Scientifically racist

At what point should we admit that a scientific research study has crossed the line into the realm of racism? Apparently, the editors of Psychology Today did not take this idea into consideration.

Earlier this month, an avid blogger who studies at the London School of Economics published  a supposedly scientific study arguing that black women are less attractive than white women.

The study, which was posted under the name “A Look At the Hard Truths of Human Nature,” was quickly taken down by the editor-in-chief after a storm of people claimed the article was racist and unscientific—and rightly so.

Satoshi Kanazawa was the author of the original study. An evolutionary biologist, Kanazawa has posted several controversial works prior to his latest, but none have sparked as much debate as this one.

In it, Kanazawa explains the data that on average, black women are much heavier than nonblack women; that is, the average Body Mass Index of a black woman is 28.5, and it is 26.1 for a white woman. He goes on to say, however, that “this is not the reason why black women are less physically attractive than nonblack women.” Nor is it, he asserts, the difference in intelligence that black women have been shown to have. Rather, “Black women are still less physically attractive than nonblack women net of BMI and intelligence.”

It is probably not surprising to anyone living in the United States that an uproar followed the posting of this allegedly “scientific” article.

Levels of attractiveness can be highly subjective, not matters of scientific fact. A guy who I find attractive is sometimes not the best-looking fellow in the eyes of my friend, and vice versa. Kanazawa makes the claim that because black women, on average, have higher levels of testosterone than white women, they naturally have more masculine features and are thus not as attractive as nonblack women.

In order to collect his data, Kanazawa developed a survey wherein participants rated on a scale the attractiveness of various people, with one being very unattractive and five being very attractive. However, the study’s participants did not have their answers measured. Instead, Kanazawa had researchers look at the people taking the survey. He then had the researchers take a survey of whether or not the adolescents and adults originally taking it were attractive or not attractive.

How this is objective or legitimate scientific data collection is beyond me, but part of me is inclined to believe that Kanazawa enjoys getting people riled up. His personal website at the London School of Economics and Political Science even warns people, “Prepare to be offended.”

This absurd generalization regarding black women cannot be proven in any way. It is a blatantly racist and sexist assertion that can hardly be backed up by any scientific research, let alone Kanazawa’s.

Each person has his or her own opinion of physical attractiveness. Whether or not a person has a higher BMI, a lower level of intelligence or a higher amount of testosterone may be of some scientific significance. On the other hand, whether or not people should be labeled either “attractive” or “not attractive” is far from scientific.

Psychology Today’s editor-in-chief, Kaja Perina, told NPR that the reason why the post was taken down in the first place was because the post was “not commissioned or solicited by Psychology Today,” according to The Huffington Post. Perina did not comment on whether or not it had anything to do with the public’s retaliation against the article.

Kanazawa clearly knew what kind of reaction his article was going to cause, and this is one of the most troubling factors of the entire ordeal. His data collection was illegitimate and irrational; in turn, it seems as if Kanazawa was just attempting to make a scientific justification for racism.

Such stories are not uncommon in the news, and they prove that racism and sexism are still very much alive today. How it can be stopped remains undetermined, but perhaps websites—especially respected websites such as Psychology Today—should better monitor which articles are published, in order to ensure that such unreliable information is not made to seem scientifically accurate. ?