The Black Damsel In Dating Distress: A Response to OkCupid's Conclusions(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
The Black Damsel In Dating Distress: A Response to OkCupid's Conclusions
http://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2010/03/the-black-damsel-in-dating-distress/37085/
12 comments
The OkCupid blog post claims they were careful to control for attractiveness:
We were careful to preselect our data pool so that physical attractiveness (as measured by our site picture-rating utility) was roughly even across all the race/gender slices.
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2009/10/05/your-race-affec...
So even though guys were rating these black women to be as "attractive" as the non-black women in the sample, the black women were getting fewer responses from guys.
We were careful to preselect our data pool so that physical attractiveness (as measured by our site picture-rating utility) was roughly even across all the race/gender slices.
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2009/10/05/your-race-affec...
So even though guys were rating these black women to be as "attractive" as the non-black women in the sample, the black women were getting fewer responses from guys.
I stand corrected. Apparently OkCupid does a good job with their numbers.
If you take economic status into account, I'd bet that the difference is much smaller. I'd also bet that the distribution of economic status on OkCupid is more uniform among races than it is in society as a whole.
Which explains why it is so hard to get an Asian woman to reply to you, they must be inundated with messages, presuming of course that men don't prefer obese women.
Hard to believe that you're serious.
I don't see what's unserious about it. It's an incorrect explanation of the effect at work, but it was still a valuable comment.
The comment essentially said: "black women are fatter than white women, which is why they don't do as well on OKCupid."
That doesn't strike me as particularly serious or valuable, especially when a quick look at the OKCupid methodology would have ruled it out immediately.
That doesn't strike me as particularly serious or valuable, especially when a quick look at the OKCupid methodology would have ruled it out immediately.
The great thing about hacker news is that people aren't worried about voicing ideas backed up with data - even if in wider society you'd probably get denounced for it.
In this case the rationale was voiced, considered and then rejected - all correctly. If OKCupid had NOT filtered for that data would you consider the comment equally valueless?
This is a triumph of the scientific process IMO :)
In this case the rationale was voiced, considered and then rejected - all correctly. If OKCupid had NOT filtered for that data would you consider the comment equally valueless?
This is a triumph of the scientific process IMO :)
Heh, surprised that pointing out a dumb comment is gathering such a firestorm. Nothing against yummyfajitas but yes, this was a dumb comment: linking to some data doesn't change that one way or another.
The great thing about hacker news is that people aren't worried about voicing ideas backed up with data - even if in wider society you'd probably get denounced for it.
True. The problem is that if you're going to make an inflammatory argument, people are going to expect it to be well thought out. This particular one wasn't. Backing up one of your premises with data doesn't make the conclusions any more valid.
To me, the comment was so obviously flawed and inflammatory at the same time that it looked like nothing more than a troll, implying that OKCupid is censoring the real reason for the apparent bias against black women on the site: they're just fat. Think about the argument for a second: it claimed that a pairwise comparison between black women and white women could explain black women's poor response rate as compared to all races. That doesn't make any sense.
If OKCupid had NOT filtered for that data would you consider the comment equally valueless?
Clearly not equally valueless, but still pretty dumb, given the reason above, and equally inflammatory.
This is a triumph of the scientific process IMO :)
I agree.
The great thing about hacker news is that people aren't worried about voicing ideas backed up with data - even if in wider society you'd probably get denounced for it.
True. The problem is that if you're going to make an inflammatory argument, people are going to expect it to be well thought out. This particular one wasn't. Backing up one of your premises with data doesn't make the conclusions any more valid.
To me, the comment was so obviously flawed and inflammatory at the same time that it looked like nothing more than a troll, implying that OKCupid is censoring the real reason for the apparent bias against black women on the site: they're just fat. Think about the argument for a second: it claimed that a pairwise comparison between black women and white women could explain black women's poor response rate as compared to all races. That doesn't make any sense.
If OKCupid had NOT filtered for that data would you consider the comment equally valueless?
Clearly not equally valueless, but still pretty dumb, given the reason above, and equally inflammatory.
This is a triumph of the scientific process IMO :)
I agree.
> The problem is that if you're going to make an inflammatory argument
It's not really inflammatory. The statistics say black women are generally more obese. It's just another suggestion for the difference in responses (which has been established as being wrong for the statistics OKCupid are using - it could still be generally accurate..)
> implying that OKCupid is censoring the real reason for the apparent bias against black women on the site: they're just fat.
Nah.. I can't see any suggestion that OKCupid was censoring information? I think he means the blog post this links too.
Also: there is not implication that "they're just fat". Apparently statistically Black women are more obese than White women (I assume those are US stats); it's a reasonable suggestion that the OKCupid community mirrors wider society.
> it claimed that a pairwise comparison between black women and white women could explain black women's poor response rate as compared to all races. That doesn't make any sense.
Well we are mostly comparing this to the response rates of white women (at least that's how I am reading all of this) so I see no problem in the conclusion. White women have the highest response rate so it makes logical sense to use them as the comparison point. If we want to consider other races, such as Hispanic, then, yes, we would need the data for them too (who knows; it could match or it could mismatch - therein is the beauty of statistics).
It's not really inflammatory. The statistics say black women are generally more obese. It's just another suggestion for the difference in responses (which has been established as being wrong for the statistics OKCupid are using - it could still be generally accurate..)
> implying that OKCupid is censoring the real reason for the apparent bias against black women on the site: they're just fat.
Nah.. I can't see any suggestion that OKCupid was censoring information? I think he means the blog post this links too.
Also: there is not implication that "they're just fat". Apparently statistically Black women are more obese than White women (I assume those are US stats); it's a reasonable suggestion that the OKCupid community mirrors wider society.
> it claimed that a pairwise comparison between black women and white women could explain black women's poor response rate as compared to all races. That doesn't make any sense.
Well we are mostly comparing this to the response rates of white women (at least that's how I am reading all of this) so I see no problem in the conclusion. White women have the highest response rate so it makes logical sense to use them as the comparison point. If we want to consider other races, such as Hispanic, then, yes, we would need the data for them too (who knows; it could match or it could mismatch - therein is the beauty of statistics).
I freely admit, I should have gone back and reread OKCupid's original post. I didn't, and that's my mistake.
But I'm really curious about something. You say that if OKCupid had not filtered their data for attractiveness, my comment would still be "pretty dumb". Could you explain why?
But I'm really curious about something. You say that if OKCupid had not filtered their data for attractiveness, my comment would still be "pretty dumb". Could you explain why?
You say that if OKCupid had not filtered their data for attractiveness, my comment would still be "pretty dumb". Could you explain why?
Sure, here's the one reason I referred to:
Think about the argument for a second: it claimed that a pairwise comparison between black women and white women could explain black women's poor response rate as compared to all races. That doesn't make any sense.
For instance, your explanation that black women are more obese than white women doesn't explain why black women do worse than latinas.
Sure, here's the one reason I referred to:
Think about the argument for a second: it claimed that a pairwise comparison between black women and white women could explain black women's poor response rate as compared to all races. That doesn't make any sense.
For instance, your explanation that black women are more obese than white women doesn't explain why black women do worse than latinas.
Expecting people to both read the linked article as well as go back and re-read the original post is a lot to ask. I definitely didn't, and I also forgot that OkCupid had already ruled out that factor. The comment was a hypothesis backed with data, which I consider serious and valuable.
It's more parsimonious to just assume that black women have fewer options.
Black men between 20 and 34 (prime mate-choosing years) have an 11% incarceration rate. The unemployment rate and median income among (unincarcerated) black men is also low. So black women are more likely to need to look for people of a different racial background.
That means that if everyone has a slight bias towards their own ethnic group, it's going to hit black women the hardest. (It would be a pretty strange mutation if you didn't have that bias.)
Thus, they have to try the hardest, and have the least to show for it.
Or they're on Ebony Elite.
Black men between 20 and 34 (prime mate-choosing years) have an 11% incarceration rate. The unemployment rate and median income among (unincarcerated) black men is also low. So black women are more likely to need to look for people of a different racial background.
That means that if everyone has a slight bias towards their own ethnic group, it's going to hit black women the hardest. (It would be a pretty strange mutation if you didn't have that bias.)
Thus, they have to try the hardest, and have the least to show for it.
Or they're on Ebony Elite.
(It would be a pretty strange mutation if you didn't have that bias.)
Humorously enough:
I have one of the most common white genetic disorders on the planet. It is homozygous recessive, so daddy has to contribute a gene for it to be passed on. The odds of someone who is neither white nor ethnically Jewish carrying the gene are substantially lower than the odds of a white man carrying it. I have tended towards getting involved with non-whites post-divorce, in part because the idea of having a second child with this disorder is one of my worst nightmares. I have already raised one child with it and he is remarkably healthy. But he and I have a relatively mild form of it. Having a second child with the disorder by a different father might mean having a sicker child.
So it really does give me pause when some white man starts making eyes at me. And I'm mostly Irish-German, so I'm quite pale. Close friends who know my situation have joked about getting me a t-shirt "to go clubbing" (which I don't do) which says something nasty and discriminatory, like "No white meat". I don't automatically rule out white men, but, yes, I do in fact have a "strange mutation" which does actually give me a bias in the opposite direction.
:-D
Humorously enough:
I have one of the most common white genetic disorders on the planet. It is homozygous recessive, so daddy has to contribute a gene for it to be passed on. The odds of someone who is neither white nor ethnically Jewish carrying the gene are substantially lower than the odds of a white man carrying it. I have tended towards getting involved with non-whites post-divorce, in part because the idea of having a second child with this disorder is one of my worst nightmares. I have already raised one child with it and he is remarkably healthy. But he and I have a relatively mild form of it. Having a second child with the disorder by a different father might mean having a sicker child.
So it really does give me pause when some white man starts making eyes at me. And I'm mostly Irish-German, so I'm quite pale. Close friends who know my situation have joked about getting me a t-shirt "to go clubbing" (which I don't do) which says something nasty and discriminatory, like "No white meat". I don't automatically rule out white men, but, yes, I do in fact have a "strange mutation" which does actually give me a bias in the opposite direction.
:-D
...It might be awkward to ask someone to have a DNA screening at the point when dating got serious, but it might also be worth your time.
A) I'm not asking for advice, just sharing something I found humorous in the context of the remark made.
B) If you will notice, I said nothing about dating. I don't date. I don't plan on having that change.
C) Given that initial testing failed to turn up my mutations, that my diagnosis (of a mild variant of the condition) is new-ish and was quite cutting edge when I got it, that they keep finding more mutations for this condition, and that I have spoken to a number of people who had to be retested after more mutations were identified to finally get theirs properly cataloged, I am of the opinion that DNA testing can confirm someone is a risk but cannot prove with 100% certainty that someone is "safe". Therefore, a bias towards men who are not of predominantly white European genealogy may be the only real insurance that can be had.
D) The answer "I've had a vasectomy" works just fine for me. I am 44 years old and have serious health issues. So I have no specific plans to have more children. But my first child was not planned either and I am not past menopause. Sh*t happens. That's the piece that concerns me.
But thanks for talking to me. That's almost always a Good Thing. :-D
B) If you will notice, I said nothing about dating. I don't date. I don't plan on having that change.
C) Given that initial testing failed to turn up my mutations, that my diagnosis (of a mild variant of the condition) is new-ish and was quite cutting edge when I got it, that they keep finding more mutations for this condition, and that I have spoken to a number of people who had to be retested after more mutations were identified to finally get theirs properly cataloged, I am of the opinion that DNA testing can confirm someone is a risk but cannot prove with 100% certainty that someone is "safe". Therefore, a bias towards men who are not of predominantly white European genealogy may be the only real insurance that can be had.
D) The answer "I've had a vasectomy" works just fine for me. I am 44 years old and have serious health issues. So I have no specific plans to have more children. But my first child was not planned either and I am not past menopause. Sh*t happens. That's the piece that concerns me.
But thanks for talking to me. That's almost always a Good Thing. :-D
Using broad statistics to say that black women have fewer options may not be the right approach. Black women who use the Internet and OKCupid are probably far less likely to have incarcerated, unemployed men in their social circles. If you look at dating sites in general, there aren't many users who live in dangerous or poor areas.
Ignoring those statistics doesn't help, either. Maybe a lot of people working on the Netflix prize said "But maybe IMDB and Netflix target a completely different audience." But those people didn't win.
It would be a pretty strange mutation if you didn't have that bias
Since this is potentially a sensitive subject, I'll preface my question with the assertion that I'm not offended, just curious.
I have no such bias; why do you consider it a "strange mutation?"
Since this is potentially a sensitive subject, I'll preface my question with the assertion that I'm not offended, just curious.
I have no such bias; why do you consider it a "strange mutation?"
I would imagine that the argument of GP is roughly: Suppose in a population at a certain time, 2 simple genetics based traits suddenly become available (visible/detectable) during mate selection.
Trait A has the property that whether you have or don't have a particular expresion of it, you seek mates in the same condition.
Trait B has the property that you randomly select mates without regard to their trait B status matching yours.
Trait A would tend to persist or even be amplified throughout generations, while trait B would be dispersed and become less obvious over generations.
Given the obviousness of race during mate selection, and the fact that the human race as a whole has not homogenized in that dimension, I would say that there is some non-trivial natural preference among humans to pick "like" when seeking mates.
(There are of course obvious flaws in the above thinking, the most obvious I can think of being that societal mobility has only in the last few hundred years made it reasonably practical to date outside the local area in which you were born. I do however think that there's a genetic basis for "birds of a feather" in mate selection, and that that doesn't imply the root cause is an undesirable form of racism.)
Trait A has the property that whether you have or don't have a particular expresion of it, you seek mates in the same condition.
Trait B has the property that you randomly select mates without regard to their trait B status matching yours.
Trait A would tend to persist or even be amplified throughout generations, while trait B would be dispersed and become less obvious over generations.
Given the obviousness of race during mate selection, and the fact that the human race as a whole has not homogenized in that dimension, I would say that there is some non-trivial natural preference among humans to pick "like" when seeking mates.
(There are of course obvious flaws in the above thinking, the most obvious I can think of being that societal mobility has only in the last few hundred years made it reasonably practical to date outside the local area in which you were born. I do however think that there's a genetic basis for "birds of a feather" in mate selection, and that that doesn't imply the root cause is an undesirable form of racism.)
Sokoloff's post pretty much nails it, but I'll add that it's not just about sex. Before the invention of trade, there was basically no way for one tribe of humans to profitably interact with another tribe. So anyone who has the trait "Treat my genetic relatives (my tribe) nicely; be hostile to anyone who looks different," will have more material success (and more kids) than someone with another set of genes.
Give civilization another couple thousand years, and this might change. But if you look at the results of the Implicit Association Test, and the continued popularity of ethnic conflict, you've gotta assume that evolution has a big lead on political correctness.
By the way, have you taken the implicit association test? I highly recommend it for those of us who aren't biased. It's often illuminating.
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/
Give civilization another couple thousand years, and this might change. But if you look at the results of the Implicit Association Test, and the continued popularity of ethnic conflict, you've gotta assume that evolution has a big lead on political correctness.
By the way, have you taken the implicit association test? I highly recommend it for those of us who aren't biased. It's often illuminating.
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/
That's because all the black men who don't want to date white women are on the African American Dating Network or Blacksinglesconnection. There simply is no real white corollary. Stormfront excluded, there aren't many "WhiteSingles" websites or "EliteIvory" dating sites. There is no Caucasian Dating Network, because the broader world is the Caucasian Dating Network. [..]
Disagree. The reason there are no popular white-focused dating sites is because they would be hounded or sued out of business! It's "racist" for white people to congregate on a race-dependent basis, but acceptable for people of other races. I guess it's our payback for our ancestors being idiots in the distant past.
That said, I think racial segregation is a "problem" (though it's not always "racist", per se). The existence of dating sites exclusively for certain races is the issue here.
We need to go one way or the other. We ignore race and discourage its use as a demographic tool, or we celebrate it and allow people to silo as they see fit. Our society seems to have mostly chosen to ignore race and consider it a non-issue, so "Blacksinglesconnection" or "EliteNoire" (Are you shitting me? This really exists?) should be as distasteful to our society as a hypothetical "Whitesinglesconnection" would be.
Disagree. The reason there are no popular white-focused dating sites is because they would be hounded or sued out of business! It's "racist" for white people to congregate on a race-dependent basis, but acceptable for people of other races. I guess it's our payback for our ancestors being idiots in the distant past.
That said, I think racial segregation is a "problem" (though it's not always "racist", per se). The existence of dating sites exclusively for certain races is the issue here.
We need to go one way or the other. We ignore race and discourage its use as a demographic tool, or we celebrate it and allow people to silo as they see fit. Our society seems to have mostly chosen to ignore race and consider it a non-issue, so "Blacksinglesconnection" or "EliteNoire" (Are you shitting me? This really exists?) should be as distasteful to our society as a hypothetical "Whitesinglesconnection" would be.
When your race makes up 13% of the larger population, the economics for a niche dating site will work out. At 75%, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Also, I can't speak from any racial perspective than that of a white man, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to date a woman who joined a whites-only dating site, and most of the women I've dated or been interested in dating haven't been white anyway.
Here's the thing: Publicly racist white-supremacists are almost always poor, ignorant, and ugly.* Any video you see of the KKK will have some yokel standing in front of a trailer (hilarious amount of garbage strewn across the yard included), overdue for a shave and a shower, proclaiming the greatness of a race he barely belongs to.
I know more than a few racist doctors, lawyers, and architects, but they wouldn't go within miles of a racist organization. Those people just aren't of the same class. It's also an enormous waste of time.
So is your issue the fact that they're racist, or the fact that they're underclass racists? There is a distinction to be made.
Does exclusively dating white people make you racist if you are in no other way racist? I know a girl from New Zealand who is greatly offended by racist remarks and attitudes, but who would never actually date someone outside her race. I suppose that no more makes you racist than not dating men makes you a homophobe (if you're a man, obviously).
*Go read stormfront sometime, it'll disturb you, regardless of how racist you may or may not be, and you'll discover the underclass that I speak of. Erudition & social refinement do not exist there.
I know more than a few racist doctors, lawyers, and architects, but they wouldn't go within miles of a racist organization. Those people just aren't of the same class. It's also an enormous waste of time.
So is your issue the fact that they're racist, or the fact that they're underclass racists? There is a distinction to be made.
Does exclusively dating white people make you racist if you are in no other way racist? I know a girl from New Zealand who is greatly offended by racist remarks and attitudes, but who would never actually date someone outside her race. I suppose that no more makes you racist than not dating men makes you a homophobe (if you're a man, obviously).
*Go read stormfront sometime, it'll disturb you, regardless of how racist you may or may not be, and you'll discover the underclass that I speak of. Erudition & social refinement do not exist there.
Why is that? Would you refuse to date a Jewish woman who had signed up on Jdate? (Assume you met her outside of Jdate.)
I think people draw a distinction, valid or not, between "looking for similar people" and "excluding different people." The former is seen as more acceptable. For a group that is a small percentage of the population, a niche dating site is acceptable because it helps them find other people in that group. For a group that is a large percentage of the population, any generic dating site will help them find other people in the same group, so a niche site only makes sense as a tool of exclusion.
I'm not Jewish, so her willingness to date me would indicate that she's fairly open-minded.
However, I think it's different when it's a "white people only" site because "white" isn't really an ethnicity or a single culture, so a person who would sign up for such a site is indicating an interest in skin color/race on its own, which is a bit crass. I don't have a problem with someone who is Jewish who wants to date only people who grew up in the same tradition (although I'm obviously not a match for her). For contrast, "white" isn't a culture or ethnicity; it's just a skin color. I have nothing in common with most people who would be identified as "white".
However, I think it's different when it's a "white people only" site because "white" isn't really an ethnicity or a single culture, so a person who would sign up for such a site is indicating an interest in skin color/race on its own, which is a bit crass. I don't have a problem with someone who is Jewish who wants to date only people who grew up in the same tradition (although I'm obviously not a match for her). For contrast, "white" isn't a culture or ethnicity; it's just a skin color. I have nothing in common with most people who would be identified as "white".
because "white" isn't really an ethnicity or a single culture
I know you're focusing on the "Jewish" route, but neither is "black" by that benchmark. Some guy from the middle of the Sudan shares as little (or less) cultural or ethnic heritage with a black guy of Jamaican descent living in Los Angeles.. as an average white Russian does with an average white American.
"Black" means as many things as "white" does. "Jewish" does too, though not to quite as wide a gamut (but compare a black Ethiopian Jew to a Zionist from the Jewish Autonomous Oblast - the shared "culture" or "ethnicity" there is stretched almost to breaking point away from religion).
I know you're focusing on the "Jewish" route, but neither is "black" by that benchmark. Some guy from the middle of the Sudan shares as little (or less) cultural or ethnic heritage with a black guy of Jamaican descent living in Los Angeles.. as an average white Russian does with an average white American.
"Black" means as many things as "white" does. "Jewish" does too, though not to quite as wide a gamut (but compare a black Ethiopian Jew to a Zionist from the Jewish Autonomous Oblast - the shared "culture" or "ethnicity" there is stretched almost to breaking point away from religion).
Since we're vaguely on the topic of 'identity', and hopefully deeply enough in a thread not to be in anyone else's way, I'll toss in an offtopic reaction to 'pw0ncakes'.
In this thread and others, your comments are solid and intelligent. I want to vote them up. But your username throws me: it's probably intended as parody, but for me it still signifies irreverent 'script-kiddie', whether ironic or not.
So while you're welcome to choose your own online identity, and while other people might be better able to disassociate your content from your username, you might want to consider whether your chosen name sends the message you want to be sending.
If it already does, well, more power to you! Apologies for the impropriety.
In this thread and others, your comments are solid and intelligent. I want to vote them up. But your username throws me: it's probably intended as parody, but for me it still signifies irreverent 'script-kiddie', whether ironic or not.
So while you're welcome to choose your own online identity, and while other people might be better able to disassociate your content from your username, you might want to consider whether your chosen name sends the message you want to be sending.
If it already does, well, more power to you! Apologies for the impropriety.
If you're interested, I've written a Greasemonkey script at < http://userscripts.org/scripts/review/67722 > to remove usernames. I find they add unnecessary sources of potential bias to what are otherwise relatively anonymous comments.
If he's trying to sell his start-up, then maybe he should pick a different name (and even then, it really wouldn't bother me)
But he hasn't got a link in his profile, nor is he self-posting, so why should he care what message he's sending?
But he hasn't got a link in his profile, nor is he self-posting, so why should he care what message he's sending?
I guess we can keep on refining this. I know secular Jews who were raised by secular parents, who have jdate profiles.
What if, e.g., you're Norwegian and she's Polish, and she joins PoleDate.com. She obviously wants to date white people, but she's also open-minded enough to date a strange Northern barbarian.
If people who identify as various shades of not-white all have something in common, it would be unlikely for people who identify as white not to. Stuffwhitepeoplelike isn't Stuffblackpeopleandhispanicpeopleandasiansdontlike.
What if, e.g., you're Norwegian and she's Polish, and she joins PoleDate.com. She obviously wants to date white people, but she's also open-minded enough to date a strange Northern barbarian.
If people who identify as various shades of not-white all have something in common, it would be unlikely for people who identify as white not to. Stuffwhitepeoplelike isn't Stuffblackpeopleandhispanicpeopleandasiansdontlike.
Er, stuffwhitepeoplelike is supposed to be funny precisely because there is no stereotype of what white people really like, isn't it?
I don't think so. In some conservative circles "SWPLs" is a shorthand for "White people who like sushi and NPR (and decry racism despite living in gated communities)".
Common misconception: Gates don't keep black/colored people out, they keep poor people out.
In my experience, modulo cleaning staff that's the same thing.
I thought that abbreviation was particular to the MRA scene.
Just because they are on a white people only site doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't open minded. I might, but it could just as well be that they are attempting to broaden their exposure simply by visiting more sites. It's possible that 'whites only' dating site would attract a wealthier demographic, which would make it an attractive place to look for a partner even if one wasn't especially racist..
Why should it be hideous?
Let me try an analogy. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal in a lot of places, and seen as equally bad as discrimination based on race.
But there are plenty of dating sites that are exclusively targeted to gay men or lesbian women. If you think that race segregating dating sites are bad, then what are dating sites that segregate on sexual orientation? Are they also bad?
But a gay dating site that didn't segregate on sexual orientation would be completely useless! And to the extent gay men are members of non-segregating dating sites, they will definitely filter out all the women and be filtered out by all the straight men, so in essence they would self-segregate.
We have anti-discrimination laws because race or gender or sexual orientation are irrelevant in some areas, such as the ability to perform a job. That's why it's illegal to deny a job applicant based on those attributes.
But when it comes to dating, those attributes are relevant! Incredibly relevant! Everyone has preferences when it comes to dating, and it not racist to only date people of one's own race. It is not sexist to only date people of one's preferred gender. It is not bad to want to date people that share your culture, your religion, your world view.
It is not bad or distasteful to have segregated dating sites.
Let me try an analogy. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal in a lot of places, and seen as equally bad as discrimination based on race.
But there are plenty of dating sites that are exclusively targeted to gay men or lesbian women. If you think that race segregating dating sites are bad, then what are dating sites that segregate on sexual orientation? Are they also bad?
But a gay dating site that didn't segregate on sexual orientation would be completely useless! And to the extent gay men are members of non-segregating dating sites, they will definitely filter out all the women and be filtered out by all the straight men, so in essence they would self-segregate.
We have anti-discrimination laws because race or gender or sexual orientation are irrelevant in some areas, such as the ability to perform a job. That's why it's illegal to deny a job applicant based on those attributes.
But when it comes to dating, those attributes are relevant! Incredibly relevant! Everyone has preferences when it comes to dating, and it not racist to only date people of one's own race. It is not sexist to only date people of one's preferred gender. It is not bad to want to date people that share your culture, your religion, your world view.
It is not bad or distasteful to have segregated dating sites.
First, if race-specific dating sites aren't offensive to you (and to me, they ARE) then why not race-specific bars? Or race-specific public transport?
But there are plenty of dating sites that are exclusively targeted to gay men or lesbian women. If you think that race segregating dating sites are bad, then what are dating sites that segregate on sexual orientation? Are they also bad?
No, because dating is entirely about sexual orientation. Straight men date straight women. Gay men date gay men. And so on. When it comes to race, however, that argument doesn't hold up.
There's no biological reason for a straight man to date a gay man. There's also no biological reason, however, for a straight white man to avoid non-white women. If one has a personal preference, that's OK to exercise passively, but holing yourself up in a segregated community is rather anachronistic.
If there should be racially based dating sites, should there be bars/leisure facilities/supermarkets for white/black people to hang out who don't like being in the company of people of other races? My opinion is "hell no", but if you disagree, well that's your opinion.
(I'm sure people have dated folks with incompatible sexual preferences in the past, but that's pretty much incompatible with the whole idea of dating.)
But there are plenty of dating sites that are exclusively targeted to gay men or lesbian women. If you think that race segregating dating sites are bad, then what are dating sites that segregate on sexual orientation? Are they also bad?
No, because dating is entirely about sexual orientation. Straight men date straight women. Gay men date gay men. And so on. When it comes to race, however, that argument doesn't hold up.
There's no biological reason for a straight man to date a gay man. There's also no biological reason, however, for a straight white man to avoid non-white women. If one has a personal preference, that's OK to exercise passively, but holing yourself up in a segregated community is rather anachronistic.
If there should be racially based dating sites, should there be bars/leisure facilities/supermarkets for white/black people to hang out who don't like being in the company of people of other races? My opinion is "hell no", but if you disagree, well that's your opinion.
(I'm sure people have dated folks with incompatible sexual preferences in the past, but that's pretty much incompatible with the whole idea of dating.)
First, if race-specific dating sites aren't offensive to you (and to me, they ARE) then why not race-specific bars? Or race-specific public transport?
Because wanting to fuck someone is different than being willing to share a bus with them. Relationships are the deepest and most personal human activity, and that activity is vastly different from public infrastructure (public transit, stores, bars, etc.)
Because wanting to fuck someone is different than being willing to share a bus with them. Relationships are the deepest and most personal human activity, and that activity is vastly different from public infrastructure (public transit, stores, bars, etc.)
It's more ethically acceptable to discriminate racially when it's about really serious stuff?
There's a vast gulf between saying "I prefer white/black people and tend to only look for that type I prefer" and saying "I will ONLY date white/black people so gimme a whites/blacks only dating site."
I tend to work better (in an employment sense) with men, but I'd never dream of using a "men only" employment/freelance site or similar as there are some women who've turned out to be awesome to work with. I wouldn't let my personal preferences draw me into the tunnel vision of blind discrimination.
There's a vast gulf between saying "I prefer white/black people and tend to only look for that type I prefer" and saying "I will ONLY date white/black people so gimme a whites/blacks only dating site."
I tend to work better (in an employment sense) with men, but I'd never dream of using a "men only" employment/freelance site or similar as there are some women who've turned out to be awesome to work with. I wouldn't let my personal preferences draw me into the tunnel vision of blind discrimination.
I am only speculating, as I am not into single-race dating sites (and for some reason, have never seriously dated anyone of the same race; but that's coincidence, not preference). But I think the issue is that there is absolutely no rational reason why you could possibly not want to share a public space with someone of a different race. When you're on the train, you don't have to interact, you just have to sit there. So the fact that other people are there is irrelevant, which makes their race even more irrelevant.
Dating is different, you are going to be spending most of your time with this person, and you are going to be putting parts of your body into parts of theirs. It would be nice if everyone was so enlightened as to not care about race, but there is 10,000+ years of evolutionary pressure pushing things the other direction. So while I wouldn't limit myself to one race, I am not going to look down on people who do. What matters about "racism" is not what you think, it's how you act. You may hate all $foo people, but if you hire a $foo person because he is more qualified than the $bar people, you've done your duty to society. Who you choose to fuck, though, is less important to society as a whole, and your deeper thoughts become more acceptable to act on.
Basically, it doesn't hurt anyone to discriminate against who you date. There are 5.9999 billion other people the person you discriminated against can date. But if you open a public establishment that only white people are allowed to visit, then you are hurting thousands of people that don't have the option to just go somewhere else (geographical reasons or otherwise). Harming other people is what's bad. If you don't harm anyone, then you aren't doing anything wrong. (Sure, it's bad if you walk past a dying person and don't help them. But it's not as bad as shoving your knife into them and taking their wallet.)
Dating is different, you are going to be spending most of your time with this person, and you are going to be putting parts of your body into parts of theirs. It would be nice if everyone was so enlightened as to not care about race, but there is 10,000+ years of evolutionary pressure pushing things the other direction. So while I wouldn't limit myself to one race, I am not going to look down on people who do. What matters about "racism" is not what you think, it's how you act. You may hate all $foo people, but if you hire a $foo person because he is more qualified than the $bar people, you've done your duty to society. Who you choose to fuck, though, is less important to society as a whole, and your deeper thoughts become more acceptable to act on.
Basically, it doesn't hurt anyone to discriminate against who you date. There are 5.9999 billion other people the person you discriminated against can date. But if you open a public establishment that only white people are allowed to visit, then you are hurting thousands of people that don't have the option to just go somewhere else (geographical reasons or otherwise). Harming other people is what's bad. If you don't harm anyone, then you aren't doing anything wrong. (Sure, it's bad if you walk past a dying person and don't help them. But it's not as bad as shoving your knife into them and taking their wallet.)
Suppose you are the last person to get on a train before it reaches capacity. You are more likely to interact with someone who is on the same train than someone who isn't. If you prefer to interact with people of the same race, you would be better off if your train had been restricted to only people of your race. Similar logic applies to a full bar or any workplace. If you prefer to date people of a certain race, you also prefer to interact with people of that race compared to others of your desired gender since less intimate interactions are a prerequisite for dating.
"It would be nice if everyone was so enlightened as to not care about race, but there is 10,000+ years of evolutionary pressure pushing things the other direction."
No such pressure exists. Cross-breeding is usually evolutionarily advantageous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vigor
"There are 5.9999 billion other people the person you discriminated against can date."
The same exact logic applies to jobs. Sure, the job you get may not pay as much or might not be in the location you would prefer, but the mate you end up with might not make as much money or be nearby either. Eliminating potential mates from consideration based on their race is just as bad as throwing out the resumes of an entire race because you think they're not likely to be qualified for the job. It does hurt people. Mating is a market just like everything else in life, and if you reduce demand for someone's product due to something as arbitrary as melanin level, then you're reducing their equilibrium price and requiring them to make more compromises when it comes to choosing a mate.
No one expects you to sleep with someone just to give them a helping hand, but that shouldn't be expected with jobs either.
"It would be nice if everyone was so enlightened as to not care about race, but there is 10,000+ years of evolutionary pressure pushing things the other direction."
No such pressure exists. Cross-breeding is usually evolutionarily advantageous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vigor
"There are 5.9999 billion other people the person you discriminated against can date."
The same exact logic applies to jobs. Sure, the job you get may not pay as much or might not be in the location you would prefer, but the mate you end up with might not make as much money or be nearby either. Eliminating potential mates from consideration based on their race is just as bad as throwing out the resumes of an entire race because you think they're not likely to be qualified for the job. It does hurt people. Mating is a market just like everything else in life, and if you reduce demand for someone's product due to something as arbitrary as melanin level, then you're reducing their equilibrium price and requiring them to make more compromises when it comes to choosing a mate.
No one expects you to sleep with someone just to give them a helping hand, but that shouldn't be expected with jobs either.
If one has a personal preference, that's OK to exercise passively, but holing yourself up in a segregated community is rather anachronistic.
You clearly do not belong to any minority, because if you did, you would understand how incredibly nice it is to be in an environment where you're not. A lot of people that belong to a minority clearly see value in services that target their niche, and it's very difficult to explain this to people that don't.
There is an ocean of difference between targeting a niche, and discriminating a group. A race-specific bar, i.e. one that targets a race or culture or nationality or sexuality is perfectly ok. Denying service to a group is not ok, that's discrimination, but that's not what we're talking about here. The niche dating sites we were discussing aren't discriminating, they're targeting a niche, and that has to be ok.
No, because dating is entirely about sexual orientation. Straight men date straight women. Gay men date gay men. And so on. When it comes to race, however, that argument doesn't hold up.
Yes it does, because dating is about physical attraction for most people, and unless you are extremely desperate, you have physical preferences. Some people likes blondes. Some people like brunettes. Some people like black hair. Is that bad? Some people like whites, some people like blacks, some people like asians. Is that bad? Is that racism? Should we condemn it? How?!?
And since some people have those preferences, why not have niche dating sites that caters to them?
You clearly do not belong to any minority, because if you did, you would understand how incredibly nice it is to be in an environment where you're not. A lot of people that belong to a minority clearly see value in services that target their niche, and it's very difficult to explain this to people that don't.
There is an ocean of difference between targeting a niche, and discriminating a group. A race-specific bar, i.e. one that targets a race or culture or nationality or sexuality is perfectly ok. Denying service to a group is not ok, that's discrimination, but that's not what we're talking about here. The niche dating sites we were discussing aren't discriminating, they're targeting a niche, and that has to be ok.
No, because dating is entirely about sexual orientation. Straight men date straight women. Gay men date gay men. And so on. When it comes to race, however, that argument doesn't hold up.
Yes it does, because dating is about physical attraction for most people, and unless you are extremely desperate, you have physical preferences. Some people likes blondes. Some people like brunettes. Some people like black hair. Is that bad? Some people like whites, some people like blacks, some people like asians. Is that bad? Is that racism? Should we condemn it? How?!?
And since some people have those preferences, why not have niche dating sites that caters to them?
You clearly do not belong to any minority
Unless you're demographically perfect in some way, everyone belongs to a minority in some way or another. I'm a rare southerner in a northern town - I don't want to socialize with "other" southerners, because that has nothing to do with my identity. I don't see a need to fraternize with people who are "like" me, beyond sharing a language and them not being religious nutcases.
The niche dating sites we were discussing aren't discriminating, they're targeting a niche, and that has to be ok.
Even when they say things like "exclusively for black people" (e.g. http://allblackdating.com/)?
Some people likes blondes. Some people like brunettes. Some people like black hair. Is that bad?
You can exercise preferences within open systems. It doesn't require discriminatory silos. The concept of a dating site "exclusively for blondes" is as ridiculous as a dating site "exclusively for whites." If you have preferences (and, sure, we all do) you can filter and exercise those within larger, non discriminatory systems like OKCupid.
Some people like whites, some people like blacks, some people like asians. Is that bad? Is that racism?
Often. If I didn't want to hire an Asian because I didn't "like Asians", that would be racist. If I didn't like a particular Asian for some reason, that's not (necessarily) racist.
I understand that people might have preferences on the race of people they date, but closing their minds to even seeing people of other races come up on their dating site sends a bad signal.
Unless you're demographically perfect in some way, everyone belongs to a minority in some way or another. I'm a rare southerner in a northern town - I don't want to socialize with "other" southerners, because that has nothing to do with my identity. I don't see a need to fraternize with people who are "like" me, beyond sharing a language and them not being religious nutcases.
The niche dating sites we were discussing aren't discriminating, they're targeting a niche, and that has to be ok.
Even when they say things like "exclusively for black people" (e.g. http://allblackdating.com/)?
Some people likes blondes. Some people like brunettes. Some people like black hair. Is that bad?
You can exercise preferences within open systems. It doesn't require discriminatory silos. The concept of a dating site "exclusively for blondes" is as ridiculous as a dating site "exclusively for whites." If you have preferences (and, sure, we all do) you can filter and exercise those within larger, non discriminatory systems like OKCupid.
Some people like whites, some people like blacks, some people like asians. Is that bad? Is that racism?
Often. If I didn't want to hire an Asian because I didn't "like Asians", that would be racist. If I didn't like a particular Asian for some reason, that's not (necessarily) racist.
I understand that people might have preferences on the race of people they date, but closing their minds to even seeing people of other races come up on their dating site sends a bad signal.
I don't think everyone finds it "incredibly nice". There is strong social pressure from a lot of minority groups for people who "belong" to the group to conform to certain social expectations with regard to the group. If they don't, they're often seen as essentially race traitors, and there's lots of abuse directed at them. This is even true for non-physically-noticeable subgroups, e.g. Russian-Americans who choose not to associate with the Russian-American community or its institutions, but it's worse for people who are visibly part of a subgroup that they choose not to be an active part of.
You've got that example the wrong way round.
Homosexuality is in the minority, so are black people (in the societies we are discussing).
So the counter example would be a "straights only" website. Which almost certainly would cause an outcry if you said it explicitly.
Homosexuality is in the minority, so are black people (in the societies we are discussing).
So the counter example would be a "straights only" website. Which almost certainly would cause an outcry if you said it explicitly.
It is to Morgan Freeman, as he explained to Mike Wallace:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=1131418n
"You're going to relegate my history to a month? What about White History Month? Black History is American History. I'm going to stop calling you a white man, and I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man."
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=1131418n
"You're going to relegate my history to a month? What about White History Month? Black History is American History. I'm going to stop calling you a white man, and I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man."
That makes sense in the context of history, but not in the broader scope of our social interactions. As long as outward appearances are significantly predictive of one's culture, humans aren't going to just disregard that predictive value unless they're making an effort to do so.
I doubt that there are many people who are purely racist and judge people solely on their skin color. However, when you combine skin color with other outward indicators of class, you have a fairly valuable predictor of behavior.
I doubt that there are many people who are purely racist and judge people solely on their skin color. However, when you combine skin color with other outward indicators of class, you have a fairly valuable predictor of behavior.
Skin color isn't any more an indicator of class than shoe size or fingernail length. To show this, one need only think about the consequences of skin color actually being an indicator of class.
Given a random sampling among a race, if skin color was an accurate indicator of class, you should be able to predict the same class (other than middle class) for each sample, and ultimately be right more than you were wrong. But you can't: http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf
Furthermore, I posit that class isn't even a predictor of behavior in the macro-sense. That is, across all classes the proportion of people who behave foolishly, is a constant. The difference money makes is in the degree of associated risk with the behaviors that occur, not in the number of occurrences of the behaviors themselves.
Given a random sampling among a race, if skin color was an accurate indicator of class, you should be able to predict the same class (other than middle class) for each sample, and ultimately be right more than you were wrong. But you can't: http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf
Furthermore, I posit that class isn't even a predictor of behavior in the macro-sense. That is, across all classes the proportion of people who behave foolishly, is a constant. The difference money makes is in the degree of associated risk with the behaviors that occur, not in the number of occurrences of the behaviors themselves.
In America, skin color is a good predictor of class. The barometer isn't being right more than you're wrong; it's being more accurate than assuming everyone earns the average income. You will be able to make a more accurate guess of an American's income if you know their race.
When you add in clothing, hair and accent, it'd be pretty difficult to misidentify someone's class, or more importantly, culture. Identifying members of subcultures with criminal tendencies is a skill that anyone who has walked around in a city late at night has put to use.
Class isn't a great predictor of behavior, but culture is. Moreover, I think it's safe to assume that people with lower incomes commit violent crime, for instance, at a higher rate than the rest of society. All other things being equal, the better the risk to reward ratio of an action, the more likely someone is to take it.
When you add in clothing, hair and accent, it'd be pretty difficult to misidentify someone's class, or more importantly, culture. Identifying members of subcultures with criminal tendencies is a skill that anyone who has walked around in a city late at night has put to use.
Class isn't a great predictor of behavior, but culture is. Moreover, I think it's safe to assume that people with lower incomes commit violent crime, for instance, at a higher rate than the rest of society. All other things being equal, the better the risk to reward ratio of an action, the more likely someone is to take it.
A "good" predictor must be useful, correct? Well, then how can it be useful if it is wrong more than it is right....?
Simply stated, being right more than one is wrong is the same thing as being more accurate than a random assignment (as we approach a large number of "trials") if the outcomes are equally likely. And that is the point - race tells you nothing more significant about class then guessing does (if we remove 'middle class' as a selection), and class tells you nothing significant about behavior.
Also, you seem to be conflating 'class' and 'culture' now. Culture is a much, much better indicator of behavior than class, as culture speaks to beliefs and value judgements. As such, they are not interchangable ideas (that is, the propostion that 'Skin color is a good predictor of culture' is not the same as the one you made prior, 'Skin color is a good predictor of class' - but is probably just as fallacious).
Clothing and hair (God only knows what you meant by 'accent.' Care to clarify?) in isolation are strong enough indicators of culture, that race quite literally adds nothing to their accuracy - the same can be said of 'style of dress' and 'price of car driven,' for class. Race is superfluous.
Simply stated, being right more than one is wrong is the same thing as being more accurate than a random assignment (as we approach a large number of "trials") if the outcomes are equally likely. And that is the point - race tells you nothing more significant about class then guessing does (if we remove 'middle class' as a selection), and class tells you nothing significant about behavior.
Also, you seem to be conflating 'class' and 'culture' now. Culture is a much, much better indicator of behavior than class, as culture speaks to beliefs and value judgements. As such, they are not interchangable ideas (that is, the propostion that 'Skin color is a good predictor of culture' is not the same as the one you made prior, 'Skin color is a good predictor of class' - but is probably just as fallacious).
Clothing and hair (God only knows what you meant by 'accent.' Care to clarify?) in isolation are strong enough indicators of culture, that race quite literally adds nothing to their accuracy - the same can be said of 'style of dress' and 'price of car driven,' for class. Race is superfluous.
"And that is the point - race tells you nothing more significant about class then guessing does"
That's just mathematically incorrect. Different races have different average incomes. If you guess that average for each person, you'll be more accurate than guessing the overall average for everyone. If you're measuring at such a coarse level as upper/middle/lower class, then sure, that doesn't help. Since we're not relying on race alone, we don't need that kind of accuracy.
"Also, you seem to be conflating 'class' and 'culture' now."
I don't think culture and class are interchangeable. I think class is an indicator of culture, which I would then use to predict someone's behavior. I probably should've made that clear earlier. In America, any skin color except for white is a pretty good indicator of culture. Racial comedy is fairly large industry that only succeeds because it does a decent job of poking fun at behaviors that correlate with race.
"God only knows what you meant by 'accent.' Care to clarify?"
If someone speaks the Queen's English, you'll assign different probabilities to behaviors than if they spoke inner-city English.
I think race is useful in addition to the other indicators, but neither of us have any data on this, so I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
That's just mathematically incorrect. Different races have different average incomes. If you guess that average for each person, you'll be more accurate than guessing the overall average for everyone. If you're measuring at such a coarse level as upper/middle/lower class, then sure, that doesn't help. Since we're not relying on race alone, we don't need that kind of accuracy.
"Also, you seem to be conflating 'class' and 'culture' now."
I don't think culture and class are interchangeable. I think class is an indicator of culture, which I would then use to predict someone's behavior. I probably should've made that clear earlier. In America, any skin color except for white is a pretty good indicator of culture. Racial comedy is fairly large industry that only succeeds because it does a decent job of poking fun at behaviors that correlate with race.
"God only knows what you meant by 'accent.' Care to clarify?"
If someone speaks the Queen's English, you'll assign different probabilities to behaviors than if they spoke inner-city English.
I think race is useful in addition to the other indicators, but neither of us have any data on this, so I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
You continue to shift terms, so it makes it more difficult to pin you down.
My math is pretty solid - socio-economic classes are defined by values in intervals. So guessing the average income for each race would be guessing what interval? It would be guessing middle class for each race! Remember, you stated the proposition that, 'race is a good class indicator' - thus, we don't care about variance in the interval called middle class...
That is why I explicitly removed it from my analysis - if the only information(class-related) you get from a person's skin color is that they are middle-class, then you have effectively received no information. Certainly you can't be suggesting that those in the middle-class are more likely to commit crimes - can you be?
My math is pretty solid - socio-economic classes are defined by values in intervals. So guessing the average income for each race would be guessing what interval? It would be guessing middle class for each race! Remember, you stated the proposition that, 'race is a good class indicator' - thus, we don't care about variance in the interval called middle class...
That is why I explicitly removed it from my analysis - if the only information(class-related) you get from a person's skin color is that they are middle-class, then you have effectively received no information. Certainly you can't be suggesting that those in the middle-class are more likely to commit crimes - can you be?
First of all, socioeconomic classes are artificial constructs. There's no reason to believe that there are large discontinuities in the probabilities of certain behaviors as income increases, though that is likely the case around poverty level.
From the census document you linked to, here are average household incomes by race:
Asian: $86,185
White, non-Hispanic: $74,102
Hispanic: $51,572
Black: $46,533
If you don't think there are substantial differences there, then we're not going to agree on anything.
From the census document you linked to, here are average household incomes by race:
Asian: $86,185
White, non-Hispanic: $74,102
Hispanic: $51,572
Black: $46,533
If you don't think there are substantial differences there, then we're not going to agree on anything.
[Edit: Moved up a node to reflect the actual reply]
1. Socio-econonic classes are artificial constructs - so what? The point is that race is demonstrably unable to map the set of 'people' to the set of 'classes.'
2. If you are not able to accurately quote the figures from the pdf I linked to prior, then what is the likelyhood you even read it?
The ACTUAL median incomes can be found on pages 6-7:
Asian: $65,637
White, non-Hispanic: $55,530
Average: $50,000
Black: $34,218
The differences fall in the interval known as middle-class as I said before - so for the purposes of this discussion, they are not substantial.
1. Socio-econonic classes are artificial constructs - so what? The point is that race is demonstrably unable to map the set of 'people' to the set of 'classes.'
2. If you are not able to accurately quote the figures from the pdf I linked to prior, then what is the likelyhood you even read it?
The ACTUAL median incomes can be found on pages 6-7:
Asian: $65,637
White, non-Hispanic: $55,530
Average: $50,000
Black: $34,218
The differences fall in the interval known as middle-class as I said before - so for the purposes of this discussion, they are not substantial.
[deleted](1)
Skin color isn't any more an indicator of class than shoe size or fingernail length.
Actually, long fingernails on a woman are typically used to signal "I don't do manual labor" and is very much intended as a class indicator. It's part of the appeal of long nails. As I understand it, there is lots of historical precedent across a number of cultures for this.
Actually, long fingernails on a woman are typically used to signal "I don't do manual labor" and is very much intended as a class indicator. It's part of the appeal of long nails. As I understand it, there is lots of historical precedent across a number of cultures for this.
Even if I were to allow that the discussion be gender-biased, I'm afraid this wouldn't be accurate...
The very poor tend to have poor grooming habits, both in frequency and quality. As such, access to nail clippers is extremely limited...
Further, the nature of living in extreme poverty forbids the biting of one's nails; you would be shocked at the amount of dirt and grime that gathers there after just a few days without access to a bathroom or running water.
The very poor tend to have poor grooming habits, both in frequency and quality. As such, access to nail clippers is extremely limited...
Further, the nature of living in extreme poverty forbids the biting of one's nails; you would be shocked at the amount of dirt and grime that gathers there after just a few days without access to a bathroom or running water.
I am aware that it is not entirely gender-based. However, a quick google turns up this:
http://www.efingernails.com/fingernails-history/
Fingernails became shorter and the colours less intense during the 1980's when women became more interested in their work.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/feed/a41653-1999d...
Thorsten Veblen wrote in his classic "The Theory of the Leisure Class" (1899). "It not only shows that the wearer is able to consume a relatively large value, but it argues at the same time that he consumes without producing." Like the constrictive corset of Veblen's time, long nails today signal which women are too rich and too feminine (wouldn't want the little darling to break a nail) to perform manual labor.
http://www.efingernails.com/fingernails-history/
Fingernails became shorter and the colours less intense during the 1980's when women became more interested in their work.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/feed/a41653-1999d...
Thorsten Veblen wrote in his classic "The Theory of the Leisure Class" (1899). "It not only shows that the wearer is able to consume a relatively large value, but it argues at the same time that he consumes without producing." Like the constrictive corset of Veblen's time, long nails today signal which women are too rich and too feminine (wouldn't want the little darling to break a nail) to perform manual labor.
Both of those links engender the proposition that fingernail length is indeed NOT a good indicator of class.
The class status of women as a whole rose significantly in the 80's as women's pay relative to men's rose from 1980 to 1990 (from 60.2% to 71.6%):
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/nyregion/03women.html?ex=1...
The class status of women as a whole rose significantly in the 80's as women's pay relative to men's rose from 1980 to 1990 (from 60.2% to 71.6%):
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/nyregion/03women.html?ex=1...
It is not as simple as that. Women going to work in large numbers means they stopped being part of a "leisure class". A non-working wife is a status symbol. It means the man makes enough that his wife doesn't need to work. Nothing is sweepingly one thing or the other. But, in general, long fingernails have historically been a status symbol/class indicator -- long, clean, well-groomed and often decorated (painted, treated with henna, etc), not long and filthy.
Long fingernails are also a fairly strong "sex" symbol. One prostitute wrote in her biography that she could work at the mall by wearing very high heels and long, red fingernails. I will also add that long nails are an indicator of health (trying not to turn every discussion towards my medical condition, but my genetic disorder is how I know this one so well) -- and that tends to be linked to class in that wealthier classes tend to be better fed.
Long fingernails are also a fairly strong "sex" symbol. One prostitute wrote in her biography that she could work at the mall by wearing very high heels and long, red fingernails. I will also add that long nails are an indicator of health (trying not to turn every discussion towards my medical condition, but my genetic disorder is how I know this one so well) -- and that tends to be linked to class in that wealthier classes tend to be better fed.
How quickly a beachhead can become a ghetto.
petercooper has a very valid point. A whitedating.com site would cause an uproar, even if it was done as tastefully as possible. The anti-racist reactive culture we have is too quick to jump on something like that.
Note: I'm not white.
Note: I'm not white.
irishsinglesnetwork.com
italianosingles.com
jdate.com
ldsromances.com (kind of a stretch, but how many black mormons are there, really?)
...
The reason they have a "black singles site" is because Black people were bred for their physical abilities rather than their nationality, by their slavemasters. Which is why it's nearly impossible to have 10th or 15th generation Sudanese-american people, for example. Whereas you can trace some white roots back to the Mayflower. Because white people had a choice. I mean, now black people of course have a choice too, but for a really really REALLY long time, they didn't.
The reason they have a "black singles site" is because Black people were bred for their physical abilities rather than their nationality, by their slavemasters. Which is why it's nearly impossible to have 10th or 15th generation Sudanese-american people, for example. Whereas you can trace some white roots back to the Mayflower. Because white people had a choice. I mean, now black people of course have a choice too, but for a really really REALLY long time, they didn't.
they would be hounded or sued out of business
Evidence for this? What would be the legal basis for a lawsuit?
Evidence for this? What would be the legal basis for a lawsuit?
Who says you need a legal basis to sue someone? Winning is another matter, perhaps, but baseless litigation is a popular pass-time in the USA.
It's nice to see somebody making an effective argument against those high-and-mighty OkCupid data lords. I've read a number of their posts, and they are actually quite careless in making assertions as though they are experts.
Anyone who works with data knows that subtle changes in how you define a metric can lead to drastically different findings. Ever heard the saying: "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." In real science, you need to do everything possible to try to prove yourself wrong, and fail. They hardly seem to do anything so rigorous. They choose one metric, see what the outcome is - gasp, something sensational! Write a post about it.
Anyone who works with data knows that subtle changes in how you define a metric can lead to drastically different findings. Ever heard the saying: "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." In real science, you need to do everything possible to try to prove yourself wrong, and fail. They hardly seem to do anything so rigorous. They choose one metric, see what the outcome is - gasp, something sensational! Write a post about it.
They lost me when I noticed they were mucking around with chart axes to make effects look more significant than they are (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1065203), surely the oldest trick in the book. Besides that, the posts can only count as pseudo-scientific in the absence of the data being available for review. But such criticisms do kind of miss the point, which is that this has been very effective marketing.
What's wrong with 'mucking around' with chart axes? Scientists do that all the time, because effects are often hardly visible with 'normal' axes and you have something you wish to make clearly stand out. Skipping part of an axis and changing the scales is a normal, even required, thing to do.
You should explicitly note this.
I've actually really liked the posts from OK Cupid, they are very interesting, but this article really pokes a lot of holes in their theories, in that they presume they are dealing with a cross section of society due to their size, but from reading this, it seems entirely likely they are mistaken.
I've actually really liked the posts from OK Cupid, they are very interesting, but this article really pokes a lot of holes in their theories, in that they presume they are dealing with a cross section of society due to their size, but from reading this, it seems entirely likely they are mistaken.
Really? Because it's also a notorious way to distort data. It sounds like you have more experience with this than I do, but I'm puzzled by the contradiction here. When is it a normal, even required scientific technique and when is it the oldest "how to lie with statistics" trick in the book?
OK, that's an interesting question. I guess it depends on the audience. When your audience is scientifically minded, they will know how to interpret your axes and understand why you made a certain choice. They might criticize you for it, but you know such a choice will be scrutinized, so you won't try to deceive them. When your audience consists of less numerically literate folks, you have to be careful with your axes, as you make something appear more interesting that it actually is. If I take a graph from a scientific presentation and use it in an article for lay people, I'm not trying to trick them, but it may appear as such. I guess it's a fine line between making the interesting bits stand out and making bits stand out to make them seem interesting.
This isn't explicit anywhere, but OkCupid is all about subgroups. For many people, there is an equal number of guys and girls in each sub-group, so message response rates are consistent and people are generally happy.
It seems like, for black girls, that there is not an equal subgroup; there aren't enough guys that find them interesting for all of them. So the girls desperately respond to every message, and the guys don't seem interested -- there is a large supply of girls they like, and a small supply of guys. Furthermore, this subgroup is easy to measure, because your gender and your race are in your profile. It is easy to count the number of messages that black girls write, because the database has an "is black" field in addition to a "number of messages written" field.
But... I think there are other subgroups that don't do too well on OkCupid like the, "hi u ar so hawt" group of guys. There just aren't many women on the site that like that, but there are a ton of guys like that. So OkCupid ends up being pretty bad for these guys. They send messages (if you can call them that) like crazy, but they never get any responses. This is harder to quantify, though, because there is no "sends thoughtless messages to anything that seems female" field in the database. Buy it's exactly the same effect; one group is in high supply, and the thing that group wants is in low supply. So the group in high supply gets a lot of rejected messages.
It's not about race, it's about supply and demand.
(And oh yeah, this is all from the perspective of a straight guy. I imagine the dynamics in the gay/lesbian communities are a little different, since in theory, everyone in the pool is equally attracted to everyone else.)
It seems like, for black girls, that there is not an equal subgroup; there aren't enough guys that find them interesting for all of them. So the girls desperately respond to every message, and the guys don't seem interested -- there is a large supply of girls they like, and a small supply of guys. Furthermore, this subgroup is easy to measure, because your gender and your race are in your profile. It is easy to count the number of messages that black girls write, because the database has an "is black" field in addition to a "number of messages written" field.
But... I think there are other subgroups that don't do too well on OkCupid like the, "hi u ar so hawt" group of guys. There just aren't many women on the site that like that, but there are a ton of guys like that. So OkCupid ends up being pretty bad for these guys. They send messages (if you can call them that) like crazy, but they never get any responses. This is harder to quantify, though, because there is no "sends thoughtless messages to anything that seems female" field in the database. Buy it's exactly the same effect; one group is in high supply, and the thing that group wants is in low supply. So the group in high supply gets a lot of rejected messages.
It's not about race, it's about supply and demand.
(And oh yeah, this is all from the perspective of a straight guy. I imagine the dynamics in the gay/lesbian communities are a little different, since in theory, everyone in the pool is equally attracted to everyone else.)
I'm sure you don't mean to do so, but you shouldn't compare black women to "u r so hawt" guys. Very different categories, and very different dating problems. The moron can stop being a moron and learn how to write decent messages. In addition, his disadvantage is a shortcoming that sends a strong signal about his worthiness for a relationship. The black woman's disadvantage comes from her being black, which will never change and which is a signal of anything other than her skin having melanin.
It's not just OkCupid. Black women face a systematic disadvantage in the dating scene, even now and even among educated people. I'm not saying that it's so severe as to make it impossible for a black woman to find a decent partner, but the disadvantage exists and it's a lot more common for an attractive black woman to have long single spells. I know a couple of beautiful, smart, incredible black women in their mid-20s who haven't even kissed a guy, much less been in a relationship. Asian men face a disadvantage of a different character that is arguably as bad. Anyone who can't see this is either living in delusion or sheltered.
It's not just OkCupid. Black women face a systematic disadvantage in the dating scene, even now and even among educated people. I'm not saying that it's so severe as to make it impossible for a black woman to find a decent partner, but the disadvantage exists and it's a lot more common for an attractive black woman to have long single spells. I know a couple of beautiful, smart, incredible black women in their mid-20s who haven't even kissed a guy, much less been in a relationship. Asian men face a disadvantage of a different character that is arguably as bad. Anyone who can't see this is either living in delusion or sheltered.
I'm sure you don't mean to do so, but you shouldn't compare black women to "u r so hawt" guys. Very different categories, and very different dating problems.
The only problem / category I am discussing is "doesn't get what they want out of OKCupid". You could argue that the "u r so hawt" guys don't deserve to get anything out of OKCupid, and I would agree with you. But I am looking at it from their perspective, rather than from the perspective of an unbiased observer. And the reality is that they are probably sad because they are rejected so frequently.
I know a couple of beautiful, smart, incredible black women in their mid-20s who haven't even kissed a guy, much less been in a relationship.
I know a lot of people, male and female, like this. There are a lot of people that aren't in relationships, despite what TV tells you. And, even if the odds are totally in your favor, you still have to take a lot of rejection to get anything out of online dating. The reply rate is like 1-in-5 even for white/white with a 95% match percentage. It's not easy for anyone.
The only problem / category I am discussing is "doesn't get what they want out of OKCupid". You could argue that the "u r so hawt" guys don't deserve to get anything out of OKCupid, and I would agree with you. But I am looking at it from their perspective, rather than from the perspective of an unbiased observer. And the reality is that they are probably sad because they are rejected so frequently.
I know a couple of beautiful, smart, incredible black women in their mid-20s who haven't even kissed a guy, much less been in a relationship.
I know a lot of people, male and female, like this. There are a lot of people that aren't in relationships, despite what TV tells you. And, even if the odds are totally in your favor, you still have to take a lot of rejection to get anything out of online dating. The reply rate is like 1-in-5 even for white/white with a 95% match percentage. It's not easy for anyone.
I think the parent is trying to make the point that there's no clear evidence here that black women have a systematic disadvantage in general, just a disadvantage in the self-selected OKCupid community. (No comment on whether there's evidence of such elsewhere.)
I know a couple of beautiful, smart, incredible black women in their mid-20s who haven't even kissed a guy, much less been in a relationship
The majority of my friends (both white and black), in their mid twenties, fall into this category (not really been in a relationship).
I think the only major dating disadvantage for black women is that they are living in a majority white society which will, clearly, have a preference for white women (not in a racist sense; I don't think that has as big an impact as people insinuate). Im white and as non-racist as they come and I dont particularly find black women attractive (though I have dated a few).
I think the GP your replying too wasn't comparing the problems faced by the two demographics; simply the result. And pointing out that one could be quantified exactly because of the fact you mention (it's hard to change skin colour).
As it happens I think that the capacity for change and the actual ability to do so are very different. "u r so hawt" guys are not "u r so hawt" guys for one single reason (as opposed to black women) but in the majority of cases a change is unlikely enough to happen, on average, as to make it impossible. Low intelligence is a common factor - and that is just has hard to change :)
The majority of my friends (both white and black), in their mid twenties, fall into this category (not really been in a relationship).
I think the only major dating disadvantage for black women is that they are living in a majority white society which will, clearly, have a preference for white women (not in a racist sense; I don't think that has as big an impact as people insinuate). Im white and as non-racist as they come and I dont particularly find black women attractive (though I have dated a few).
I think the GP your replying too wasn't comparing the problems faced by the two demographics; simply the result. And pointing out that one could be quantified exactly because of the fact you mention (it's hard to change skin colour).
As it happens I think that the capacity for change and the actual ability to do so are very different. "u r so hawt" guys are not "u r so hawt" guys for one single reason (as opposed to black women) but in the majority of cases a change is unlikely enough to happen, on average, as to make it impossible. Low intelligence is a common factor - and that is just has hard to change :)
Please start throwing rocks at me, but I can also see a much simpler explanation behind the numbers than those constructed in the post.
Just don't throw rocks at OkCupid, it's their job to analyze the numbers and match all those people in the best way they can. It's a nice bonus for everyone who is still on the dating scene (or in the dating website business) that OkCupid actually publishes what they find.
Just don't throw rocks at OkCupid, it's their job to analyze the numbers and match all those people in the best way they can. It's a nice bonus for everyone who is still on the dating scene (or in the dating website business) that OkCupid actually publishes what they find.
What is constructed in the post is not an alternative explanation of the numbers. It is an explanation of an effect that needs to be taken into account to explain the numbers. It may even dominate the explanation, but that's not asserted in the article. You have fallen into an "either-or" trap.
As fascinating as I find the work Chris is doing and writing about over at the OkCupid blog, I've been pretty disappointed by his willingness to use all that data to "objectify" in demeaning ways (calling people ranked low in his attractiveness scales "hideous", the poor-black-women thing, etc). Thanks, Coates, for the welcome critique.
If "hideous" applies to anyone, shouldn't it apply to people who get the lowest grades on dating sites? Or should he just assume that the truly hideous won't even bother?
I think it takes a certain lack of humanity to use the word "hideous" to describe anybody's born appearance.
Is that because it's not nice, or it's not accurate?
Because by being so strong and unkind, it amplifies the recognition of a material or perceptual accident of nature into a needless conceptual flattening of a person's entire presence in the world. Depending on the self-esteem of the person it may be referring to, it's impolite at best, and cruel at worst.
What I think Chris forgets in his writeups is that actual individuals who may fall into those regions of his chart may at some point read it. Why be so abrasive about it?
What I think Chris forgets in his writeups is that actual individuals who may fall into those regions of his chart may at some point read it. Why be so abrasive about it?
Ugliness is not a nice thing to have! Like stupidity, or unfriendliness. At the extremes, words for those traits are also generic insults: words like "hideous," "retard," and "asshole" all describe people. And they're often used as more generic pejoratives.
These words are all relative. If you decide that "asshole" is simply too cruel a term, people end up using the next-cruelest term as the cruelest-possible one. So maybe if someone cuts you off in traffic, you say "Jerk!" But now "jerk" can't be used to categorize someone, since it's the worst word.
You'll just be forced to keep making your language more and more bland. There's no logical point at which your argument stops applying: "He's very special, and doesn't play well with others. And he's a more authentically handsome person," will eventually be wordy way to say "He's a hideous, retarded asshole."
There's no loss of meaning, but there's a profusion of syllables. Let's just say what we mean, and assume that people with unfortunate traits have gotten used to hearing about them by now.
These words are all relative. If you decide that "asshole" is simply too cruel a term, people end up using the next-cruelest term as the cruelest-possible one. So maybe if someone cuts you off in traffic, you say "Jerk!" But now "jerk" can't be used to categorize someone, since it's the worst word.
You'll just be forced to keep making your language more and more bland. There's no logical point at which your argument stops applying: "He's very special, and doesn't play well with others. And he's a more authentically handsome person," will eventually be wordy way to say "He's a hideous, retarded asshole."
There's no loss of meaning, but there's a profusion of syllables. Let's just say what we mean, and assume that people with unfortunate traits have gotten used to hearing about them by now.
Because it's subjective, to a large degree, and to use it is to condemn. To condemn them with any certainty is to assert your righteousness.
What the hell does not finding black women attractive have to do with racism? This has nothing to do with what's "considered" beautiful, as if beauty is something to be considered logically. A lot of white people just don't find black people attractive. What, do you want white men to date black women they find unattractive out of fairness? That's just condescending, it doesn't do anybody's self esteem any good.
The OK Cupid article displays righteous indignation for no good reason, and I'm disappointed that the articles critiquing it still seem to accept this basic premise.
The OK Cupid article displays righteous indignation for no good reason, and I'm disappointed that the articles critiquing it still seem to accept this basic premise.
There was a lot of debate on this surrounding the original OKCupid blog post.
In summary, it is subconciously racism. I may not find people of a certain race attractive. However, let's say that I become good friends with some people of that race. Then, I will see that they are like me, and I will start to find some people of that race attractive too. (Of course there are exceptions, but this is how it generally works.)
Things like this happen outside of race as well -- people who have gay friends are drastically more likely to support gay marriage. Why? Because they realize that gays are like them and that the stereotypes just aren't true.
In summary, it is subconciously racism. I may not find people of a certain race attractive. However, let's say that I become good friends with some people of that race. Then, I will see that they are like me, and I will start to find some people of that race attractive too. (Of course there are exceptions, but this is how it generally works.)
Things like this happen outside of race as well -- people who have gay friends are drastically more likely to support gay marriage. Why? Because they realize that gays are like them and that the stereotypes just aren't true.
I think it is wrong to call this racism. Even subconcious racism.
If it is a lack of interaction it is simply that. :)
On the other hand I think attraction is in two forms; physical and mental attraction. Your talking about the latter but the former is clearly important too.
Genetic physical characteristics are an aspect of this, sure, but I dont think it's racism. I find certain bulgarian (random example) women unattractive because of their genetic characteristics too :)
> people who have gay friends are drastically more likely to support gay marriage
As it happens I have don't think I have gay friends (not for any particular reason) and I fully support gay marriage. :) But I take your point there - and I think it is far more applicable than the first one you made.
(disclaimer: I am an advocate of the idea that the constant use of the term racism when not applied to actual, evil, racism is damaging. And that the best medicine for the whole sorry mess is to no longer worry about it and ostracize elements of society that do)
If it is a lack of interaction it is simply that. :)
On the other hand I think attraction is in two forms; physical and mental attraction. Your talking about the latter but the former is clearly important too.
Genetic physical characteristics are an aspect of this, sure, but I dont think it's racism. I find certain bulgarian (random example) women unattractive because of their genetic characteristics too :)
> people who have gay friends are drastically more likely to support gay marriage
As it happens I have don't think I have gay friends (not for any particular reason) and I fully support gay marriage. :) But I take your point there - and I think it is far more applicable than the first one you made.
(disclaimer: I am an advocate of the idea that the constant use of the term racism when not applied to actual, evil, racism is damaging. And that the best medicine for the whole sorry mess is to no longer worry about it and ostracize elements of society that do)
> Your talking about the latter but the former is clearly important too.
In his/her defense, I've found that certain girls can actually seem physically attractive once I get to know them. So it's not as cut and dry.
In his/her defense, I've found that certain girls can actually seem physically attractive once I get to know them. So it's not as cut and dry.
> I may not find people of a certain race attractive. However, let's say that I become good friends with some people of that race. Then, I will see that they are like me, and I will start to find some people of that race attractive too.
Yeah, happened to me. Doesn't affect my opinion. Racism, subconscious or not, as a concept that's relevant to me anyway, implies judging people's character for reasons other than their merits. Judging attractiveness doesn't really have to do with judging character. Attractiveness is an automatic response, and a lot of it has to do with looks, which is one of the few places I would say race is quite relevant. (for an amusing example, I know an Asian girl who isn't into Asian guys)
Attraction can be influenced by getting to know people, and I wouldn't discourage it, it makes for a less divided society and perhaps less disgruntled black women and all that. That's fine. But I shouldn't feel like I'm doing anything wrong, whatsoever, for choosing to stick with what my preferences are right now. It makes me mad that OK Cupid tries to make me feel guilty about it. And it scares me to think that this righteous tide is going to start making people decide to date people they don't really want to date. That sort of thing is personal and sacred, and should stay clear of any politics.
EDIT: I should add this nuance. I can see the argument of wanting to encourage people to get to know each other. But supposing you do that, and you still don't find those women attractive? Then you're not "guilty" of not trying, and I think that this article makes the presumption of that guilt.
Yeah, happened to me. Doesn't affect my opinion. Racism, subconscious or not, as a concept that's relevant to me anyway, implies judging people's character for reasons other than their merits. Judging attractiveness doesn't really have to do with judging character. Attractiveness is an automatic response, and a lot of it has to do with looks, which is one of the few places I would say race is quite relevant. (for an amusing example, I know an Asian girl who isn't into Asian guys)
Attraction can be influenced by getting to know people, and I wouldn't discourage it, it makes for a less divided society and perhaps less disgruntled black women and all that. That's fine. But I shouldn't feel like I'm doing anything wrong, whatsoever, for choosing to stick with what my preferences are right now. It makes me mad that OK Cupid tries to make me feel guilty about it. And it scares me to think that this righteous tide is going to start making people decide to date people they don't really want to date. That sort of thing is personal and sacred, and should stay clear of any politics.
EDIT: I should add this nuance. I can see the argument of wanting to encourage people to get to know each other. But supposing you do that, and you still don't find those women attractive? Then you're not "guilty" of not trying, and I think that this article makes the presumption of that guilt.
let's say that I become good friends with some people of that race. Then, I will see that they are like me, and I will start to find some people of that race attractive too.
You suggest that the primary reason you wouldn't be attracted to someone of a race is because you aren't "good friends" with anyone of that race. In my experience, that is false. For example, I know quite a few Asian girls who prefer dating white guys over Asian guys -- would you suggest they "aren't good friends" with any Asians, or that they are subconsciously racist toward Asians?
Different people have different preferences for what they are attracted to; in many cases, those preferences will be correlated with race (e.g. if a girl likes tall men with dark features and olive skin, she is less likely to fall for a 5'5" Norwegian). That's not racism, that's just human nature.
You suggest that the primary reason you wouldn't be attracted to someone of a race is because you aren't "good friends" with anyone of that race. In my experience, that is false. For example, I know quite a few Asian girls who prefer dating white guys over Asian guys -- would you suggest they "aren't good friends" with any Asians, or that they are subconsciously racist toward Asians?
Different people have different preferences for what they are attracted to; in many cases, those preferences will be correlated with race (e.g. if a girl likes tall men with dark features and olive skin, she is less likely to fall for a 5'5" Norwegian). That's not racism, that's just human nature.
Hopefully everyone here can recognize that Ta-Nehisi Coates' post simply presents a hypothesis and contains absolutely no supporting data.
He is relying on the same data for his assertions as everyone else has been. I see his analysis of that data as no less valid than that of OKCupid, etc.
Maybe you read a different post, but the one linked here simply argues that "any black person will tell you, when black folks date online they don't go to OKcupid," then lists a bunch of sites targeting black users and concludes that the OKCupid data is not representative of the public at large, despite the complete absence of supporting data. I don't see an analysis of data, just a hypothesis.
Coates is pointing out that there are good reasons to suspect strong sample bias. OkCupid didn't address this -- they just assumed an unbiased sample. I find Coates' argument far more compelling than OkCupid's blind assumption.
Blacks do look seriously underrepresented based on the response rates to the two questions. (Suggesting that blacks account for around 4% of OkCupid's users.) That's hardly proof of anything, but it does offer some credence to Coates' argument.
In the real world, it's often very hard to find compelling data, so we sometimes have to rely on compelling argument.
Blacks do look seriously underrepresented based on the response rates to the two questions. (Suggesting that blacks account for around 4% of OkCupid's users.) That's hardly proof of anything, but it does offer some credence to Coates' argument.
In the real world, it's often very hard to find compelling data, so we sometimes have to rely on compelling argument.
Coates is pointing out that there are good reasons
to suspect strong sample bias.
OkCupid didn't address this -- they just assumed an unbiased sample.
Actually, it said "when black people who don't want to date non-black people date online, they go to one of the black-only dating sites rather than dating sites aimed at the general population." It did still simply provide a hypothesis, but it is at least a plausible hypothesis that might explain the data. One would need further data to determine its validity, of course.
it is at least a plausible hypothesis
Racial views in the US are absolutely filled with (and arguably dominated by) gross misconceptions that seem plausible to many people despite being untrue.
You are correct, he didn't do a poll to find out what percentage of black people would only go to OKCupid after failing at those others he mentions. So basically this discussion is pointless until this poll is done.
You hit the nail on the head - he made an argument from emotion. The OkCupid post was an evidence based approach.
I thought his article did a good job of logically asserting his point. What kind of data do you absolutely need that he didn't provide in order to believe that OKCupid is but a small part of a bigger picture when it comes to black women and (online) dating?
What kind of data do you absolutely need...?
I think that anyone who wants to use OkCupid's data as an example of the dating market as a whole, needs to show that OKCupid is representative of the dating market as a whole, not the other way around.
I think that anyone who speculates and makes unsubstantiated claims about the dating market as a whole needs to show that their speculation and claims are representative of the dating market as a whole, or really representative of anything at all.
My statement was broader than intended. Obviously OKCupid's data is not necessarily reflective of all dating sites or interracial dating patterns overall, but Ta-Nehisi Coates is only presenting a hypothesis and some speculative claims, not data, and his speculation shouldn't be treated as anything more until someone presents data that supports it.
My statement was broader than intended. Obviously OKCupid's data is not necessarily reflective of all dating sites or interracial dating patterns overall, but Ta-Nehisi Coates is only presenting a hypothesis and some speculative claims, not data, and his speculation shouldn't be treated as anything more until someone presents data that supports it.
The burden of proof generally relies on people making the unusual claim.
How is it at all unusual? The OKCupid data reflects census data on interracial marriage pairings, which shows low numbers of marriages between black women and men of other races (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_Uni...). If the OKCupid data showed that black women were both responsible for and recipients of the highest reply rates, that would be unusual.
It's unusual in the sense that it's new. OKCupid has data. If they want to draw general conclusions from that data, then it's their obligation to convince us that it's valid to generalize.
However, if I remember OKCupid's posts correctly, they explicitly pointed out that they weren't trying to generalize, and acknowledged that all of their conclusions applied only to the users of their site. I think it's everyone else who've tried to generalize their conclusions.
The author of the article from this thread is actually practicing skepticism. He is skeptical of the general conclusions drawn from the data set, and he proposes an alternate, simpler theory - selection bias - that would explain the behavior seen.
However, if I remember OKCupid's posts correctly, they explicitly pointed out that they weren't trying to generalize, and acknowledged that all of their conclusions applied only to the users of their site. I think it's everyone else who've tried to generalize their conclusions.
The author of the article from this thread is actually practicing skepticism. He is skeptical of the general conclusions drawn from the data set, and he proposes an alternate, simpler theory - selection bias - that would explain the behavior seen.
Skepticism is not the default answer. Skepticism is what happens when you don't like the conclusions given.
The author of the article from this thread is actually practicing skepticism
People please, stop being so goddamn politically correct and admit that most white men just don't consider black women all that appealing.
I know I sure don't. Seriously, a black woman has to be Naomi Campbell to pique my interest, and even then she'd need to be.. less black. Halle Berry? -To use an annoying expression: "meh".
That's just how it is. This is not racism, we're just wired this way. It's lame to wax poetic about what could theoretically be "wrong" when we all know the deal.
White women are desired by men of all races, just like Asian women. Black women are mostly desired by black men.
I know I sure don't. Seriously, a black woman has to be Naomi Campbell to pique my interest, and even then she'd need to be.. less black. Halle Berry? -To use an annoying expression: "meh".
That's just how it is. This is not racism, we're just wired this way. It's lame to wax poetic about what could theoretically be "wrong" when we all know the deal.
White women are desired by men of all races, just like Asian women. Black women are mostly desired by black men.
Cless Alvein said it well:
http://alvanista.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/black-and-white-pa...
http://alvanista.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/black-and-white-pa...
One of my friends, who is black, says he avoids black women due to the way they act. Perhaps this has something to do with it?
39% of black women are obese, compared to 23% of white women. Men prefer to date non-obese women.
http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/content.aspx?ID=6456