patrick.net

Buzzfeed?

I think you discovered the National inquire of the internet.
I promise to never respond to an article featured on Buzzfeed.
At least until CNN picks it up, as new found scientific research, then I'll have to give it some credit. Less the Liberals think I hate science.

You have to give Buzzfeed credit for publishing something no one else would touch out of fear, though.

Note that I'm not saying myself that black women are unattractive, just that it's a good example of polite yet politically incorrect speech being censored.

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/v/violent+femmes/black+girls_20144527.html

Violent Femmes are PC!

Wow, the author of that paper does not shy away from un-PC topics:

http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/

You have to give Buzzfeed credit for publishing something no one else would touch out of fear, though.

It's absolute rubbish though.

Beauty is beauty. All races have beauty and ugly.

At least black women have extra curves to augment their beauty. It could be argued their beauty can be the most beautiful in the world.
Though I'm a softy for short and Asian features my self.

Now men OTH, I think as long as your not an Asian male or a Middle eastern Male, then it's a draw straw contest. The biggest pecker wins.

I'll take Selma Hyek or Halle Barry over any current Caucasian offering.
And like I said I normally gravitate toward the Lucy Lu's.
But the two aforementioned stunning beauties blow Lucy away in looks.

Black chicks are hot! At least I think so...

Since the author admitted the science of his study was flawed and his conclusions were erronious, I hardly view that as censorship. Flawed studies are retracted all of the time, and this author disavowed his own study.

Besides, everyone knows the Irish have the most disgusting and repulsive women. The race would have ceased to exist eons ago if their men hadn't developed strong whiskey to dull the wretchedness of their reproduction.

bgamall4 says

Beauty is beauty and all races have beauty and ugly.

Sure, but the guy is saying there is a statistically significant and scientifically measurable difference of opinion in ratings of beauty by race.

He's saying there is a provable fact there. Maybe it's cultural, but it's very clear from his graphs.

Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq says

everyone knows the Irish have the most disgusting and repulsive women.

I was in Ireland last June, and have to say I generally wasn't all that impressed with Irish women, though the exceptions more than made up for the fairly low average level.

The GOP says

I'll take Selma Hyek or Halle Barry over any current Caucasian offering.
And like I said I normally gravitate toward the Lucy Lu's.
But the two aforementioned stunning beauties blow Lucy away in looks

Take in a summer in South of France one day... lots of hot Italian babes... there are some out there.

thomas.wong1986 says

Take in a summer in South of France one day... lots of hot Italian babes... there are some out there.

I don't have the emotional fortitude for European women.

I'd get bent out of shape the first time she came out of the shower nude and walked around the house while we had company.

I'd be showing up at a house party at some designers Mansion at 3a.m. reminding her that it's late.

I'd just end up felling like the "A" hole, apologizing for my behavior about her behavior that I refuse to tolerate.

Those sound like good problems to have.

Next: a scientific paper demonstrating that Jewish men are a bunch of annoying nebbishes

Speaking of PC bullshit, what of this sentence from the first linked article:

"Recall that women on average are more physically attractive than men".

What kind of bullshit statement is that? That's like saying that apples are more attractive, on average, than oranges. It is meaningless. Apples should be compared among apples and oranges among oranges.

Yeah, we all know what is really meant, although many people have not really thought through it. I'd express it in a different manner:

Women are valued for what they might do, and more so if they have not done it yet (how is that for some gender codespeak?)

Men are also to some extent valued for what they might do, or might be capable of, but even more valued for what they have already done or accomplished.

There is a certain way to describe experiments that is universally followed.
The problem is not that the author said that he saw interesting attitudes but he didn't say whom he surveyed, so we can see maybe whether there exists bias in the people surveyed.
For example, in some cultures slim is considered sexy, in others curvy. The ratio of women's hips to waist is the same in all cultures and times however.
If I were to do a beauty survey of "white women" and I first went to England or Ireland, I may say they are ugly. I was on Moscow once and they were not.
I can remember that in one year in England I saw fewer hot women than in several days in Moscow.
The same is going to be true for "black" women. Some women in Africa have what could be described as nearly asian facial features, while in places like Uganda they do not.
Another survey may ask many men percieve asian women as attractive and women think asian men are not. This is what several asian women have told me themselves. Think Gong Li and then Jet Li.
But if the guy wanted to explore the question and has an opinion, that's OK with me.

The linked article is not scientific by any means. It contains fundamental misconceptions that should have been caught by any competent peer review.

For example, look at the following sentence:

"For example, because they have existed much longer in human evolutionary history, Africans have more mutations in their genome that other races".

What is wrong here? Well, I do not know whether African's have a larger amount of mutations on the average, but since we all are descendants from the same roots one cannot claim that Africans have existed longer than the rest of the world. In a sense, we are all Africans.

One could perhaps come up with some other possible explanation (if indeed the original premise of a higher mutation count in Africans is correct), but claiming that Africans existed for a longer time certainly is not a valid explanation.

Actually, that claim is correct. The guy just didn't phrase it very well.

Since humans originated in Africa, there is much greater genetic diversity in Africa. When small groups left Africa and founded the white and Asian populations, the smallness of their founding groups limited the genetic diversity of the resulting populations. This happened repeatedly, with the American Indians having the lowest genetic diversity, since they are the farthest removed from Africa by this repeated process of branching off of small populations.

Africans do not have a higher mutation rate (mutations per year), but even with the same mutation rate as everyone else, they have accumulated much more genetic diversity (total mutations) just by staying in the same place the longest.

So you can indeed call Africans the "older" population, since they are the source of these other populations, and have some very ancient lineages which are not present in other populations. What you cannot do, however, is to lump all Africans together, since their huge genetic diversity means that African ethnic groups are genetically more different from each other than say, white people are from Asians. Even though all sub-Saharan Africans are black-skinned, that masks much deeper differences between them. Note that the tallest people in the world are in Africa (Tutsi) and the shortest (Pygmy). Probably every human biological range is greatest in Africa.

This also explains why there are so many top black athletes. It's not that all black people are good at sports, but with the largest genetic range, a few of them them are likely to be the best at pretty much any sport.

This is also true linguistically. Africa has an incredible array of native languages which mirror the genetic diversity.

A 10-year study published in 2009 analyzed the patterns of variation at 1,327 DNA markers of 121 African populations, 4 African American populations, and 60 non-African populations.[26][27] The research showed that there is more human genetic diversity in Africa than anywhere else on Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_genetic_diversity#Variation_and_native_populations

Perhaps what the author should have said is:

"the total number of surviving mutations per capita is larger in Africa than in any of the other continents"

Danaseb says

Never mind all the gold metal record breaking athletes born and raised in indigenous african communities.

Yes, you may want to read the article I cited above:

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/peak47.htm

bgamall4 says

BTW, we can't share websites with the button on our browsers anymore?

Sorry about that. Just go here:

http://patrick.net/link-submissions/

Then erase that old button from your toolbar and drag the new "Submit" link up there. Should work.