere that across different races, man prefer lighter skinned women, even africans. however, we cannot know if his is a purely "unbiased" view or colored by social ideals. media can have a great impact on people. racial biases come into play also. wouldnt you say that a nazi would find a jew less attractive than the average jew.
Wait, you're saying you want to disconnect the mechanical functions of our brains from the way we think? We all evolved along similar lines, so I think it's pretty reasonably to suggest that we have similar tastes, and in the grand scheme of things we all do. Thing is, when we make generalisations within racial lines as opposed to between them, they seem to be fairly uncontroversial.
I am saying everything has it's own "language" and it can't really cross into the realm of other "languages" - this is trying to insert an ontological sunjective reality into a natural science language, it can not do that. The minute it does we treat it different: As one would treat a virus or infection - this is simply not the case with these matters. Upon quick and honest reflection you have to admit these variables are overwhleming to think about. The minute we can is the minute it is out of the realm of "subjective" type subjects, which is fine - it is just a different language with different rules until otherwise demonstrated.
Well sure, some people do prefer light skinned women, you will see women putting all sorts of whitening creams on in different cultures. But on the other hand here in America we see it is a huge business for white women to darken their skin with tanning, so whats going on here?
i read somewhere that across different races, man prefer lighter skinned women, even africans.
I've done a lot of studying to find what specific features look the best to me. What I do is look at sets of faces each with one particular feature in common and see which sets generally look the best. If I did a broader study I would use the same method with more people. That raises the question for me of why someone would over-generalize into uselessly nebulous categories such as in this case. You know the showbiz cliche, "Any publicity is good publicity". If I was marketing a book rather than doing real research Kanazawa's method is what I would use.
But on the other hand here in America we see it is a huge business for white women to darken their skin with tanning, so whats going on here?
Females don't know much about what makes females look good. Hip narrowing surgery and hip widening surgery are both big business.
Females don't know much about what makes females look good.
haha I agree with that. I hate it when I see a formerly gorgeous woman use botox or get some other type of implant or wears heavy make up. Pointless for me. Throw in women who try to be "Sexy" with super serious "you can't have this" faces in that category too. Smiles damnit! I wanna see smiles and genuine happiness! General consensus and glamour magazines be damned!
auctionguy10:Smiles damnit! I wanna see smiles and genuine happiness!
Hear hear!
Why anarchy fails
I tend to be attracted to dark skinned people sexually more so than lighter skinned people (and I'm causcasion here!). I don't find them more exotic, but I guess I like the way their skin glows or some crap. I can't quite quantify it. Again, it's all really subjective crap, if you get what I'm trying to illustrate here.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Vitor: I've been with black, norwegian, mexican, canadian, white brazilians (southern european type) and mixed brazilian girls, ranging from 4'11 to 5'10, I would say that everyone was quite unique and women and that thing they carry between the legs are awesome.
I've been with black, norwegian, mexican, canadian, white brazilians (southern european type) and mixed brazilian girls, ranging from 4'11 to 5'10, I would say that everyone was quite unique and women and that thing they carry between the legs are awesome.
LOL! Fantastic. I used to have plans of conducting a vaginal flavor survey across races, but I got married before I could really get started. Any thoughts on this?
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken
Sure, I smile. It is just that not every male is worth the effort. Remember, us well backsided women have plenty of fertile men circling around us, hence the necessity to use bitch shield to prevent time wasting of low value men. You could look at it the other way - the good looking women who DO smile and flirt with every man are the dishonest ones, they are only doing it for the attention - yet the impression to the males is presented of a possibility of future copulation, where none exists.
Haha I didn't say flirt with the whole neighborhood, I just mean to be genuinely happy as you go on about your day, not for attention but just because thats who you are! Thats super attractive for me. For example a picture like this->
http://www.wallpaperbase.com/wallpapers/celebs/adrianalima/adriana_lima_10.jpg
doesn't do it for me. Her face is like stone! Deadness. No life.
Not that I give men a pass, too many are staring at women like pieces of meat, why would any woman be comfortable with that- the bitch shield serves a fine purpose.
After what I said earlier I realized that the problem might be rooted in the scientific method. It says to begin with a hypothesis, which explains the tendency I'm finding, though it seems to be much more inane in this topic than others.
I, for one, have no idea what you are talking about. It seems like you changed from saying something about (a) how women act in response to an encounter to (b) how they look in modelling photos, which is determined by a photographer.
It's just plain poor logic. There are higher standards than using a second rate method like that. It's one thing to use it as a hint at what to test. It's another thing to automatically explain everything as being such because of some perceived utility.
I think you're selling them way short. First of all, not just any human behavior is on the table for explanation via EP. Evolutionary psychology specifically precludes all forms of human behavior which vary from culture to culture. That these behaviors vary from culture to culture proves that their basis is not exclusively biological and, hence, evolutionary explanation is not likely to be useful. Evolutionary psychology does begin with some basic assumptions and it's key to take these assumptions into account. The aforementioned book Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters lists these assumptions.
1. People are animals... Evolutionary psychology recognizes that the same biological laws of evolution apply to humans as they do to all other species. It therefore refutes the human exceptionalism of the Standard Social Science Model...
2. There is nothing special about the human brain. For evolutionary psychologists, the brain is just another body part, just like the hand or the pancreas. Just as millions of years of evolution have radually shaped the hand or the pancreas to perform certain functions, so has evolution shaped the human brain to perform its function, which is solving adaptive problems to help humans survive and reproduce successfully... Evolution does not stop at the neck; it goes all the way up.
3. Human nature is innate. Just as dogs are born with innate dog nature, and cats are born with innate cat nature, humans are born with innate human nature. This follows from principle 1 above... Socialization and learning are very important for humans, but humans ar eborn with the capacity for cultural learning, which is innate... This principle of evolutionary psychology is in clear contrast to the blank slate ("tabula rasa") assumption of the Standard Social Science Model.
4. Human behavior is the product of both innate human nature and the environment. Genes very seldom express themselves in a vacuum. Their expressions - how the genes translate into behavior - often depend on and are guided by the environment. The same genes can express themselves differently depending on the context. In this sense, both innate human nature, which the genes program, and the environment in which humans grow up are equally important determinants of behavior.
Starting from the rather basic observation that the vast majority of our evolutionary history was spent in the savannas of Africa (pre-tribal, primoridal subsistence as advanced, bipedal primates), evolutionary psychologists reasonably infer that most of the "wiring" in our brain is adaptive to that environment. Recent changes (in evolutionary timescale) - such as sedentariness and agriculturalization about 13,000 years ago - have only had time to have a very minor impact in the brain's wiring and recent historical changes such as the Industrial Revolution have had essentially no impact on the biology of our brain at all, as compared to the impact of our long history in primitive conditions. Hence, we have ape brains racing around industrialized cities in business suits, a view which is very consistent with the way humans actually behave. For example, I think this goes much further than any "brainwashing" hypothesis to explain why humans are so predisposed to basic economic fallacies, such as just prices, labor theory of value or the broken-window fallacy.
On the particular subject of this thread - variation in the attractiveness of different femal attributes to males - there is some research from EP on the subject, which is discussed in Chapter 3 of the above book. Men prefer women with light skin, long hair, red lips and large breasts because these were unforgeable signs of health and youth in the ancestral environment where the human brain spent the majority of its evolutionary time and healthy, young women have the highest reproductive value (explained in the book as the potential number of children a woman can have).
The study which is the subject of this thread is worthless because it has no methodology, ignores basic facts about human evolutionary history (that non-blacks did not reproduce with blacks until extremely recently in human history) and contradicts basic ideas from evolutionary psychology - that women are objectively more attractive than men.
EP FTW.
Clayton -
I'm not sure what you are referring to. I didn't say anything about any study. Kanazawa's post is what is ignorant of the facts and what I did was point that out. I don't disagree with the results of experiments. I disagree with the interpretations. When I google for research on attractiveness in the context of lower order brain function, I can't stop thinking about something that James Randi said about homeopathy. There is a lot of literature on how it works and little to show whether it works. In observation of your 4 points, EP still seems to fit that role in the human sciences, which is to say, it generates explanations and no facts. Most often the teleoIogical kind. I expect at least explanations/hypotheses made in awareness of the relevant facts that are already known.
Right now it is astoundingly difficult to find published anything remotely conclusive about what actually makes a sexy appearance, especially for men. I think that is simply because of the hypothesis driven analysis. We need to know what is attractive to begin with before we can explain why it is attractive, nevermind explaining why aggregated segments of the human population are a more or less attractive.
Assuming this data is all gathered from Americans, the result is probably (a) true, and (b) praxeologically predictable...and nothing to do with racism. I would bet it wouldn't apply if the sample were extended outside the US. (Can't anyone think of a reason black American women might be expected to be less attractive, on average, but black American men wouldn't be? Think about it for a bit...)
I'm a Racist. I beleive that those groupings of people we call races have, on average, more tendancy to certain traits than others. What the left have managed to do ovetr the years is make all discussions on this impossible by shouting down the opposition so much that even the free thinking right unhesitatingly dismiss any speculation. So, it is measurable and quite obvious that black women have more testosterone and have faces that look more masucline than non black women. It has very little to do with conditioning. Evolutionary biology is the most valuable tool we have at the moment and attacks on 'scientism' belong to the Marxists of critical theory and the buffons who call themselves 'left libertarians'.
Racism does not equal race hatred.
I have certainly noticed in my life that I am not as attracted to Black and Hispanic women in the same percentages as I am to other races. Usually has something to do with weight, which probably is related to nutrition, which is probably related to socio-economic background.