Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 An evolutionary psychologist said
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 10

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2011 :  10:47:13  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
that black women were ugly, but he did say it in a nice way. His main point was their testosterone level. As I thought about this in my own life I do remember back to high school and there were several black women that I found very attractive. But as I recall further these black women did have a more slender and feminine body structure while there were many more black women who had gun boats for arms and I am rather sure could throw down with the best of the guys. Impressive, yes, but physically attractive to the opposite sex, um, not so much.

I have never been physically attracted to any man so the notion that black men are more attractive does not resonate with me one way or another. And maybe it is only with gay guys as most females, when surveyed, list physical attractiveness on down the list when looking for a future mate while most guys put physical attractiveness right up at the top.

You would think that our basic evolutionary instinct to procreate the race would have us more attracted to the the more manly women as those offspring would be more psychically established and therefore more advantaged to survive times like the caveman days when it was much more dog eat dog to be able to survive. But yet most men are attracted to the petite feminine female even though on average this would produce a more petite and feminine (weaker) offspring. In other words a big strong male and a big strong female would have a much better chance at producing big strong offspring then does the male who mates with a tiny little petite women. I have never seen a 7 footer who's mom was 4' 9". So I guess I am still left wondering why most men are attracted to petite feminine women as opposed to big strong masculine women when you consider our basic instinct to preserve the species or race? If would seem that big strong men mating with big strong women would produce big stong offspring and so this should be our built in evolutionary desire. No?



Psychology Today blogger Satoshi Kanazawa sparked a firestorm with his latest posting entitled, "A Look at the Hard Truths About Human Nature."

In it, the evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics argues that black women are less physically attractive than other women. The article was quickly removed from the site, but not before screenshots made their way onto BuzzFeed. Some excerpts:

What accounts for the markedly lower average level of physical attractiveness among black women? Black women are on average much heavier than nonblack women. The mean body-mass index (BMI) at Wave III is 28.5 among black women and 26.1 among nonblack women. (Black and nonblack men do not differ in BMI: 27.0 vs. 26.9) However, this is not the reason black women are less physically attractive than nonblack women. Black women have lower average level of physical attractiveness net of BMI. Nor can the race difference in intelligence (and the positive association between intelligence and physical attractiveness) account for the race difference in physical attractiveness among women. Black women are still less physically attractive than nonblack women net of BMI and intelligence. Net of intelligence, black men are significantly more physically attractive than nonblack men.


The only thing I can think of that might potentially explain the lower average level of physical attractiveness among black women is testosterone. Africans 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. Men with higher levels of testosterone have more masculine features and are therefore more physically attractive. In contrast, women with higher levels of testosterone also have more masculine features and are therefore less physically attractive. The race difference in the level of testosterone can therefore potentially explain why black women are less physically attractive than women of other races, while (net of intelligence) black men are more physically attractive than men of other races.


[Moved to the Creation/Evolution folder - Dave W.]

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-


Edited by - Bill scott on 05/19/2011 10:50:14

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2011 :  11:48:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote

Just for example lets look at two famous black women. While I admire the fact that Serena Williams can smash the crap out of a tennis ball and could probably kick the a$$ of 90% of the men she has dated I really don't find her all that attractive. While Holly Robinson looks like she would struggle to bench press 80lbs yet I find her very attractive. Yet you would thing my evolutionary built in desires would create the opposite effect in me. I mean a big strapping stud like myself and Serena would have a much better shot at producing a big and strong off spring, which would stand a much better chance in life's game of survival of the fittest, then if little petite Holly and I hooked up, yet my evolutionary built in desires have me, and most men, much more attracted to a girl such as Holly over Serena. Weird.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2011 :  11:50:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
PZ's response.

This piece of offal from Kanazawa was apparently so bad that Psychology Today removed it.

Evolutionary psychology these days suffers massively from its proponents' tendencies to try to fit everything into a strictly adaptationist mold. But since we can see plenty of physical traits which aren't adaptations (the path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve, for example, or nipples on men), there should be little reason to think that all or most psychological traits are.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2011 :  11:55:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

Yet you would thing my evolutionary built in desires would create the opposite effect in me.
They might have, if Madison Avenue weren't swamping the signal with a massively distorted view of "beauty," instilled from a very young age for the last 100 years or more. Go have a look at some hot babes from the turn of the 17th century.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13457 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2011 :  11:58:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Wow! What we think of as attractive, aside from a genetic disposition to be attracted to one gender or the other, is mostly a cultural construct. It's just idiotic to say that black woman are less attractive. To whom?

Bill:
But yet most men are attracted to the petite feminine female even though on average this would produce a more petite and feminine (weaker) offspring.

First of all, petite and feminine doesn't suggest weakness. That you equate some kind of manliness to strength is also cultural construct. All that matters, evolutionarily speaking, is surviving long enough to reproduce and in some cases, rearing the offspring, whatever that entales. That's it! The rest is icing on the cake.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Ebone4rock
SFN Regular

USA
894 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2011 :  12:14:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ebone4rock a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by Bill scott

Yet you would thing my evolutionary built in desires would create the opposite effect in me.
They might have, if Madison Avenue weren't swamping the signal with a massively distorted view of "beauty," instilled from a very young age for the last 100 years or more. Go have a look at some hot babes from the turn of the 17th century.


Are you kidding? I think that is totally hot here in the 21st century!
I personally think that every woman (with some exceptions) is beautiful in her own way. Before I was married I made it my sworn duty to express that view to as many women as I could!

That Kanazawa is totally full of shit.

Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2011 :  12:37:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by Bill scott

Yet you would thing my evolutionary built in desires would create the opposite effect in me.
They might have, if Madison Avenue weren't swamping the signal with a massively distorted view of "beauty," instilled from a very young age for the last 100 years or more. Go have a look at some hot babes from the turn of the 17th century.




I did not get the impression that he was passing these women off as hot babes, but never the less, and even if so, that means at some point in time, before Madison Avenue was even a forethought, the views of what is beautiful and desiring in a women seemed to change for most men. And this change was the fact that petite femine looking women started to catch the eye of most men over their more masculine sisters. Why?

See I don't think Playboy and SI swimsuit edition caused men to stop being attractive to masculine women and rather turned their eyes on petite feminine women but I rather think Playboy features petite feminine women because that is what most men wanted/want to see. In other words I think men wanting petine feminine women created Madeson Aveneue rather than Madison Avenue creating men who now want petite women.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2011 :  12:41:26   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil




Wow! What we think of as attractive, aside from a genetic disposition to be attracted to one gender or the other, is mostly a cultural construct. It's just idiotic to say that black woman are less attractive. To whom?


I think he was saying they were less attractive to most men. His premises was that this was because of the higher testosterone level they have, which produces a more masculine appearance, which he says is less attractive to most men. I think on this point I would probably agree. Whether the women was white, red, black or blue I usually find petite women much more attractive than more masculine women, much like Serena and Holly. This seems to be true with most men. Just take a look at any SI Swimsuit Edition.



First of all, petite and feminine doesn't suggest weakness. That you equate some kind of manliness to strength is also cultural construct.


Yet if both Holly and Serena were on the verge of starving and you threw a piece pepperoni pizza in-between them my money says that Serena comes away with the spoils.





All that matters, evolutionarily speaking, is surviving long enough to reproduce and rear the offspring, whatever that entales. That's it!


But that is my point/question. A big and strong female and her big and strong offspring stand a much better chance, on average, of surviving then a petite female and her tiny offspring. Maybe in our modern day USA culture the big and strong have less of an advantage over the petite and weak but our current culture is but a grain of sand on the beach of world history. If food is scarce it's better to be big and strong then small and petite. Just ask any alpha male wolf.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2011 :  12:53:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ebone4rock




Are you kidding? I think that is totally hot here in the 21st century!I personally think that every woman (with some exceptions) is beautiful in her own way. Before I was married I made it my sworn duty to express that view to as many women as I could!

But I said most men prefer small and petite to big and masculine in their women. You may be the exception. That is why you see few, if any, big and masculine women in playboy or SI swimsuit eddetion. Most men are physically attracted to the petite small gal even though this would likely produce a smaller more petite offspring, whcih is a disadvantage in the game of survival of the fittest.


That Kanazawa is totally full of shit.

But the reality of which women get the playboy spreads, or get the SI swimsuit cover, seems to say that he may not be. If playboy thought they could sell more magazines by including some big and masculine women then they would. But right, wrong or neither the reality is that petite and small women sell more magazines, much more.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13457 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2011 :  13:14:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

Originally posted by Kil


All that matters, evolutionarily speaking, is surviving long enough to reproduce and rear the offspring, whatever that entales. That's it!


But that is my point/question. A big and strong female and her big and strong offspring stand a much better chance, on average, of surviving then a petite female and her tiny offspring. Maybe in our modern day USA culture the big and strong have less of an advantage over the petite and weak but our current culture is but a grain of sand on the beach of world history. If food is scarce it's better to be big and strong then small and petite. Just ask any alpha male wolf.

That assumption doesn't take into account all possible factors. For example a petite woman doesn't require as much food to survive as the big strong one. And you also have to assume that there wasn't a division of labore that worked and might have even favored petite woman. It's not as though in any culture the woman had to fight it out with other woman for their crust of bread. Not in a physical way anyhow. What they had to do, and this works both ways, is to attract a mate. At one time there were probably very distinct evolutionary pressurs that caused one body type to be more attractive than another. Now? Less so. Now how we see attractiveness is either an evolutionary remnant or a cultural construct that has little bering on survivability.

I haven't come close to naming all of the possible variables, but what might seem counter intuitive when viewed through a modern lens may have been exactly the thing that made for survivability to procreation.

Again, how you are viewing survivability is by way of a cultural construct. Survival of the fittest has never meant survival of the strongest.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2011 :  13:21:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil




Wow! What we think of as attractive, aside from a genetic disposition to be attracted to one gender or the other, is mostly a cultural construct. It's just idiotic to say that black woman are less attractive. To whom?


I think what he is really saying is that most men prefer petite feminine women over big and masculine women, period. I would say that this is true across the board whether you are talking black, white, Asian or whatever race you choose. Again, playboy and SI have had black women in their magazines but they have been small, petite and feminine black women.

I think his next point he tries to make is that he finds most black women ugly not because they are black, but because most black women seem to be more masculine then women of other races. So it is not because of their blackness he fines them less attractive but because of their masculinity level, which he says runs higher in black women. Based on his writings I am guessing that if you asked him if he preferred a small petite white women over a big masculine white women he would say the small and petite white women, as would most men. All you have to do is look at any magazine rack to confirm that observation.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2011 :  13:31:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

I did not get the impression that he was passing these women off as hot babes, but never the less, and even if so, that means at some point in time, before Madison Avenue was even a forethought, the views of what is beautiful and desiring in a women seemed to change for most men.
It's culturally dependent, Bill. Ruben's women have probably never been attractive to, say, Masai warriors.

Rosie O'Donnell told a story about traveling to Mexico with some supermodel (I forget who), and the Mexican men ignoring the supermodel in favor of Rosie. When asked why, she says one of the men explained, "bone is for dog, meat is for man!"
And this change was the fact that petite femine looking women started to catch the eye of most men over their more masculine sisters. Why?
When have "masculine" women ever been attractive to "most" men? Thinking back to "caveman" days, I'd want a mate who looks healthy (fat), looks like she'd have an easy time giving birth (wide hips) and looks like she'd be able to provide lots of food for my children (big boobs). Those aren't masculine traits at all.
See I don't think Playboy and SI swimsuit edition caused men to stop being attractive to masculine women and rather turned their eyes on petite feminine women but I rather think Playboy features petite feminine women because that is what most men wanted/want to see. In other words I think men wanting petine feminine women created Madeson Aveneue rather than Madison Avenue creating men who now want petite women.
You're not thinking back far enough in time. What was "hot" centuries ago was typically determined by the whims of those in the royal courts, and not by any evolutionary process. The Boston accent, for example, is a left-over of affectations put on by British courtiers, which became the trend among the commoners because they wanted to act like royalty.

But you go ahead and look at some of the first issues of Playboy. Many of those women could be considered "fat" by today's standards (and definitely by the standards of the late-1990s "heroin chic"). Times change, fashions change, and what's attractive changes. I remember a long time ago thinking that women with visible ribs were hot. Now, all I can think when I see that is "someone give that girl a milkshake."

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2011 :  13:31:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil



Again, how you are viewing survivability is by way of a cultural construct.

But I would say the say thing to you.


Survival of the fittest has never meant survival of the strongest.

It hasn't?

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2011 :  13:37:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

Survival of the fittest has never meant survival of the strongest.
It hasn't?
Only if brute strength enhances survivability. An antelope built for strength would probably be a lot slower than one built for speed.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2011 :  13:41:00   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.





Rosie O'Donnell told a story about traveling to Mexico with some supermodel (I forget who), and the Mexican men ignoring the supermodel in favor of Rosie. When asked why, she says one of the men explained, "bone is for dog, meat is for man!"

My guess is that they figured Rosie knew best how to get to the all you can eat buffet and then their instinct to survive just kicked in and they followed her everywhere. And I don't believe for one second that any man found Rosie better looking than any supermodel, especially when Rossie is the one telling the story. She has been known to toot her own horn a little.



But you go ahead and look at some of the first issues of Playboy. Many of those women could be considered "fat" by today's standards

But when you compared them to the standards of their time they were not fat, that is why they got the playboy shoot and their fat sisters did not.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13457 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2011 :  13:44:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Don't know why you posted that again Bill.

All you have to do is look at any magazine rack to confirm that observation.

But that is exactly how a cultural construct asserts itself. Attractiveness is judged differently in different cultures and at different times in history, as Dave pointed out.


Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 10 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.66 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000