Hey, I didn’t ask the question! But it was recently asked by a blogger for Psychology Today. The possible answer to the question, according to Satoshi Kanazawa, is differences in testosterone. Supposedly (because I take everything I read/sometimes see with a grain of salt) “Africans” have higher levels of testosterone.
My mom always told me, if you can’t say it better than it’s already been said, then don’t. And I have to say that CNN blogger LZ Granderson put many of my thoughts into words.
How dangerous is it to attempt to statistically prove physical attractiveness in humans? Is Kanazawa’s post responsible journalism? Is there any value in it? Or is it an example of what happens when you give everyone a voice/mic/platform? Speak out!
The researcher in me understood his explanation of factor analysis, but had the following questions:
*What is the level of significance for these findings? Is it .05% (acceptable standard), or is it larger (.10% or .15%)? Kanazawa mentions that “race differences among men are statistically significant, albeit substantively very small, in Wave III)”, but doesn’t identify the level of significance. Note: identifying the level of significance is expected when expressing statistical significance.
*What was the race of the interviews who were determining the attractiveness of the Add Health respondents? If a white interviewer was rating a black respondent, is that really reliable? Is this question unimportant, given that 3 interviewers rated the respondent’s attractiveness over seven years?
*You must consider the source: Kanazawa is apparently an evolutionary psychologist. London School of Economics or not. See my earlier post about evolutionary psychology and physical attractiveness.