Satoshi Kanazawa, racist or reporter of actual human behavior? A quick look at OK Cupids data
    By Hontas Farmer | May 19th 2011 09:36 AM | 98 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    Satoshi Kanazawa has caused a firestorm by asserting that African women are less attractive than other races women. For this he has been called racist. He actually didn’t say anything new, or for that matter scientifically incorrect. However politically incorrect and insensitively stated it was. The man is guilty of being so stepped in his scientific ivory tower that he forgot how what he says may affect real people in the world. That said the conclusions of such work no matter how disturbing and un PC must not be grounds for a scientist in any field to lose his or her job.
     He didn’t say anything new because OK Cupid’s researchers found similar results not long ago which are in concordance with what Dr, Kanazawa has said. In ok cupid’s words in one study of messaging rates by race:

    Men don’t write black women back. Or rather, they write them back far less often than they should. Black women reply the most, yet get by far the fewest replies. Essentially every race—including other blacks—singles them out for the cold shoulder.

    Even more disturbing from another study by OK Cupid released last year they adjusted for the fact that most people in their population are white using statistical methods. Christian Rudder was nice enough to build an interactive table which I will now borrow an image of with all races equal

    So what gives. Why it that black people in general and black women in particular don’t get as much love as other races? OK Cupids data is revealing because it’s not just answers to a questionnaire taken by a few dozen people. OK Cupid is looking at the actual dating behavior of people who are actively seeking mates. In that situation the PC glasses come off and people reveal their ugly side. Racism is alive and well in dating and it seems to me that Kanazawa was just trying to explain why that might be? 

    Now as for thinking that black women have more testosterone I doubt that. If that were the case black women would have more hair. African women in fact have less body hair than any other races women. Men and women who are fresh from Africa have little to no body hair what so ever. So he can forget that conclusion. 

    The Evopsych reasons for this bias against black people lie in modern global society being dominated by 5 billion people who are not of African descent. People are vain creatures and tend to think that people who look like them are good and beautiful and people who are different are bad, threatening and ugly. (For most of human history if you saw folks who looked very different then they were an invading army or you were invading them.) So is what Dr. Kanazawa wrote reflective of his own racism or is he simply reporting what people who study human behavior have noted for a while? 

    Many have pointed out that black women’s beauty is not appreciated for some reason. Just look at the fashion magazines, and in Hollywood. Just look at the lightening creams sold in India to make women less dark. Just look at the fact that within Europe for a woman to be fair haired and light eyed is considered the gold standard over darker haired women.  He did not make that so by writing a blog it was so long before he was born. 

    Is what he said insensitive and stupidly worded? Yes, but it was not scientifically and objectively wrong.  Beauty is in the eye of the beholders... and it seems to many who behold an African person they are not beautiful.    No matter what they may say their actions, as OK Cupids data shows, say otherwise. 

    As a theoretical cosmologist I can relate to what people like him go through. My own research interest steps on the toes of every single religion on earth. Just look at what Hawking is dealing with in terms of his comments on religion. If offending people with research results will once again cost a scientist their job we can bet on a global dark age. 

    Let’s see if the media outlets making hay out of this matter decide to change how they portray African descended people to try to correct the damage they have done?

    Edited to add:  This author has had to endure comments on how "sketchy" Ok Cupid's data was.  Thanks to the LA times they took a good close look at OK Cupid's research department.  As it turns out they are people with degree's in mathematics from Harvard.  :)


    Why do people keep citing the research of dating websites? I am a black woman the same color as Kelly Rowland with natural black hair and ethnic looking, measurements 36c-21-38 and trust me, I get men of all races hitting on me. I turned down 2 engagements from white men LOL. These were not David Spade looking white men either. They were good looking upper middle class Italian men who begged me to give them children. If this study is so legitimate, why didn’t he have any information and reasons for which group of MEN are considered the least attractive and why?

    The reason we cite such data is because in science we speak in terms of averages.    On average black women are considered by the average man to be less attractive than the average non black woman.   Usually the word average is left out  as it is just understood by other scientist to be there.  Sometimes we forget that the average layperson does not understand that. 

    So you are a beautiful black woman.  I never said that such girls don't exist.   However don't you see that if one wants to explain the behavior of a population of men like those on OK Cupid for example we cannot just focus on women who are 36c-21-38 and look like VS models.  We have to include those who are 48DD- 35- 50 and who have a different sort of look that black men  really like... and other races men don't.

    To answer your last question yes.   Asian men are considered the least attractive.  Think about the stereotype they deal with.... short and short small penis.  They are called feminine many times.
    As south park puts it. _

    Don't shoot the messenger. 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    I hear what you are saying, but I think why people are offended is because he left out social reasons such as Western idealized ideals and just went straight to testosterone LOL. I saw a list of best butts in Hollywood in In Touch magazine and surprise surprise not one black women made the list. The surveyors, who were mostly white of course chose people they were most familiar with on TV.

    And who are these average men who think black women are less attractive. He did not show us any pictures of the people he used to come to these outcomes. If you gave me a picture of Whoopi Goldberg and Maya Angelou vs Sophia Loren and Angelina Jolie, JLo and Tia Carerre, of course I am going to say those non-black women are hotter. If you gave me Kenya Moore, Melyssa Ford, or Iman- of course I am going to rate them right up there with those other non-black women. I have lived in NY and Philadelphia and men of all races love different women and so called “STUDIES” are not going to tell me anything different. I work with a ton of white men and women and even they are laughing at this so-called study

    You sight measurements of 48DD- 35- 50. Only black women have these measurements? NO white, asian, or Latina is built like that? I work in a building with over 700 employees and I guess I see something different than others do (those quick to point out that black women tend to have higher BMI’s)

    Also, again you said ASIAN men were considered the least attractive. Why did he not mention that and give reason why this may be so. He only focused on black women, which by the way- there really wasn’t that significant of a difference based on the charts- black women were at 3.5, while everyone else was 3.7 or above- and he explained that .2 difference due to testosterone and nothing else? If he would of asked the respondents why they rated them lower at least there he would have his "scientific proof" and not his own personal interjection of "TESTOSTERONE".

    You asked why he did not write about Asian men?  The reason is because he is an Asian man.  He would be emotionally invested in it.   Scientist try to avoid thinking about these subjects with their emotions. 

    If he wrote about Asian men he would end up defensively trying to argue why they should be the hottest men in the world instead of accepting that people don't see them that way. 

    I spend allot of time on line dating and dating advice websites.  I have NEVER heard an asian man talk about getting allot of interracial play. 

    Where as black men... allot of women have a fetish for black men due mostly to the stereotype of black men having bigger units than other men. 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Gerhard Adam
    The reason we cite such data is because in science we speak in terms of averages.    On average black women are considered by the average man to be less attractive than the average non black woman.   Usually the word average is left out  as it is just understood by other scientist to be there.  Sometimes we forget that the average layperson does not understand that.
    That has nothing to do with anything and is an abuse of the purpose behind mathematical analysis.   There is no lack of understanding, since the "average layperson" understands bullshit when they see it.  Averages are only applicable to quantifiable data where the sample set consists of comparable elements.  Something as subjective as "attractiveness" has zero chance of being expressed as an average of anything.  In fact, I would go much farther and suggest that the term, "attractiveness", is so ill-defined that any attempt to apply a mathematical analysis is automatically going to produce garbage.

    This isn't a study .... it's gibberish.

    Mundus vult decipi
    THANK YOU People need to realize that a small sample size of men in ONE country (especially one that is known for its ugly racist history against blacks and still being one of the most racially segregated nation in the world even 50+ yrs after Jim Crow) does not constitute an average! Does this 'scientist' not realize how high interacial dating rates among black women in South America and the Carribean islands? Did he care to consider that just maybe negative racial stereotypes like black women being rude, domineering or having too much testosterone have anything to do with those results? Besides, a .2 difference in attractivesness does not seem like a big difference to say that black women are viewed on average as less attractive. There is NOTHING scientific about this study. Is was sloppily done and clearly created to support the 'Scientist's' views of black women and masquerade as some quantifiable fact (which is just dumb and is clearly based off archaic irrational preconceived racist notions of the black race). Also, I don't know what the writer meant by nearly 5 billion of the world's population is not black so therefore blacks are often singled out in a negative way. That makes no sense, because there are more racial groups than just and 'nonblack'. There are Asians, Caucasians, Native Americans, etc. So I can flip the script and say that nearly 5 billion people of the world's population is not White Caucasion or Native American. A large percentage of the world is medium brown/tanned skinned regardless of their race. Just like blacks are a minority so are really light/white people. The only difference is they currently have more economic power on a global scale so their standards of beauty are allowed to permeate more societies thant any other group. Also

    The problem with using data from the OK Cupid dating site as a reference for how attractive people think certain ethnic groups are is that it doesn't accurately measure how attractive someone is to others. There are MANY reasons why a person may reject or refuse to include a certain ethnic group in their dating pool. One of the most prominent reasons is CULTURE and the perception of compatability. Despite the fact that segregation has been outlawed 50+ years ago, because of racism and fear of the unfamiliar there are still large pockets of blacks and whites living segregated from each other. Asian Americans and Lighter skinned hispanics are more likely going to live in predominantly White communities, therefore, whites have more interactions with these groups and Asians have more interactions with whites. These interactions knock down the walls of fear of the unfamiliar and opens up the opportnuity for people from those ethnic groups to consider each other as potential mates. This is not so with a significant percentage of African Americans who aren't as assimilated with other racial groups in this country (and often don't care to be, because of the ugly history of Jim Crow which many older blacks lived through ). As a result, there is less familiarity between blacks and whites and Asians, and a much greater chance that they would not view each other as compatible mates or have much in common ( this is on BOTH sides of the fence as I do not know too many black women who are trying to date nonblack men). So in the case of OK cupid, a white, asian, or light skinned hispanic guy may actually seriously think that a black woman is physically attractive but still opt not to respond to her or write to her, because he may fear that he would have nothing in common with her. Also, racial stereotypes of black women being domineering, rude, having a bad attitude, and other unfair negative attributes have also led to other races viewing black women as less desireable. The OK Cupid study doesn't prove that black women are seen as less PHYSICALLY attractive, but that they receive less messages/replies which could be attributed to a variety of reasons including the one's I stated above. Also, blacks make up a small minority of OK Cupid users. That site is overwhelmingly white and most of them probably do not have regular contacts with blacks anyway (hence them being on a dating site that is predominately Caucasion) so that data was bound to be skewed against blacks anyway. Even a lot of the black men and women who go on that site are probably on there to date nonblacks as well (or they would have been on the more popular dating sites for blacks such as black planet or blacksingles)so that data is not surprising.e

    Have to agree...assumed when the writer cited OK Cupid that the post was a joke meant to draw attention to the lack of scientific rigor in the process of "objectively" measuring physical attractiveness.

    Not a joke. OKC Has actual information on how people behave in choosing a date. Their data is not a poll. They simple looked at who sent messages to whom.  
    Black women on OK Cupid which has hundreds of thousands of members get far fewer messages than average.  

    WHY?  No one has come up with a 100% satisfactory answer.  His guess was as good as anything else I have seen. 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    I am no scientist but obviously dating depends on more than just attractiveness; it depends a great deal on personality.

    It is clearly absurd to say that black women are the most unattractive race -- as you said it is in the eye of the beholder and in my opinion any fair minded researcher would have drawn those same conclusions. For instance, I know white guys who date black girls exclusively and contrary to your opinion about Europe women, I find the dark haired ones more attractive.

    Maybe he shouldn't lose his job but he is right to be rebuked for his nonsense research. There are attractive women from all races. I see them everyday!

    Gerhard Adam
    He didn’t say anything new because OK Cupid’s researchers found similar results not long ago which are in concordance with what Dr, Kanazawa has said. In ok cupid’s words in one study of messaging rates by race:
    This is a joke right?    .... messaging rates?

    The only thing sillier is to attribute this to racism. 
    Mundus vult decipi
    Once again not joking.  Ok Cupids data is based on who people looking for a date and a mate are actually responding to.  
    Black women get fewer messages.

    Black women get fewer replies to their messages.... even when the number of people in each race is normalized.

    Sociology only explains so much.  
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Gerhard Adam
    Black women get fewer messages.
    Which means what and is supposed to be explained by what?  Sociology doesn't explain anything because there isn't even a question here.  This is simply an out-of-context statement with some presumption of significance and no details.  In other words it's irrelevant to anything unless or until someone is prepared to actually formulate a real hypothesis and a real methodology for assessing information.

    Mundus vult decipi
    On OK Cupid if you don't get messaged you don't get a date.It's a safe assumption that if you don't get a date you are not attractive in some way. 

    If it's just one black woman with that problem it's perhaps a bad photo or a bad profile. 

    If it's their whole population of black women ,hundreds of thousands of them, not getting messaged that means something.  That means that for some reason or the other black women aren't considered attractive. 

    It's not a pleasant conclusion but the numbers don't lie.  His attempt to explain it through a biological reason is just as valid as the sociological or psychological attempts. That does not make him racist. 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Gerhard Adam
    If it's their whole population of black women ,hundreds of thousands of them, not getting messaged that means something.  That means that for some reason or the other black women aren't considered attractive.
    No it doesn't.  It means nothing more than that women are not getting messaged. 
     His attempt to explain it through a biological reason is just as valid as the sociological or psychological attempts. That does not make him racist.
    No, it makes him an idiot.  There is no "biological reason" and throwing in evolutionary psychology for good measure just makes the entire thing more ludicrous. 
    Mundus vult decipi
    In addition to human sociobiology (isn't "evolutionary psychology" a euphemism for sociobiology?) denialist, do you happen to be a creationist and climate change denialist too? Because your (and your ilk's) arguments sound a lot like theirs.

    Gerhard Adam
    Actually I'm someone that requires actual science before I assign credibility to spurious claims.  Sociobiology suffered from many of the same problems, since you can't simply make up an explanation for behaviors that you see and argue that they are derived from evolution.  There are dozens of plausible explanations for various phenomenon, but that doesn't make it scientific unless there is real evidence (and ultimately some predictive power derived from an actual theory).

    Simply throwing around the term "denialist" doesn't improve your credibility either. 
    Mundus vult decipi
    Requiring actual science invalidates the entire premise of this article.   A few math dropouts sifting through user data on one dating service (confidence interval 65% if they are lucky!) and drawing conclusions every 6 weeks is only made worse if the suspect data is used to declare someone racist.
    It means nothing more than that women are not getting messaged... There is no "biological reason" and throwing in evolutionary psychology for good measure just makes the entire thing more ludicrous.

    Pretty much the best way to have put it. Most soft sciences like psych are largely made up of data that can't be empirically obtained, but it's often passed off as such. In this case Messaging data does not empirically prove anything related to objective, or even perceived attractiveness, as that's just one of many collateral variables that are not controlled for here; it only empirically proves that black women get less messages. To go from there and declare that it's proof that "black women aren't considered attractive" when that isn't what your evidence proves is nothing more than presenting an unsupported hypothesis, as if it actually were something more than just that. This jump seems to happen a lot in psych.

    It's bad science, and hardly any different from how hard sciences like were before they were ... sciences. As in it's full of inadequately controlled data that can only be subjectively interpreted for the conclusion and there's a lack of natural law relevant to the field. In that way, it's very much like the 1890's version of genetics: since the molecular mechanism wasn't known and there weren't any tools to allow for direct observation, scientists had the freedom to hypothesis the mechanisms behind what could be indirectly observed while having nothing could definitively prove their ideas wrong or right. Essentially things could be interpreted to say what ever they'd like to say, which is hardly science and not very different from Kanazawa's writings. Somehow that's fitting when you consider how he's used evolutionary psychology: to go from largely unrelated (and as it turns out falsified) data to declare that reasons were black women have higher genetic loads and testosterone levels(a wrong guess it turns out), is hardly any different from how genetics or those other sciences worked before scientists were burdened by pesky things like facts and proof. Trying to wrap it in something that sounds like the other sciences ("evolutionary") doesn't correct the lack of empiricism.

    Its not hundreds of thousands of black women not getting messages. More like a couple thousand. OK Cupid's users are predominately NOT BLACK. Blacks make up a small minority (perhaps smaller than any other racial group except Native Americans)). Tthere are far more popular sites amongst black daters such as black people meet and black planet. The data for OK Cupid does not come as a surprise considering the small pool of blacks to choose from on the site and the possibility that whites purposely who go on a site with so little black members were probably looking for nonblacks mates anyway.

    Actually looking at the chart above it makes a whole lot of sense. The chart shows that blacks are far more likely to send a message to someone of their own ethnicity ( Asians are the only group that send messages to their own race in higher numbers). Not considering the fact that blacks make up a small minority on the site in the first place compared to all the other racial groups, especially whites, if the small number of blacks on there mostly sent messages to other blacks, then it should be no surprise that they received far less responses from people of other ethnicity. It doesn't seem like the study is taking into account the seriously small numbers of blacks on that site to begin with (most go on black dating sites) which would obviously significantly shrink the pool of blacks more than other races.

    Gerhard Adam
    The Evopsych reasons for this bias against black people lie in modern global society being dominated by 5 billion people who are not of African descent.
    What the hell is that supposed to mean?  If this were even remotely plausible, then the reverse would have to be true; that those of African descent would find 5 billion others unattractive.  Does this make any sense to anyone on this plane of existence?

    More importantly, evolutionary psychology doesn't have a theory nor an explanation for anything being suggested.  It's most optimistic assessment would simply be as a "just-so" story.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Any psychologist will tell you that people are often attracted to people who are the most like themselves. 
    Africans are with the exceptions of notable populations around the rim of the Indian Ocean.  Much darker in color, with a very different hair texture, very different bone structure,  and on the surface very different looks compared to either Asians or Europeans.  
    The simple reason for this isn't testosterone...but the preference that all people seem to have for those who most resemble themselves in some way or the other.  

    Look at a rack of fashion magazines. Notice who's not on the cover?  I am not saying it's right.  I am saying that trying to explain why that is should in and of itself not cause a cry of racism.    

    Kanazawa worded it clumsily and insensitively as too many scientist do with such sensitive things.  That does not make him and Asian Clayton Bigsby
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Sweetheart, I don’t know what your Agenda is…If you are just trying to get people to hit-up your posts or what, but this reminds me of the LSAT logical reasoning section. If you are saying there is some truth to Kanazawa's collected data, wouldn’t the same thing ring true for Asian men LOL. If they are considered the least attractive of all men, wouldn’t it logically follow that people wouldn’t give them the time of day on OK Cupid?

    Talk to any number of Asian MEN (not women) Asian men really don't get allot of play in online dating.  
    Look at who covers the news and who's in the media?  How many of the Eahst Asians are men?  Can you name one national network anchor who is an Asian Male?   I can't.

    The popularity of Asian's in online dating seems to be due to their women.  They get a positive rap in the mass media. 

    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Can I just start off by saying I was not upset by Kanazawa's erhmm how shall I put it " research" .Amused but not slightly offended in the least.I've came across many ridiculous people,beliefs,statistics even,so why kick off a fuss over another addition to the list.However by you suggesting such a hypothesis should be worded better seems very much like the racist folks who go around saying "I'm not racist I have 4 ethnic friends".Meaning you would like to express similar views but you fear offending the people your are infact offending.INGENIUS.

    Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I would like to point out that most people (not all) believe that their own race is superior to another's, it does not make them racist infact it's typical of human nature,a form of biased beliefs, similarly to the way one may argue that their mother's cooking has no rivals.Thinking outside the box this may be an explanation as to why many fashion magazines consist of a certain type of look, slim,leggy ,abstract make up, glorious golden locks.Most importantly? The art of photoshop.This goes to show that the ideal idea of beauty cannot be achieved even by the very ones in the magazines so why compare the entire race of black womens' attractiveness to the unachievable? There are plenty of magazines suited for people of ethnic backgrounds (ESSENCE) as there are for Europeans i.e their target audience.

    As to the notion that people find attractive what resembles them,utter bullshit,I can look at anyone of any race and tell if they're beautiful or not.There are attractive women of every race,size and age group and I'm not talking about that "everyone is beautiful bullshit" I mean genuinely stunning people.Oddly enough as a black woman I honestly get a hell of a lot more attention from caucasian men than I do from men of my own race,I have long since discovered that the reason for this was not down to a particular "look" but because aside from being a pretty girl,I have the bodily features that they found attractive :extremely small waistline,leggy,perky bottom and amazingly extremely large breast cups. Whereas black men preferred thicker thighs and a massive arse. I say each to their own.

    In regards to the dating site OK cupid I have to say this,If its gotten to the point where you're looking for affection online then it's safe to say you're not actually serious about meeting the love of your life,you're most likely looking for some erhmmm "cheap fun".I think many factors contribute to why these women had less replies,did you look at the content of the replies? Ofcourse you didn't. How are you sure that the non-black women with far more replies didnt cheapen themselves with the aid of revealing pictures or raunchy content to accommodate the lust of these men on the website? If you don't know what happens on those particular sites,don't use the statistics as back up. Maybe you're right and it's all down to black women being "less attraction" but somehow I smell a rat.

    Again, you say "look who's not on the cover's?" How is it that black men were rated the most attractive (which I find funny by the way, considering that all stormfront and racist cites do is bash them) and yet they are also extremely underrepresented in GQ, George, Fitness magazines, etc. and other magazines (They get just about as much play time in magazines and on TV as black women if you ask me)

    Asians and whites don't look the same either. Their facial structures and features as well as body shapes are quite different as well. Also, Asian populations range from dark skinned Cambodians, Phillipinos, South Indians and some Pacific Islanders (who also are known to have a similar facial features and hair texture to some blacks)) to very light skinned people. Also there are populations of blacks (especially those from East Africa who have features similar to some caucasions and some in West Africa who have face shapes and slanted eyes like Asians. There is no need to single out the black race for physical differences when physical differences are CLEARLY distinct and diverse and easily recognizeable among ALL racial groups!t

    >>Racism is alive and well in dating<<

    I don't know about you (straight) gals, but we (straight) men only want to sleep with women we find attractive. A (straight) man would sleep with a green woman if he found her attractive. If we don't find you attractive, we can't umm perform. How is that racism??

    If Asian men are supposedly considered the least attractive (YOU SAID THIS REMEMBER), why are they getting hit up on OK Cupid more so than other groups? Look at the graph that you displayed, I am reading it correctly right? That right there proves this data is silly LOL.

    Look at the data again.

    The data says that Asian men + women get hit up more on OKC. 

    When you look at the data which looks at who messages who it breaks it down by race and gender.  Asian men don't get written to nearly as much as asian women.
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    So the study was based on Ok Cupid that is ridiculous because I bet you there are more white people on that dating website then black people, so with that in mind of course white people would get more messages then black people. Common sense would tell you that, but then again we are living in a world where common sense in not to common. If you go to the site you have to go through 8 pages before you see your second black person. Only an idiot would use this faulty martial as a base to conduct such a study. Especially a site that leaves many groups of people unrepresented (I did not see to many Latinos or Asian), within this little 20 min research project I found 3 black people out of a pool of only 80 non-blacks and to be truthful If was looking to find a relationship to have with a black person OK Cupid would be the last place I would look or any online dating site for that matter. Online dating is more common among non-black people, so if you wanted a real study, using online dating websites as a base would be a lazy and unprofessional approach.

    The OK Cupid data is totally independant of the data that Kanazawa relied on.

    His data was from a questionaire. re

    OK Cupids data was from looking at who sent who messages, who replied to who's messages and other aspects of how people used their website.   On their site they noted a real bias against black women.

    One can discount it because it's the internet and in real life personality and sheer luck play a huge role.  However when people set their online filters site unseen based on prejudices and stereotypes they filter out black women.

    Why?  Saying it's due to racism and culture hasn't gotten us anywhere.  I don't think he's right about testosterone.  I do think he has a right to write what he wrote. Science cannot be influenced by popular opinion. 

    If this leads to fashion magazines an producers of media at least for a while considering a broader definition of beauty in a frank and earnest way I will be happy.  More than likely it will be a few magazines putting Gaborey Sidibe on the cover and trying to cash in only to have a skinny pale sick looking white woman that most white women aren't like on the cover.   Haven't we done this so many times before.

    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    you are assuming that people who are responding are only looking at looks. However, this scenario fails to account for what a person's perceived expectations are. For example, most of porn is done by whites that look a certain way. A man, might look for that type on a sub conscious level with the expectations that she is more liberal with her body. In other words, there may or may not be a connection between beauty and races but using info from a dating site (which most people are looking for simple sex)is hardly scientific.

    Oh no I took that into account. 

    What turns people on took hundreds of generations of evotuion to solidify.  The last century of mass media did not really change too much ouside of say  the USA and W Europe.  

    For most of evolutionary history when people who looked markedly different showed up it was bad news. They were showing up in order to invade, rape kill and destroy. 

    For example if you lived in Western and central Europe the only times you saw Asians were...
    1.) When Attilla and his Huns rode in and wrecked the place.
    2.)When Ghengis Khan and the Mongols rode in and wrecked the place.
    3.)When the Ottoman Turks rode in and wrecked the place.

    Is it surprising that for a very very long time...until WWII and arguably right through the cold war TO THIS DAY people in the west have a negative view of Asians and their intentions in the world? 

    Or to bring it closer to home.... is it all hat surprising that when the white man got to America and found Native Ameriancs who somewhat resemble Asians he feared them?  The only times they mixed were so often only in war and violence.   an

    Apply that to black women?  When white people encountered black Africans in the distant past they came into  did not leave....such is the reason the bulk of Africa was uncolonized until the 1800's.   That gave us a fierce reputation among them. 

    In a sense it is racism and is it is BOTH hard wired in the brain through genraerations of bad experience and cultural.  However that does not make it racist to address the possible reasons behind these phenomena.

    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    perhaps you misunderstood, delving into any topic in not racist per se. however when the scientific method is flawed or skewed to reach a certain conclusion that implies implicitly to explicitly that one race is inferior to another as a whole, then at the best, the conclusion is invalid and not worthy of publication. In essence this study said as a whole negro women are uglier than Caucasians. That statement is impossible to prove or disprove therefore it was unfit for publication since in actuality it is an opinion, not scientific fact.

    That's not exactly what they study by Kanazawa said.  He cited a questioaire that asked college males what race they found most attractive.  Black women got the fewest votes. 
    If that was the only indication that black women are not considered attractive by many males he would certainly be in the wrong. 

    As I pointed out in my blog and these comments. Other data concurs with that survey.... when push comes to shove in a racially mixed online space black women don't get asked out as much as women of other races.    Black models are also not portrayed on the covers of fashion magazines as often as white or Asian models (the same goes for the inside) even when one adjust for our populations. 

    There is a very real phenomena of black women being less appreciated than women of other races.   Black women have noticed it before.
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    "Black models are also not portrayed on the covers of fashion magazines as often as white or Asian models (the same goes for the inside) even when one adjust for our populations. "
    Not true. In the United States I have seen FAR more black women on the covers of magazines than Asians women. In fact, I don't remember the last time I saw an Asian on the cover of a fashion mag in the US or a none Asian country for that matter. Just last year. Italian Vogue put out an entire issue dedicated to black models and black celebrities such as Beyonce, Rihanna and even a plus sized Jennifer Hudson has graced Vogue's American covers. Let's not forget Tyra and Beyonce on Sports Illustrated. How many Asian chicks have been on the cover? Sure its not the norm but I don't recall too many Asians getting similar covers. With the exception for Asian countries, Asians models (unless those mixed with white) are actually picked up less for modeling gigs than black women in the US. Both black and Asian women are underrespresented in mag covers unless its in a country that is controlled by blacks or Asians. I think people pay more attention to the fact that black women aren't featured as much as whites because they are more vocal about the discrepancy.

    Looking at the OKC data, guess who wins? That's right, the white man! Once again the white man wins!!

    Actually if you look at their dataset released in 2011 "what if there weren't so many white people" which is normalized in such a way that the fact thre are So many more whites.... the Asians get the most messages.  Taking into account their data released in 2009 it seems that the Asian woman gets more approaches than any other race and gender.  
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    ".... That's right, the white man! Once again the white man wins!!...."

    That may have less to do with attractiveness (although I like to think I'm handsome!) and more to do with certain cultural behaviors. A friend of mine (white female) who grew up in a small town in New Mexico, with a fairly even mix of Whites, Hispanics, and Native Americans, told me that the big deal among the Hispanic and Native American women, was to -- if at all possible -- marry a White man. Their stated reason: White guys were considered far less likely to commit domestic abuse. They preferred white guys because they didn't want to get beat up. Simple.

    Don't call me a racist. I didn't say it. Hispanic and Native American women did.

    I'd think "Doesn't beat women up" is a trait of attractiveness. Attraction is more than physical. Rich men are more attractive, and that's not physical. Where's that town at? I need to find a fine Latin lover.

    Gerhard Adam
    Attraction is more than physical.
    Of course, and everyone knows that except, apparently, Kanazawa.  After all, if attraction is more than physical, it defeats the point about it being racist.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Is this really supposed to be a page dedicated to the scientific method as applied to controversies like this??

    "Now as for thinking that black women have more testosterone I doubt that. If that were the case black women would have more hair."

    No it wouldn't. And in fact all the research indicates that black women do have higher levels of testerone, as shown by the fact that black athletes competing against white athletes have a larger, more muscular build and beat them in competition more often than not. How to explain that? The explanation that blacks go into athletics because they are discriminated against in other professions (even putting aside the fact that athletics is highly competitive and there's no reason why it should be any less prejudicial than any other occupation), doesn't explain why, once there, they beat non-black athletes in key events.

    "all the research indicates that black women do have higher levels of testerone"

    I literally laughed out loud at the inanity of this since there's a journal reference that directly refutes it about 4 cm above this line.

    Right Andrew B; and you know about this research, because you've read it all, right? I take it that to quote one single reference you must have done the research yourself? You must have read all the other research to have dismissed this out of hand, of course. So presumably you're talking from an expert view, right? How do you know the journal reference is cited properly, peer-reviewed, the data verified? You must have done all that too! Wow!!
    Never mind the point about black athletes exhibiting higher muscularity within competitions, eh...?

    Point taken... Your 0 references and unsupported assertions are far superior to my 1 reference to a study overseen by Tufts University and the New England Medical Center.

    "Never mind the point about black athletes exhibiting higher muscularity within competitions"

    Nevermind indeed. I look forward to your groundbreaking research establishing empirical causality between the muscularity in elite athletes and the T levels in the general population. And yes, when you publish it in a peer reviewed journal, I will be happy to read and understand it.

    What does black male athletes or athletes in general have to do with black WOMEN. Even if those studies had any truth to them, the study would only prove that people with higher testoterone levels do better at sports. How does it prove that the average non athletic black woman (or black man for that mattter) has higher testoterone levels? How can you even make the connection? Such a fallacy! Unless a scientist actually tests the testosterone levels of everyday black WOMEN and compare their levels to that of other women there are NO studies even remotely proving that black women have higher testosterone levels. That is a RACIAL STEREOTYPE based off the preconceived notion that dark skin equals masculinity which is irrational (there are 100 of millions of dark women around the wortd) and completely goes against sound scientific study. I hate when people try to claim racial stereotypes as science with NO evidence whatsoever.

    What does black male athletes or athletes in general have to do with black WOMEN. Even if those studies had any truth to them, the study would only prove that people with higher testoterone levels do better at sports. How does it prove that the average non athletic black woman (or black man for that mattter) has higher testoterone levels? How can you even make the connection? Such a fallacy! Unless a scientist actually tests the testosterone levels of everyday black WOMEN and compare their levels to that of other women there are NO studies even remotely proving that black women have higher testosterone levels. That is a RACIAL STEREOTYPE based off the preconceived notion that dark skin equals masculinity which is irrational (there are 100 of millions of dark women around the wortd) and completely goes against sound scientific study. I hate when people try to claim racial stereotypes as science with NO evidence whatsoever.

    What do you, OK cupid and Kanazawa understand 'Asian' to mean?

    Do the 4 billion people with their immediate ancestry located between Yemen and Kamchatka all look alike to you?

    I presume that the racial classifications were self-identified by Okcupid's members.

    The most relevant question about testosterone levels is not so much what current levels of T are among black women, it is whether they were exposed to greater levels of T during fetal development when foundational facial features would be more masculinized by higher levels of T. There may be some data on this (I am not immediately aware of any, tho).

    Who has more boyish bodies than white and Asian women LOL? No one. Miraculously Asian women always get rated high for beauty, but sorry I just don't see it on the regular. Black and latina women have some of the most banging bodies and waist to hip ratios I have ever seen. You men on here claiming "There may be some truth to it" B.S. can keep you 12 year old boy bodies, I would rather have a Esther Baxter or Bria Myles body any day.

    I have read the paper on the a link kindly provided in the Telegraph, and the methodology section is pretty meagre.

    To me, it reads like one of those “papers” which purport to show that Wonderoil® is good for you, and which is plastered under several guises all over the internet by people who have a commercial interest in, you’ve guessed it, Wonderoil®.

    Also, the way he talks about mutation loads and genetic health is BALONEY.

    However, enough of that.  Let’s have some music.

    Robert H. Olley / Quondam Physics Department / University of Reading / England

    Women respond to white men at a higher frequency than any other race. White men wins again!!!

    Nothing new -- this guy beat Kanazawa to the punch:

    Lewis, MN. (2011) Who is the fairest of them all? Race, attractiveness and skin color sexual dimorphism.
    Personality and Individual Differences, 50(2), 159-162.

    "Attractiveness specifically was greater for Black male faces than White male faces and among mixed-race faces. Blackness correlated with increased attractiveness. A reverse pattern was found for female faces with Whiteness being associated with attractiveness. The results are discussed in terms of the sexual dimorphism demonstrated in skin color."

    Wow. I guess I should start taking showers with Clorox® Bleach =(

    Just look at what Hawking is dealing with in terms of his comments on religion.
    What actual harm has he suffered?  Getting publicity for himself, more like it.

    He came out with one or two pretty infantile comments on religion in his Brief History.  I guess that at some time in his youth, he decided he had no time for religion, and never bothered to find out more.  Goethe noted that people of understanding are seen to go wrong in other matters that they do not understand.

         Verständige Leute kannst du irren sehen,
         in Sachen nämlich, die sie nicht verstehen.

    Robert H. Olley / Quondam Physics Department / University of Reading / England
    Well there are some differences between Hawking and Kanazawa. 
    1.) Hawking is disabled and people can kind of dismiss his POV as being because he's "Angry at god" or whatever.
    2.) Hawking works in a field which is highly regarded ... the average schmoe would not dane to think that their thoughts on theoretical physics and cosmology hold water.
    3.) This controversy came out just the next news cycle which did not involve a sympathy provoking disabled scientist, and involved a field which is not regarded as highly as physics is, and it involves beauty and race and such things about which average people have opinions.

    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    To deal with your three differences:

    1.) I’ve never heard anyone say that in relation to Hawking.  I fear that the “people will say” phantom is rearing its ugly head here;
    2.) True, the field is held in awe and wonder.  But would a cosmologist necessarily be any wiser in how to relate to one’s fellow human beings, let alone in matters relating to God?
    3.) As to the news cycle, I dinnae have a clue what that means.
    Robert H. Olley / Quondam Physics Department / University of Reading / England
    The 24 hour news cycle.  You know... those all news all the time cable networks need to fill their air time weather there is any worthy news or not.  The websites also need new content for people to keep coming back to.  
    So every 24 to 48 hours there is a new life or death controversy or villain or good guy for people to get worked up over.  In the process if those news outlets get something wrong they almost never correct themselves. 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    I had to laugh at that so-called scientist and his theory about black women having more testosterone. Do you know why as a 50 year old Black woman I laugh? Because in the past year, I was diagnosed with uterine fibroids. Black women are the most likely to get fibroids than any other race of women. Do you know what causes or exacerbates this condition? ESTROGEN dominance! Yes, too much of the 'female' hormone. So that would tell me that us black women are MORE feminine, not less! It's just too bad the 'femininity' has to show up that way but oh well. At any rate, if we go on the premise that the 'professor' is right, what exactly did he hope to accomplish here? Did he offer any solutions? Of course not. All he wants to do is deliver a kick in the teeth to people he either misunderstands or deeply hates. Not at all professional or academic and those who claim he speaks the 'truth' have only demonstrated their own prejudices. As for me, I know he's full of it because I've had my share of romance in my life, and have been married before...and guess what? ALL but four of my past lovers have been white men. so if they think we're ugly, you couldn't prove it by me lol

    Gerhard Adam
    This isn't about testosterone or estrogen, it's about attractiveness.  I realize that Kanazawa made the assertion about testosterone, but his comment was simple-minded speculation only.

    In the first place, he would have to demonstrate the distribution of such hormones throughout populations by race, since obviously not everyone would fall into the "average" category.  Then he would have to identify what traits were influenced by these hormones and whether they materially affected what would be considered "attractive". 

    The most obvious failing is in properly defining what "attractive" even means, since (despite popular mythology), humans do not exclusively choose partners based on physical appearance alone.  I have not seen any evidence that any of these studies have corrected for age differences in the photos used, nor correlate them back to the people making the assessment.  For that matter, I haven't seen any data which correlates attractiveness by race, in general. 

    For some reason, it appears that these "studies" are attempting to find some singular biological explanation for something that doesn't exist.  The real world and real relationships clearly operate in a significantly different manner.  It isn't difficult to see that the average female doesn't look like Angelina Jolie nor Halle Berry.  Therefore, it is hard to imagine how a criteria for "attractiveness" has much bearing on "real world" selection.  In fact, it would seem much more plausible to argue that our experience, culture, and individual taste create a kind of visual template that we use to assess whether we, personally, find someone physically attractive or not.  However, even this singular evaluation is ultimately trivial and doesn't extend much influence beyond an initial meeting.  From this point, numerous other factors and influences will determine the degree to which individuals find each other "attractive".

    This should not be trivialized, but is a key factor to be considered since it is often outside influences (behavior, speech, attitude, etc.) that will affect how we visually perceive another individual's attractiveness.  Our perception is affected by our own attitudes, so to argue that there is some arbitrary "standard" against which attractiveness is measured is simple foolishness.
    Mundus vult decipi
    "it appears that these "studies" are attempting to find some singular biological explanation for something that doesn't exist. ", you can tell us what exists? Why are they spending so much money to find the Higgs particle? We could just ask you!

    “I’m afraid, Cupid, we’ll have to confiscate that bow of yours on Health and Safety grounds.”
    Robert H. Olley / Quondam Physics Department / University of Reading / England
    The FIRST error is that there is NO scientific fact that black women are least attractive. beauty isn't measured by science. What would have made the article more sensible is, 'Why do Americans DEEM Black Women as Less Attractive?'
    The answers would include that white society has created a set standard of beauty for women that fits their own beauty and black women are very different from that look. (there really isn't any set standard of beauty for men so beautiful men are deemed t be all kinds of men).
    Second, OKCupid's poll didn't show that Black women were less attractive. It showed that other races are less likely to date Black people (Black men also had low ratings there). This is obviously do to prejudices that society has to Blacks whether intentionally or non-intentionally.
    LASTLY, it should be known that actually Kanazawa misanalyzed the study. An independent study (below) by Scott Barry Kaufman, Ph.D. revisits the same study Kanazawa looked at and it shows that Black Women were NOT rated less attractive. IN FACT, the % of black women and white women who were deemed very attractive/attractive were exactly the same. Asian women were slightly more and Native American were slightly less. This proves ever more that he just wanted to present his racist views rather than any so-called fact:

    the problem w/ this country is racism. It is well known and seen that European men are a lot more attracted to Black women than Americans are.

    I agree : something that is unpopular should not put ones job at risk.

    I am a white man who grow up up in Africa and spend the rest of my life traveling. I can assure you that I found in beautiful African women that could be on the front page of Cosmopolitan any time.. Where ?

    Now, from my humble observation, I found that everywhere I went : Middle East, Asia, South America,Caribbean, North America , I found that in general men were more attracted by the whitest skin and that apply even in country, like Vietnam, Burma , Thailand, China where the difference in color is minimal.. This apply also in Africa where you have many shade of black..

    It is a fact and a mystery ....

    As Frenchman passionate about women , I am glad that we can enjoy this diversity : a beautiful women is a beautiful women and I don't care about her color..

    I think that this research is very sloppy because you have other factors underneath the dating game,. unconscious fear of the unknown, unconscious fear of men to not be able to satisfy sexually a black women.. so on and so on..

    Big hug to all the black women !!

    Ok, let's face it :

    Satoshi Kanazawa with his equipment will have hard time to find black women that he could satisfy sexualy.

    Sorry chap, size matter..

    So the problem is not for the black women to be more attractive but for him to have the right tool :-)

    I don't see what the chart from OkCupid proves. What I see is that each race sends the majority of messages to people in their own group. It is the same for whites, latinos and asians. Anyway, to me this is a really silly discussion. Kanazawa is practicing pseudoscience of the worst kind. Singling out a very vaguely defined group (what is being black after all?) like that is unfair and unnecessary. The only thing that all the surveys and studies reflect is that in our current culture the ideals of beauty are biased against black people. That is all. It is cultural. Perhaps if we stopped obsessing so much about the races and trying to find more and more "differences" between them, these cultural biases (STEREOTYPES) would disappear someday.

    Other Question!
    Why are Asian men like the profesor so ugly,petite and
    geneticcaly little shaped.
    Everybody knows that only Asian woman are found attractive worldwide.
    Because the Asian men is not very populair amongst females of most races.
    Neither black of white.

    I am surprised he did not write an article of why Asian men are deemed the least attractive out of all races and gender AND you can't say there's cultural bias to them. But Blacks have had cultural biases to them for centuries. To single out black women and make such a statement that was not even supported by facts (there is proof that the study he used did NOT in fact show that Black women were rated less attractive) but by his own inferiority complex racist opinion is simple pathetic.

    Even without combing through all of the primary data used here, just reading Dr. Kanazawa's initial blog post exposes his lack of methodological sophistication. For example, he's an evolutionary psychologist, but never addresses the genetic issues unique to African-Americans (i.e., most African-Americans have more genetic similarities with Europeans than Africans)! And his conclusion about the role of testosterone opposes research on other markers of female physical attractiveness--e.g., hip to waist ratios, and pheromone production (both of which, if anything, favor African-American women). Kanazawa's blog post reads as if he's taken his own personal bias (based on cultural narratives and normative standards), and couched them in "objective" facts. That he could do this without recognizing the dangers inherent in selling his particular world view as "scientific" (with no real science to back it up), is not just a cautionary tale about how powerful racial memes are, but about how researchers have an ethical responsibility to scrutinize their own biases. Ultimately, black women are no more/less attractive than other women (subjectively OR objectively), and any claim that they are isn't based on racism, but on the tendency for whites to favor whites, asians to favor asians, latinos to favor latinos, blacks to favor blacks, etc. Analyzing the role of evolutionary psychology here would've been much more interesting and scientifically important to the discipline.

    (P.S., to the extent that Kanazawa's lack of intellectual rigor reflects poorly on other faculty, students, and staff of the London School of Economics, losing his job is a legitimate consequence.)

    The Two Professions that Get to Tell the Truth: Scientists and Humorists

    The Evopsych reasons for this bias against black people lie in modern global society being dominated by 5 billion people who are not of African descent.

    As far as I know, the human race originated in West Africa, so all of us are of African descent.

    Ha ha ha.  Recent African descent...the recent is implied.  If Chicago was under glaciers when your last ancestor was in Africa then it doesn't count for these purposes. 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Gerhard Adam
    Well, actually it does, because you're either proposing some sort of biological differentiation or a cultural one.  Since there is no evidence for biological differences, then the entire focus must be on culture.  I'm also assuming that you're going to ignore the trivial case of nationalistic boundaries.

    So, once again, I'm not clear on how anything being said is anything except purely speculative and anecdotal.  There's certainly nothing scientific about it.

    Also, it might be useful to re-examine the linked article since it also quite clearly states:
    "These are not necessarily statistically reliable findings," says Viren Swami, a psychology researcher at the University of Westminster in London and co-author of "The Psychology of Physical Attraction." "They are interesting, but they could also potentially be very misleading and, at worst, quite far from the truth.",0,1937093.story

    Mundus vult decipi
    Why do people keep citing okay cupid? Whenever I was on the internet dating cites, I didn’t even have a picture up and I ALWAYS received emails from men- white, asian, etc. How many black men and women are even on these cites. When I went on I was specifically looking for black and latino men and I would come across maybe 3 out of every 20 men in my area who fit that description. You know darn well that there are a hell of a lot more White people on these cites than anyone else and chances are they are generally looking for other whites because that is who they feel the most comfortable with (I don’t want to hear this bs about the races were equalized and the results still came out the same). Why don’t these white publications do a study on the amount of mulattos, quadroons, and octaroons, that were present in the U.S, prior to 1950’s. That would be a real test of attraction for black women, not some dumb ass Ok Cupid study.

    Why do people keep citing okay cupid?
    Supposedly because some math majors sift through data on one site and blog about it with charts it makes them all science-y and legitimate.   It's total rubbish, I agree.
    I just find it odd that faced with the data that black women get massaged less on OKCupid you instantly jumpt to the conclusion that this confirms Satochi's finds. The problem is ignoring everything that represents a person's attractiviness and focusing strictly on looks. Attractiviness is way more than looks.

    This is obvious and I don't know how you can use OKCupid data and simply argue that it is because of looks. All the while considering OKCupid users representants of actual human behavior, instead of representants of young, single americans and canadians with internet access.

    Robert H. Olley / Quondam Physics Department / University of Reading / England
    Hontas, interesting discussion... However, you seem to be unaware of a nearly ancient (1997) study/essay called "Is Love Colorblind?", which is easy to turn up with a quick search.

    Good luck on getting back to cosmology, a far more interesting subject.

    I wanted to comment on the following:

    1.) Kanazawa took incomplete data from the Add Health study. In fact, Kanazawa used information from three waves when in fact there were four waves. He omitted the final wave, which was the only wave to have only adults. When all four waves are used, the only group that was marginally higher than the others was Asian women.

    2.) Kanazawa neglected to factor in the ages, developmental stages, cultural, socioeconomic, and educational backgrounds of the adolescent subjects in Waves 1,2, and 3 of the Add Health study. He could have asked “why are black women less attractive to children” and people would not have been able to attack his research so easily.

    3.) Kanazawa lacks credibility. In another one of his publications, he states that all people of African descent have the lowest IQs of all people on the planet because the race originates from a warmer climate. He also states that liberals are smarter than conservatives. Lastly, (and this is my personal favorite) he wrote that Ann Coulter should have been President of the US after 9/11 because she would have dropped 35 nuclear bombs on the Middle East in the days immediately following the terrorist attack on the US.

    4.) This is a minor quibble, but my job is information. You have valid points, but your argument is undermined by the source that you used. Just because Ok Cupid employs Harvard educated people that does not mean that their findings are accurate. You would have been better off using multiple studies from academic/professional publications to support your argument. I always tell my students that although the information that they get from Wikipedia may be brilliant and accurate, they should never cite it in their papers because their professors will value the work less.

    5.) Last point - I agree with the students who are calling for the termination of his employment. The reason that I say this is that the work he has produced (and there have been a lot of them) is dubious in quality. Regardless the causes, he is producing poor work and that is cause for termination. If I was publishing these kinds of articles, I would be in the unemployment line rather than still in the tenure track.

    I apologize if someone else made these points. I was reading quickly and may have missed entries.

    I agree with you - it is unfortunate that calls for his termination are only because he stepped over a politically correct line and not because he has foisted crap off as science for years.  He is the most popular blogger on Psychology Today, which tells anyone all they need to know about that site but he is also in a fuzzy discipline with other fuzzy people.   If I write an article on astrology calling it science and get peers to review it, it is 'peer reviewed' but because of the term, 'evolutionary' psychology pseudobabble gets more legitimacy than it deserves among the public.

    I also agree using okcupid statistics to criticize his method was ironic.  If someone used Sweden's results on black people (very few) or Detroit's (very many) it would be just as ridiculous.   If the confidence interval for any result using dating service data is even 65%, I am amazed.
    it could be a combination factor and social but sometimes all these things dont add up. I went to russia two years ago im a dark girl i had a blast i got stared at alot. they were nice but didnt run into blacks often so they were probrally nicer to me than they are to white people who visit russia. i was kinda scared im used to not being recognized but thats ok with me because blending in means less scrutiny. also i might add what society deems pretty and not pretty has a lot to do with it, i have wavy hair because of a mixed lineage when i go to south america i speak spanish and portugese and americans treat me better what they dont realize is that im a black american and they treat me better. cultral/ features/class/ and acceptance all plays a role.

    Sorry, the study is right, black women are ugly.
    Greetings from France

    Gerhard Adam
    Well, I won't slight an entire people simply because of one French moron.
    Mundus vult decipi
    I don't think this is true at all. From what I can see, it seems that black women are possibly the most sought after. I was just watching this video on youtube which had a black woman who looked kind of manly and seemed to lack the curves that so many black women have, yet there were still comments on that video about how attractive she was.

    Anyways, I like how all the black women get so offended when they hear this and start bragging about how they get so much attention from men, when THEY DON'T EVEN LIKE THE ATTENTION. Seriously, from what I can see, black women are the meanest and most shallow when it comes to how they treat men who show interest in them. They will only give you the time of day if you are a thuggish black guy with "swag" or if you are drop-dead gorgeous and look like Taylor Lautner. Actually, a lot of the more high class black women get tired of the thugs and only go for the model types. Otherwise, they don't want your attention. But now when their egos are threatened, they start bragging about this attention which they were so ungrateful for before. It just makes me laugh. Don't worry black women, white men are still going to chase you and you are still going to be able to treat them like shit and turn them down for someone more attractive.

    As an asian man (Japanese/Chinese/Portuguese) I think black women are the most beautiful! Of course I'm gay, but IF I were to switch I would definitely go for a black woman. Blasian babies are so cute and everybody knows black don't crack!

    Well, Although I'm black...I've always known that on average black women were unattractive. But beautiful ones are unbelievably beautiful and a rarity at that. I think mothers need to do a better job in increasing their daughters' attractiveness. It's not about meeting European ideals because those are changing to appreciate diversity. It's more about looking well-done, healthy, fit, and being elegant. This are things that make women desirable and I don't see it much in a lot of black women. I don't know why but they are qualities that can be developed. Many bw simply don't know how to be attractive, which is the problem and this can be remedied with outside help such as style and etiquette consultants, monitoring our girls weight and feeding them more nutrition food. Letting them no when they look like cheap hookers and such. We need to stop coddling our girls and rear them for success in this world even if we'll be hated and disliked for it in the process.

    I noticed that most black mothers don't push sports on their girls as well. The boys are on football and basketball teams building character and getting fit, while the girls are inside eating junk food and talking on the phone. My opinion is get the girls into sports too. She'll learn to deal with adversity better and control her weight as well. Physical fitness could be a mother and daughter activity. Mothers could get a gym membership and they both take exercise classes together before or after dinner. Classes are only an hour and it could encouraging to see mom control her fitness too. We need to groom our daughters for more opportunities in life. I think this is very bad...subjective my foot. Kanawawa's research is realistic.

    My thing is, I do my best to be attractive but at the end of the day, if I'm not considered attractive by the majority then I can't let that stop me. I do put my best foot forward unlike most black women. I will keep striving for what I want in this life and that persistence will get me what I want. The world has always been a competitive place and always will be. Black women know where they stand, so they have to figure out their way through this climate to be successful in life. Beauty isn't everything but we should work on being quality all around.

    Black women look masculine. You can dress in wigs, shove a load of paint on your faces, but you still look like men.

    your mother is too

    I am the only one who sees that the only obvious fact in this study is that black people are very vain ? Do they really think they are very attractive at such a rate ?

    Most of the points in the comments seem very vapid meaning it's coming from a place of negativity and not balanced facts much like the 2 comments above mine it has nothing to do with the stories just cheap shots. Any chance some people get they will take the opportunity to bash. Another comment I noticed is one that said black women don't participate in sports yet somehow every Olympic year although black men and women only make up 12% of the population in the u.s.a. every since given the opportunity to join in the Olympic games their has always been black men and women there representing the United States and doing it well.
    The women I noticed that do not participate in sports and tend to be short and tend to be more overweight in the united states more than they are in their home countries are: Filipina, Mexican, Arab, and Central American women but I guess they get a pass?
    I've seen black women that are not attractive at all and look like men but I also see non black women that do too. Wig or no wig and a perfect example is Donatellla Versace she is 100% Italian and she looks worse than a average man dressed in drag, but I said that to make a point. I would never say that to her face. I would give her the human dignity and respect she deserves It's something called class.
    Yes, more black women should take care of themselves the issue can be addressed better than this however. That "natural" beauty is rare in all races so when people see a pretty black girl she sticks out but what most men don't know is that those "natural" beauty women take care of their bodies more than lower class socio- economic can because of affordability. Getting highlights and dyeing your hair, going to the gym, or having a trainer, eating healthy from an early age, having health conscious parents, going to the dentists regularly also from an early age, having a dermatologists, going to a esthetician, and being able to afford nice clothes all play a huge role. I am sure if the black community's economy were to rise attitudes would change.
    From what I see in the posts black women are not attractive but simply overlooked because of class, the fact that more blacks are poor on average only compounds that problem. It doesn't affect black men in attraction but seems to help is the direct result of the American attitude about the alpha male being macho, bold, unafraid, and somewhat of an antihero to begin with. Clint Eastwood, Indiana Jones, Chuck Norris, a man's man and since black men tend to dominate sports this image has been given to them but the downfall is they also are poor so when inner cities are violent the black men are also looked upon as dangerous.
    Americans will always be divided on this issue because parents who teach children teach what they were taught and raise those children most of time in the ways they were taught. Education would almost instantaneously take care of all these issues like a domino effect. Education is the real problem not attractiveness.

    Well,i am just another frenchie so please, don t mind my bad english.
    As previously said, very seriously, the only outstanding fact without possible bias in these figures is the self reported rating about attractiveness, and it is obvious that black people, male and female, seem to be convinced that they are very attractive,and they are the only one who behave this way.
    How can you explain this extrem vanity, wich is not shared by other ethnic groups (black woman AND black men are not seen as attractive for non black,as shown on the OKC data.

    I think kanazawa has the data, maybe but he also has his own racist interpretation...and that is no one wants black women....LOLOLOLOL! I do know that other races tend to mate and date more....we have always had some moral upbringing, despite what the what world wants to paint. What is he talking about? Back in the days we hung out with many other races, white girls got the dating and the mating, but it was never permanent, rarely did he bring her to meet his family. Most of us black girls were long gone home after the game, we had to be home by a certain time. We had rules at home, so did my Indian friends. We had a culture where the females had more rules that the males. That mode of behavior is still with us today.