What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos

1

Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers

2

Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge

3

Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more
Close

Kanazawa's Report of Black Female "Unattractiveness" Debunked By Independent Analysis

May 25, 2011, 12:09 PM
Magnifying_glass

Dr. Scott Barry Kaufman and Jelte Wicherts analyzed the same data that LSE "evolutionary psychologist" Satoshi Kanazawa used in his attempt to prove that black women are "objectively" less attractive than women of other races. Kaufman's analysis shows that Kanazawa was even further off-base than he initially seemed. As it turns out black women were not even rated as less attractive on average than women of other races.

Kanazawa's analysis was invalid on its face because he used interviewers' subjective ratings of subjects' attractiveness as a measure of objective attractiveness. He forgot than an opinion about someone else's looks is still just an opinion. After that, everything he tried to do with his data was like building a skyscraper on Jello.

Kaufman's number-crunching takes the critique to the next level. The Add Health study started tracking thousands of teens in 1994-1995 when they were in grades 7-12 (Wave 1). The researchers re-interviewed these subjects in 1996 (Wave 2), in 2001-2002 (Wave 3), and again in 2007-2008 (Wave 4).

Kanazawa only used the data from the first three waves, even though data for Wave 4 had been out for about a month when he published his notorious blog post, Kaufman notes. This is a critical omission.

Kaufman's analysis found that black teen girls were rated less attractive on average, but that the rating gap had narrowed to the point of statistical insignificance by Wave 3 when the subjects were in their late teens through early twenties. By Wave 4, the difference had disappeared entirely.

The fact that Kanazawa left out the Wave 4 data raises troubling questions about his scientific integrity and his competence.

It's not clear why there was a perceived attractiveness gap early on, or why the gap closed.

Dare we hope that prevailing beauty standards became a little less racist between 1994 and 2008? Maybe path breaking women like Halle Berry, who became the first black woman to win an Academy Award for Best Actress in 2001, helped recalibrate America's beauty ideals.

[Photo credit: Bart van de Biezen, Creative Commons.]

 

Kanazawa's Report of Black ...

Newsletter: Share: