(Untitled)

[essentialsaltes]

Update on the physical attractiveness foofarah in the Add Health data. Scott Barry Kaufman takes a close look at the same data. Among his findings:
Kanazawa mentions several times that his data on attractiveness are scored "objectively". The ratings of attractiveness made by the interviewers show extremely large differences in terms of how

Comments

[hagdirt]

The ratings taken at Waves 3 and 4 correlated between raters even lower, at only .136-- even though the interviewees had reached adulthood by then and so are not expected to change in physical development as strongly as the teenagers.

I am vindicated in my disgust for the guy who told me I'd be "a knockout when I grew up!" when I was 18. Apparently, I was right in that it really wasn't going to get any better from there. (Well, it did get somewhat better, in that I no longer have to wear a Wendy's uniform at my job. That probably helps a lot.)

In less petty, self-absorbed news, isn't the dipshit who wrote the article being rightfully hung out to dry right about now? By, like, everyone?

http://www.themarysue.com/satoshi-kanazawa-lose-job/

[essentialsaltes]

Disgust requires no vindication! I suppose another way of looking at the data is that it really is an objective measure of beauty, but beauty varies *almost randomly* as one ages.

Yes, the dipshit is facing a lot of heat. In the interests of academic freedom, I'd hate to think he'll get shitcanned for reasoning and conclusions that are unpopular, but fortunately it appears that his reasoning and conclusions are faulty.