Yesterday, Psychology Today posted the article “Why are Black Women Rated Less Physically Attractive than Other Women, but Black Men are Rated Better Looking than Other Men?” by Satoshi Kanazawa. It’s easy to tear this article apart (and I will), but the bigger picture take-away message that I want to hit home is that while we all know we can mislead with statistics, we also need to know that people can mislead with science (or really, “science”).
Since the Internet is forever, even though I missed the original article, I still got the see this version here. Great, but I am unable to click any of the links, so bear with me on that technical difficulty. Oh and before you say, “la la la it’s just Psychology Today, why do you care?” I care because it perpetuates racism and besmirches the good name of evolution. I’m not the only one who cares.
Here’s the background. The author of this piece is not reporting the results of a study published in a peer-reviewed journal, but is instead reporting some analyses he did using data from Add Health, a long-term study that follows a group of people from the time they were teenagers until the present day. The study is being conducted at the University of North Carolina, and for a small fee, some of the data is available online for whoever wants it.
The point of the study was to understand how different social factors, like family relationships and education, affect health-related behaviors, like having unprotected sex. The researchers followed a “nationally representative” group of students from 1994-1995 (called Wave I) when they were in 7-12th grade to 1996 (called Wave II) when they were in 8-12th grade to 2001-2002 (Wave III) when they were aged 18-26. So please keep in mind that the attractiveness data presented in the Psychology Today article was taken from people aged 12 to 26.
This attractiveness data was taken by researchers after an in-home interview. Three different researchers took the data, but even though each individual got three ratings, at each point in time each person was only rated by one other person. The interview for Wave III takes 62 pages. Attractiveness is one question.
The author looks at attractiveness and race. The interview actually measures race in two different ways: self-reported, which allows for mixed race and specific ethnic options, and interviewer assessment of race, prompted by this: “Indicate the race of the respondent from your own observation (not from what the respondent said).” I am not sure which measure of race the author used.
So there are the limitations of the data. Now, the author says he used a factor analysis (this is a whole other kettle of fish) because they “eliminate random measurement errors.” Yes, OK, even if this was the appropriate analysis, they do not make the data better. If you are using unreliable data, such as self-reports (as in the interviewer is reporting their idea of another person’s attractiveness), the factor analysis won’t make these self-reports magically accurate. The issue isn’t with a measurement error, but with the trustworthiness of subjective (when is beauty ever objective, hm?), self-reported data.
But let’s pretend that there isn’t an inherent cultural and media bias towards “white” features and faces. Let’s pretend that these interviewers were not projecting their own prejudices and preferences, conscious or subconscious, on these teens as young as 12. Let’s pretend that the attractiveness data is completely to be trusted. Even then, the largest differences in the attractiveness of the different groups of women is no more than about 0.2 points on a 5 point scale. Statistically significant? OK. Significant enough to merit a completely factually inaccurate tirade about evolution? Not so much.
And that’s the crux of it, really. One could look at the same data and think, “Gee, there appears to be some sort of culturally-influenced preference for white features.” The interpretation of the exact same results can be wildly different depending on someone’s background. While you might believe that the research was conducted perfectly and the data and trustworthy, how that data is interpreted is still open to discussion.
Or one could look at the same data and think, “Maybe we should get a bit more data, like have ten people rate someone’s attractiveness instead of just one.” There are very few studies that are nearly perfect, and while many scientists qualify their findings with caveats about the methods they used or the data they were able to gather, not looking critically at how the study was conducted can lead one to accept some pretty weak science. There is well-conducted science and poorly-conducted science and it is up to the consumers of that knowledge (you, me, the rest of the world) to assess for ourselves where studies fall.
Or one could look at the data and think, “Let’s see how the interviewer’s rating of attractiveness correlates to how the interviewer rated the personality of the interviewee, or how the interview rated their personal feelings of safety during the in-home visit.” What people choose to study, the questions they choose to ask, show a lot about what they find interesting and important. The questions asked speak to the values and beliefs of the person asking the question. It would seem appropriate to ask how an interviewer’s feelings towards the interviewee might affect their assessment of attractiveness. It would seem less appropriate to ask how one person’s assessment of attractiveness can be generalized to make broad statements about the physical attractiveness of different races in relation to each other. We need to be aware that what we think of as appropriate questions can differ from person to person, even while the data stay the same.
By relying on the idea that there are significant genetic differences between the races to explain this difference in attractiveness, the author quickly brings us back to scientific racism. Calling upon a biological basis to race and using that to support white supremacy is nothing new. One of the most famous examples, The Bell Curve, written by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, claimed that environment and genetics explains differences in scores on IQ tests between races. There have been many, many vocal critics, including evolutionary biologist, Stephen J. Gould. In fact his comments on the book can be taken and directly applied to this article:
Disturbing as I find the anachronism [ie support of social Darwinism] of The Bell Curve, I am even more distressed by its pervasive disingenuousness. The authors omit facts, misuse statistical methods, and seem unwilling to admit the consequence of their own words.
16 replies on “How Science can be Biased”
This article should be called, “The Lies White Men Tell Themselves.” Its like a bad sales pitch and reminds me of a time when they were sneaking into the slave quarters to sleep with the women that they claimed were not even human. Why else are white women having butt implants, breasts implants and inserting collagen into their lips so they can look like what most black women look like naturally, because we’re unattractive? I don’t think so. The bad part is Black people get all riled about it and get on their high horse about it when we all know it’s a bunch of crap. Not that I’m saying he should be allowed to say such nonsense, but its really just nonsense. This is not to say that white woman are ugly because men are really attracted to how women make them feel but even in tasteless humor the truth comes out:
It’s all about disrespecting Black women. Would Regis have done this to Kim Kardashian? I don’t think so:
Regis!!!! O-O *whispering* I think the multi-billion dollar tanning industry speaks volumes.
OMG, how could I forget about tanning!
Kanazawa is part of the ‘Managerial Economics and Strategy Group’ of the Management Department at the London School of Economics. While he is an honorary professor in psychology, that is not the subject in which he is currently employed or teaches. That alone should make you stop and think.
And for what it’s worth, our Sociology professors at LSE are usually enraged and annoyed by this guy and like to trash-talk him with students. I think the professor in my gender studies class used him as an example of how not to do research on gender or race.
Oh, an his publications in peer-reviewed journals aren’t that much better. If you can stand it have a look at his CV:
Good. I’m so happy to see people not buying this BS at all. Using the veil of “science” to for racism is a cheap maneuver, used in history to oppress people ( Tuskegee experiment, James Watson,the bell curve, Mengele). Whats really scary is how this can be deeply embedded in our minds, not only by say those who internalize this about themselves, but of people who casually can spit it out later on and say ” oh, but its science”.
If any of the wondrous and amazing P-Mag peeps are on twitter, there is a campaign going on to basically shame Psychology Today ( which yes, the author is awful, but Psych Today published his work after several board members read it. they have also published many other of his racist ramblings before too -check out the piece of Racialicious)
Tell @PsychToday: Stop Publishing Racist & Sexist Articles for good: http://chn.ge/jlDHuG #fem2 #woc
Use that if you wanna.
Thank you for this!! There’s nothing like people wilfully misusing data in the service of a bogus ideology to make me rage.
Scientific literacy, we need more of it!
Latoya Peterson also did a very calm takedown of this ‘article’ on her blog yesterday: http://www.racialicious.com/2011/05/17/how-to-debunk-pseudo-science-articles-about-race-in-five-easy-steps/
see also PZ Myers on it http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/i_guess_even_psychology_today.php
Thank you for the links! I did include one back to PZ Meyers and one back to Racialious (but not Latoya Peterson’s piece) in the text. Both are awesome sources.
ah, so you did! I didn’t click through them. Sorry if I doubled up!
Ugh as a psychology grad student this makes me rage. It’s like someone purposefully put all my research pet peeves all together in one article. It could be used as an example in an experimental design course as what not to do. There’s bad experimental set up, bad measures, bad statistics, bad presentation, bad logic, on and on. The graphs look like they were taken straight out of “How to Lie with Statistics.” Testosterone is seriously the ONLY thing you can think of to explain your data? Seriously? Oh obviously there couldn’t POSSIBLY be any other reasons for why you got the data you did. NONE. CLEARLY it must be evolution because that’s the conclusion we have the most supporting hard evidence for. Oh wait, no we actually don’t have any.
Then there’s this sentence: “It is very interesting to note that, even though black women are objectively less physically attractive than other women, black women (and men) subjectively consider themselves to be far more attractive than others.” Really? Really?! First of all, they’re not objectively less attractive. What psychologist in their right mind would call one person’s ratings of an inherently subjective quality objective? Furthermore, could he be any more condescending? “Pay no attention to the casual racism behind the curtain.” Urgghh rage rage rage
â€œPay no attention to the casual racism behind the curtain.â€ – I love this (the reference/quote, not the casual racism). There are just so. many. things wrong with the article, it was hard to stop myself (but I had to because at over 1000 words, this was getting long-winded for a blog post). On the awesome side, there are psychologists like you (and most of the APA, according to the petition flying around) who simply won’t put up with this scientific racism.
Man, fuck that guy. I don’t understand why anyone, even Psychology Today, gives him a platform to spew his sexist and racist bullshit. The logic and circular arguments he uses are so weak, any 7th grader with a basic knowledge of evolution could rip through them. Everything he writes contains at least one paragraph that is either so poorly worded or uses such bad logic (or both), I literally have no idea what he’s trying to say. But you know, I probably have an inferior brain, because cavewomen didn’t have to think to bear babies. The cavemen had to think to seduce them, so men are smarter than women. This is science!
Sorry, I know bashing Satoshi Kanazawa wasn’t completely the point of this article, but anything associated with him makes me pretty ragey and I had to get that out.
Oh yeah, the weak woman nurturer brain…that’s another one of evo-psych’s greatest hits. The article was poorly written, and I can’t believe that anyone gives Kanazawa a platform for his ridiculous claims. That’s actually one thing I didn’t mention – Psychology Today needs to be held accountable for publishing and promulgating this terrible piece.
Just the title pisses me off as a Black woman. What nerve!
Help! I’m trying really, really hard but I don’t think I’m succeeding.
Amen to this!
The title went through several changes, apparently. The one I posted was a revision? I think he intended it as damage control? Like “oh people are mad? Well maybe I can neutralize them by saying that Black men are good looking!” which is just even more disgusting.