I am not an evolutionary psychologist. I was inclined to think favorably of this viewpoint until I read some of these blogs, especially Satoshi Kanazawa. It seemed to me he did his best to provoke and insult, and when people got provoked and insulted, he then played the role of victim of "political correctness." What he doesn't do is respond to the substance of criticism against him. It is a cheap game, in my view. I am pleased to learn that others in EP have taken him on.
Satoshi Kanazawa's latest controversy regarding his article (removed from the PT site) "Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?" (see Mikhail Lyubanksy's excellent response "Beauty May Be In Eye of Beholder But Eyes See What Culture Socializes") has sparked me to make a point I've wanted to make for a very long time now:
Satoshi Kanazawa is not the only evolutionary psychologist and by no means speaks for all of evolutionary psychology.
Far from it, in fact.
In a 2010 issue of the very prestigious journal American Psychologist, an article by Kanazawa appeared, which was called "Evolutionary Psychology and Intelligence Research". Many of my colleagues and I were very intrigued, since this is an awesome topic, and the reconciliation of these two important fields of psychology is, in my view, one of the most fascinating issues in all of psychology.
However, many of us were appalled to see such poor logic, lack of nuance, and blatant disregard for the totality of the evidence.
To respond, 35 of *the* leading evolutionary psychologists and intelligence researchers of our time including Lars Penke, Denny Borsboom, Steven Pinker, David Buss, Geoffrey Miller, Daniel Nettle, Steven Gangestad, Jelte M. Wicherts, Wendy Johnson, Ian Deary, Linda Gottredson, Rex Jung, and Samuel Gosling submitted a commentary to American Psychologist reacting to Kanazawa's article.
It was accepted for publication and will be published soon in American Psychologist. The title is Evolutionary psychology and intelligence research cannot be integrated the way Kanazawa (2010) suggests.
An advance copy of the paper can be downloaded here.
Here is the first paragraph of the commentary:
"Evolutionary psychologists search for human universals, differential psychologists for variation around common human themes. So far evolutionary psychology and differential psychology seem somewhat disparate and unconnected, although Kanazawa (2010) is certainly not the first to attempt integrating them (see Penke, 2010, and references therein). Kanazawa uses intelligence to elaborate his view of integration. His evolutionary theory of intelligence is based on two assumptions: 1) General intelligence (g) is both an individual-differences variable and a domain- specific adaptation, and (2) the domain to which general intelligence is adapted is evolutionary novelty. Both claims are erroneous."
I have never before seen such a unified response but I think in this case it was warranted and the authors make very good points.

© 2011 by Scott Barry Kaufman
Be sure to read the following responses to this post by our bloggers:
What's wrong with American Psychologist then?
It's one thing for him to post articles with appalling logic on a site like this one, but why would American Psychologist accept his article if it had fundamental flaws? As a an academic (PhD in social psychology), this does not bode well for the so-called peer review system.
I take it that it was a blog
I take it that it was a blog post and therefore not subject to any sort of review prior to publishing. It's been removed now so I can't see it to be sure though.
The Article is on Google Docs
It may have been removed from this site, but the article (sic) can be read in its entirety on Google Docs. It reminds me of Nazi pseudo-scientific race propaganda. It was totally senseless, an insult to my intelligence. I don't even care what ANYONE thinks about my attractiveness except the one I love.
Which one
I'm unsure if you guys are talking about his article on black women(which was NOT published by American Psychologist Association, just here on psychology today) or his earlier article proposing a blend between intelligence and EP(I didn't read this one, but it was, in fact, accepted for publication by APA. In order to read this one I think one needs either academic access or to pay the fee, it may be available somewhere for free, but I wouldn't know.) which is the one being commented on by Kaufman.
One place where his deleted article on black women can be found in full, along with ongoing discussion, is here:
http://www.quora.com/Attractiveness-Attractive-People/What-makes-Why-Are-Black-Women-Less-Physically-Attractive-Than-Other-Women-unscientific
Sorry
Kaufman himself posted on his text a link to Kanazawa's article on Intelligence an EP, I hadn't clicked on it to see, before posting here. My bad.
Evolutionary Psychology
This is a serious problem in evolutionary sciences, that it so easily falls into a eugenics way of thinking with the hubris of being part of the dominant mechanistic mindset of mainstream culture. Yes they are allowed to get away with it because they know how to scream "political correctness" at anyone who objects and make it not worth the effort to argue. At the same time this hateful way of thinking can also be argued to be the result of some sort of evolutionary regression, so tit-for-tat.
I don't blame people for wanting to throw out the whole discipline since it has provided philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of some of the worst crimes against humanity of the past century.
Don't throw out the discipline
@anonymous, 12:43
I certainly blame people for wanting to throw out a discipline because blaming it for crimes against humanity is nonsensical. We could just as easily blame religion(submission to authority), physics(producing the bomb), mathematics(railroadschemes to Auswitsch) etc. Disciplines don't cause wars, they mereley justify them in the minds of certain people. We progress, we learn. It is good to see that almost everybody in the field strongly disagrees with this article. What an enormous difference from 70 years ago.
Kanazawa insults Black women and Evolutionary Psychology
So many misconceptions of Black women are fueled by fear and ignorance. The truth is often ignored or overlooked. Where are the facts: 4,7000 years ago three Black women gave the world geometry,trigonometry, and calculus; the communications media has programmed the entire world into believing Africian Americans came from an ancestral home of ignorance, savagery and huts; the media still sends out the message the dark skin is ugly. No other race has been so disrespected!
According to Benford's law of controversy...
...Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available. I would venture to say there isn't much real information available. This means Satoshi is hosting the Jerry Springer show at Psychology today! What a wonderful way to take two different genres and combine them!
Thanks for the explanation on the discipline...
...but how about an explanation on how that article written by that writer, whose logic as you say has been so widely questioned by his colleagues, made it onto Psychology Today? Good post, but the editors of Psychology Today seriously need to step up and offer something to the community of readers that felt so outraged by it. It would be the professional and considerate thing to do, and not totally unheard of in the blogging community.
Eagerly awaiting some sort of reply.
Agreed.
The best apology PT could offer is removing this freak nutjob's blog from their website. Please consider this. All it does it give fodder to skeptics who argue that psychology is not a legitimate science.
Reply from Psychology Today
The reply I received was automated, I'm sure, and added some insult to injury (after I questioned whether they were aligned with the KKK or the Aryan Brotherhood). No apology or explanation. Just "we removed it" and "thank you." The magazine needs a new PR firm specializing in crisis management.
Crisis Management
Everyone settle down. Breathe in deeeeeeep. Let it outtttt. Now Laugh! Because the joke is on you. You bought the Brenda Fassie aka Jerry Springer aka Satoshi "brand" hook, line and sinker: "I am a shocker. I like to create controversy. It's my trademark."- Brenda Fassie
The smart move would have been to just walk away. Could you? Can we? Nope. The drama is just too inviting and we are just too bored. Sooooooo, I have an idea: Let's tie Satoshi to a Texas Fire Ant hill. Shall we? How about we do it in effigy instead because I'm a little squeemish about torturing my fellow man. (And NTs think Aspies are the ones that lack the empathy. The irony of their misguided projections.)
No, Kelly, it's not "drama."
No, Kelly, it's not "drama." Words make worlds. You probably have the privilege to ignore all this because it doesn't affect you personally.
As someone on the autism spectrum, I'd also ask that you not speak for me.
Yes, Anonymous, it IS "drama"
“Look at it this way” or “Choose not to look”
Three faces of victim caught on Satoshi's hook
Karpman’s Drama Triangle: Hero, Victim, Foe
Wikipedia it and you’ll recognize this show
As a conscious and educated person, I have the privilege of choosing which Karpman drama games I play. I chose this one.
Forgive me for not choosing your drama because it may affect me personally.
How glib of you
Kelly Cash---your weak attempt at satirical humor is absolutely disgusting. I agree with Anonymous here---you can joke about this story because the implications of Kanazawa's junk science don't directly affect you. For those of us who have to live with anti-Black woman stigma, it's just one more episode of racist/misogynist bullying that we have to put up with. And we've been putting up with it for three hundred-plus years already.
It's completely maddening: Black women are woman enough to be raped, battered, cheated out of hard-earned wages, and sexually harassed, but not woman enough to be seen as "attractive"---whatever the heck that means. Black women are blamed for all of the sexual, cultural, and economic ills of a society run from top to bottom by rich straight white men (like the guys who actually publish Psychology Today). Every time an economic recession rolls around, Black women are the convenient scapegoat for why folks are out of work and public coffers are running dry. Never mind the huge tax cuts during Bush II's tenure in office, bailouts for fiscally irresponsible corporations, the huge mortgage/foreclosure crisis, and the never-ending wars the Pentagon wages across the Middle East. No, never mind those things, because America's problems are really caused by gay marriage, immigrant workers, and the always deviant/ugly/unchaste/masculine/lazy/fat/greedy Black woman. And media outlets like Psychology Today are all too happy to serve as cheerleaders for business as usual.
But hey Kelly---none of those things are your problem, right? You're just so above these pesky "Karpman drama games." Well, good for you; I wholeheartedly support your remaining in Wonderland. Meanwhile in the real world, we're mad as hell.
Black women tired of this mess. Shame on blogger and Psych Today
I am appalled at that Kanazawa post.
You have a black female blogger at psych today who addresses the very fact that we black women are looked down upon and unfairly so! Her blog at your site is http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/black-womens-health-and-happiness.
Dr. McCloud has been on CNN and written articles about this recently. I bought her book and it deals with this very thing. Shame on the magazine for allowing that post up in the first place. We are tired of this negativity.
It's funny that everybody else is buying tanning solutions to get our color, injecting their lips with collagen to get our lips and all that, but yet when we have it naturally, folks say eeew. Shame!! I hope psych Today stops him from blogging here. does he get paid to blog? Shame, shame, shame.
You get 'em girl
Let's spread that "shame" virus wide and far. Let's make everyone feel bad. Does that make the world any better?
Kelly Cash---you again! So
Kelly Cash---you again! So good to see you once more. Oh, I don't think you need any help spreading shame virus, since you manage to distribute shame so well on your own.
It's easy to be callous when you're not the one being skewered, isn't it?
Why does EP constantly have to defend itself?
Of all the academic fields that deal with human evolution in some manner, it seems that Evolutionary Psychology is the one that most often has to correct 'misperceptions' about whether it is racist. How often do misperceptions have to occur before they become perceptions? I understand the logical case that is made here: you cannot blame everyone in a field for the actions of a few members, especially people who are somewhat marginal in the first place (Kanazawa's appointment is in Management at LSE and not in psychology or evolutionary theory). But if your field attracts all the racists like moths to a flame, perhaps there is fundamental rot in your methods and assumptions.
It is one thing to point out technical flaws in Kanazawa's arguments. It is another thing entirely to participate in a field in which those arguments can even be made sensible in the first place.
If we unpack your question,
If we unpack your question, you're basically asking...
Why is the only field that deals with studying evolved human nature the one that gets chastised for suggesting that there is an evolved human nature?
...the answer is already in there.
The only choice is between studying human nature, or ignoring that it exists. Since ignoring things is anathema to science, that choice isn't really making a choice between a variety of sciences to practice, but a choice between actively practicing science or actively practicing ignorance.
In other words, the answers aren't always what we want them to be. The hating on evolutionary psychology meme is a case study in shooting the messenger as we shift paradigms from the hard-line social constructivism of the 20th century.
A pocket full of canards
Ah yes, the classic defense of evolutionary psychology: humans are evolved, therefore we know that every trait of humans *must be* primarily directly attributable to evolution, as defined in an extremely narrow sense. Anyone who disagrees along the way is just a social constructivist. We're not racist, you're a social constructivist!
Once EP proponents wise up to the fact that you can acknowledge, and even celebrate, human evolution without needing to resort to caricatures of human life we might actually start getting some interesting science out of the field. Until then, the racists and sexists will happily dwell in the explanatory gap between the genetic mechanisms of evolution and the expression of complex social and cognitive phenotypes.
A truckload of vapidity
Predictably, you had to construct an imaginary caricature bastardizing what I said - and attributing points to me that I never made - to mount an argument inviting us all to enjoy discussion confined to your monolithic fantasy land.
The definitions are on your terms. Discourse may only occur on your terms. Science can only be practiced on your terms. The very thoughts in others's minds, dictated by your terms. If only we'd all "wise up" to your imperious benevolence, we might then behold the beautiful hope of the enlightened authoritarian.
Creationists and evolutionary psychology aspersion-casters, living a life worshiping the gods of the gaps - whether they be fossils or genes.
The Power of Words
Anyone with a background in statistics can easily see how empty and misleading the article was. The author drew conclusions and injected proposals that, even for the middle school aged English class student, were unorganized and purposely vague. In addition to his terrible manipulation of statistical information, the use of science to describe race is inherently flawed. Depending on what country, culture, and even political affiliations one may have, the definitions and terms for race vary immensely. How can a study such as this have ever been completed without addressing the complexities of race labeling? This is a study that is better off having never been done, as the time needed to make this study valid could be put to better use improving the lives of women around the world
Kanazawa apparently sought to use science to make claims that he more than likely feels himself. If he never dates a black woman in his whole entire life, no one will really care. He has the right to feel and think whatever he wants to.
The problem is that as a scholar, he has the responsibility to be careful with his use of science to support personal opinion. It is incredibly likely that someone will read this article, and either because of a lack of information or a preconceived notion, will believe its claims to be true. Kanazawa gives credibility to those who seek to negatively affect the self esteem of others.
For every young Black girl who views articles like this, in addition to a media engine that rarely celebrates Black women as beautiful (as opposed to sexy), I feel a huge pain in my heart. As a Black woman myself, I have grown up seeing very few images of myself. My parents did all that they could to ensure that I knew I was still worthy of any title I sought to hold, regardless of whether anyone told me it was in my grasp. I grew up in a home with limited media input, and spent more time reading about different cultures and people as well as meeting them in person. I have grown to understand my place within the global community and I can find beauty in myself as well as people of all different cultures. Every girl does not have the luxury of growing up in a house such as mine. For girls with low self-esteem, and the women that they later become, words from allegedly respected scholars sting far more than the taunts of a school mate.
Funny enough, Kanazawa shows us a graph concerning the relatively high self esteem of Black women as compared to other races. This is perhaps in jest considering their scientifically proven unattractiveness. What is his point? It's as if he sought to cut a wound with his words and then rub salt in it under the guise of assistance.
Let me also add that his consistent praise of Black men leaves me to wonder if he has some sort of desire for Black men that forces him to competitively berate Black women to get closer to his fantasies with the attractive Black man. I would liek to think there is a point to his article's inclusion of black men (besides using it to alienate black women as solely unattractive).
Women in general face a constant battle with self-esteem. Kanazawa's article is harmless in that its essentially just a man's attempt to put numbers behind his own opinions. However, his article is also dangerous because it gives credence to those who seek to belittle women of color and also because it harms the fragile self esteem of Black women who would heed his words.
PT cannot be blamed entirely for posting his piece, and I appreciate the removal, but the bigger issues of misusing science and racial bigotry do not go away by silencing Kanazawa, especially thanks to Google cache.
I am hurt by Kanazawa's article and I hope he finds more thoughtful and honest methods of expressing his own opinions.
A conscious and educated response!
Now, that ladies and gentlemen, in my humble opinion is a conscious and educated response to Satoshi! The world (from the vantage point of me) is much better for Takiyah Butler's words. Her "brand" of critical thinking is worth emulating. She is a "role model" worth copying. I have high standards for my "heroes". In my alternate reality (a much better place than this one) she is my "heroine." Spread her brand. Spread her meme.
I am not supporting anyone on
I am not supporting anyone on this blog, but if a black woman or black man have enough self respect for herself or himself, why get so easily offended by any negative remark about their black tribe.
WLIL is a great example of a Satoshi copycat meme
WLIL has extended his hook to see if anyone will bite. Shoo fly shoo!
Kelly Cash, in case you did
Kelly Cash, in case you did not notice it, you are just another one rude intolerant person that should shoo yourself off this blog.
See how you like it if i asked you to kindly shoo off.
I noticed it many moons ago
I'm a troll as are ALL of you (including Dr. Scotty!) The difference between my trolling ways and yours: My Kung Fu is better than yours! I might suggest everyone take good notes and learn from the Master!
Friends, we gather around this pile of "bullshit" like flies and vultures because Dr. Scotty, (with a keen eye for "bullshit" by the way), alerted us to an "injustice" and passed it on. This bullshit pile has a name: Racism. What a feast!
There is only one person in all this festivity that deserves the title of "King of this bullshit pile." It is Takiyah Butler. She expertly wielded the sword of "restorative justice". I suspect King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table are in her geneology.
For those of you who do not know what "restorative justice" is (as opposed to "adversarial justice") I give you a taste of nectar from the Gods:
Restorative justice is defined as:
… a broad term which encompasses a growing social movement to institutionalize peaceful approaches to harm, problem-solving and violations of legal and human rights. These range from international peacemaking tribunals such as the South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission to innovations within the criminal and juvenile justice systems, schools, social services and communities. Rather than privileging the law, professionals and the state, restorative resolutions engage those who are harmed, wrongdoers and their affected communities in search of solutions that promote repair, reconciliation and the rebuilding of relationships. Restorative justice seeks to build partnerships to reestablish mutual responsibility for constructive responses to wrongdoing within our communities. Restorative approaches seek a balanced approach to the needs of the victim, wrongdoer and community through processes that preserve the safety and dignity of all".
I wasn't joking when I advised you to take Takiyah Butler's example and run with it. She is a great "role model" for demonstrating the art of reparative justice.
I will oblige you now and take my leave of you. I will "shoo off". With a bow and curtsy, this narrator bids you adieu. I've heard it said, "The winner gets to write history". Before I go I will leave you with my opus because it is your story too! My completed masterpiece for your enjoyment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ0DXLm5pd4&feature=related
Welcome to Wonderland!
I am no fan of anyone. All I
I am no fan of anyone. All I was saying is why Black people or some people were so insulted by some negative comment about their black tribes or other tribes.
IT is uncivilised to force anyone to like anyone.
I am a bit worried about your
I am a bit worried about your use of the term tribe. What made you decide to use that term as opposed to any other synonym for group?
All people at some point are faced with negative comments, the problem is that often, for Blacks, there is no balance of positive and negative commentary. I think this outrage is greater than just this article and speaks to the consistent negative portrayals of and derogatory remarks toward Black women.
Black people criticised other
Black people criticised other tribes too. So, why did you implied that negative comments related to black tribes are derogatory?
Kelly Cash
Everyone,
Lesson #1 from Trolling 101: Don't feed the trolls. A person who is making a fool of himself, is just going to make you look like a fool, too, if he can get you to take him seriously.
Surprise surprise---there are trolls on this comment page
I guess it was inevitable; I can't say I'm shocked. Come on PT moderators---don't compound Kanazawa's transgression by letting trolls take over this comment thread.
The Kanazawa "Objective" Study
Obviously Psychology Today will publish ANYTHING so I am going to do a study that demonstrates that Satoshi Kanazawa is less attractive than everyone AND everything. I will compare his photograph with Halle Berry's, Brad Pitt's, Denzel Washington's, Lucy Liu's, and the photographs of other people of different ethnicities(objectively) considered attractive. I will also compare his photograph to pot bellied pigs, llamas and baby calves. Finally, I will compare his photograph to an iphone, a gamebox and a serving McDonald's Chicken McNuggets. I will use a sample of pubescent white boys and girls who are well known for their objectivity as my test subjects. My conclusion will be that this Asian male psychologist is less attractive than everyone and everything else on the earth. I know this because, like Kanazawa, I can use data to demonstrate my subjective, I mean objective personal feelings. My findings will also likely objectively conclude that racism makes people very unattractive. Will Psychology Today publish my study?
Hello ScottS I find great wisdom in this statement...
"...My findings will also likely objectively conclude that racism makes people very unattractive."
I enjoyed your satire. Well done. It made me smile.
I would like to tweek your statement (just a little...I hope you don't mind...and...Thank You for the handoff) to suite my cognitive biases and propaganda purposes:
Kelly's findings conclude that racism makes all people look and feel like very unattractive Trolls."
Response to Kanazawa theory
One factor is that studies have shown higher rates of obesity in lower income neighborhoods. And another fact is that in the US, blacks are more likely to live in lower income areas.
A study of attractiveness could compare people of similar income to adjust for this issue.
The deeply "religious" and
The deeply "religious" and the deeply "scientific" will probably be the last who will be willing to acknowledge as being limited by evolution. Prior to our boom in education in the 20th century certain types of thinkers would have been under the umbrella of religion as justification for their views. It's now expanded into science and the term "science" is used as a justification for poor logic skills. I am constantly amazed at the psychological similarities that many in religion and science have with each other at many levels.
designer bags
I am sure you will love for more detail to your friends