![\"\"](\"http:\/\/media.tumblr.com\/tumblr_llau0qD0IU1qhyffd.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Update: Psychology Today removed said article, but it lives on at the SomethingAwful forums<\/a> and in this image screencap I made<\/a>. <\/strong><\/p>\n Anyway, things go downhill after the title:<\/p>\n Add Health measures the physical attractiveness of its respondents both objectively and subjectively. \u00a0At the end of each interview, the interviewer rates the physical attractiveness of the respondent objectively on the following five-point scale: \u00a01 = very unattractive, 2 = unattractive, 3 = about average, 4 = attractive, 5 = very attractive. \u00a0The physical attractiveness of each Add Health respondent is measured three times by three different interviewers over seven years.<\/p>\n From these three scores, I can compute the latent \u201cphysical attractiveness factor\u201d by a statistical procedure called factor analysis. \u00a0Factor analysis has the added advantage of eliminating all random measurement errors that are inherent in any scientific measurement. \u00a0The latent physical attractiveness factor has a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n So, the first thing that popped into my mind was: what the hell is Add Health? Second: who are these\u00a0mysterious\u00a0\u201dinterviewers\u201d? Of what race are they? (Seems like that kind of thing would matter\u2026) Also, how do you objectively measure attactiveness?<\/p>\n For a post on a supposedly scientific website\/magazine, this shit is lacking a lot of footnotes, endnotes, explanations, and anything resembling scientific vigor. It might have been there in whatever study this dude is talking about, but he does not show it so we\u2019re left with just his word.<\/p>\n You can guess how much that\u2019s worth.<\/p>\n Then he gets to this part:<\/p>\n It is very interesting to note that, even though black women are objectively less physically attractive than other women, black women (and men) subjectively<\/em> consider themselves to be far more physically attractive than others.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Well how dare they!<\/p>\n Finally, the conclusion:<\/p>\n What accounts for the markedly lower average level of physical attractiveness among black women?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Enlighten me.<\/p>\n It\u2019s not because we\u2019re fat (though we are fat), and it\u2019s not because we\u2019re not smart (though we\u2019re really not smart), it\u2019s because we\u2026\u00a0(drumroll)\u00a0looka likea man.<\/p>\n You think I\u2019m playing:<\/p>\n The only thing I can think of that might potentially explain the lower average level of physical attractiveness among black women is testosterone. \u00a0Africans on average have higher levels of testosterone than other races, and testosterone, being an androgen (male hormone), affects the physical attractiveness of men and women differently. \u00a0\u2026women with higher levels of testosterone also have more masculine features and are therefore less physically attractive.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n I think I might just hit this person. Except, you know, that would be too testosterony.<\/p>\n There\u2019s a lot wrong with this, obviously. I mean, the entire premise reeks of bullshit. And the conclusion also reeks of herteronormative bullshit.<\/p>\n But what I want to know is: what in Hera\u2019s name is wrong with Psychology Today that they think it was okay to allow this on their site? This isn\u2019t even the first crazypants from this guys. Oh yes, Mr.\u00a0Satoshi Kanazawa has quite an impressive list of clips. To wit:<\/p>\n Are All\u00a0Women\u00a0Essentially Prostitutes?<\/a><\/p>\n Why we are losing this war –\u00a0All you need is hate.<\/a> (A good response to 9\/11? Nuclear bombs and racial hatred. You think I am making this up, click and see how I am not.)<\/p>\n If Barack Obama Is Christian, Michael Jackson Was White<\/a><\/p>\n I can\u2019t even.<\/p>\n So, obviously Psychology Today is completely down with this guy since he\u2019s had a blog there for years. Fine. I mean, I\u2019ll consign them to the trasheap of history as a completely irrelevant den of stupidity instead of, say, writing an angry letter. They\u2019ve probably had plenty of angry letters. The editor-in-chief either really buys what this guy is selling or he\u2019s doing it for the pageviews. Either way, I want no part of it.<\/p>\n What I will do is this: I\u2019m dedicating the Angry Black Woman to pictures of black women all week long. The best response to this yahoo is to show just how beautiful we sisters are. If he and \u201cAdd Health\u201d disagree, what the fuck do we care? We\u2019re looking at pictures of beautiful ladies!<\/p>\n Would you like to contribute? Place a link to an image in a comment on any picture post. I shall find it. Or, if you\u2019re on Tumblr, you can submit a picture directly by going here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Please include some basic information about the picture you submit. Who\u2019s in it, who took it (if you know), where it was taken, when it was taken, and anything else you\u2019d like folks to know.<\/p>\n But seriously, if I ever see this man on the street I\u2019ll show him what too much testosterone leads to.<\/p>\n From The Angry Black Tumblr<\/a> | Comment below or Reblog @ Tumblr<\/a><\/p>\n A lot of you have probably already seen this, but I feel compelled as an Angry Black Woman to add my own commentary. The story is this: Psychology Today Publishes "Scientist" Who Claims Black Women Are Ugly<\/a> — Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/img><\/a>
<\/img><\/a>
<\/img><\/a>
<\/img><\/a>\n<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\nYesterday (a Sunday), Psychology Today blog\u00a0The Scientific Fundamentalist posted a piece that was originally titled…<\/p>\n