Color of Change: Satoshi Kanazawa fired over his "Psychology Today" study on Beauty

If you don’t agree, you have no future in BRA

Some group called Color of Change is taking credit for the recent removal of Satoshi Kanazawa from Psychology Today. You remember the maelstrom that erupted over a study that dared defame Black women’s beauty? We wrote about it here.
 

Gloating over the power to coerce independent thinking, Color of Change published this triumphant screed:

Psychology Today recently published an article claiming it to be scientific fact that Black women are less beautiful than women of other races. The article was flawed from top to bottom — it was actually opinion masquerading as science, written by someone with a track record of using pseudoscience to promote discredited racist and sexist ideas.


Psychology Today needs to apologize, explain how this happened and how they plan to make sure it won’t happen again. Please join us in demanding that they do.

Color of Change is dedicated to “changing the color of democracy” into an obviously beautiful hue of tyrannically Black. That’s the only acceptable color of democracy for this group, as evidenced by their attack on Psychology Today.
 
Any study that doesn’t conform to Black-Run America’s (BRA) narrative is easily dismissed as pseudoscience, and any scientific study that can be manipulated to further the objectives of BRA is deemed as legitimate and cutting-edge science. Take this study that is touted by Theroot.com:

The findings of a study conducted by researchers at the University of Toronto suggest that knowledge of the science behind the human body might be able to help defeat racism. The study authors assert that educating individuals about our genetic similarities — specifically, the fact that humans are 99.9 percent genetically similar — can do a lot to diminish the meaning we attach to physiological differences.


Behind the research was the idea that people often mistakenly assume that superficial ethnic characteristics are a reliable sign of significant genetic difference. The result: Study participants who were more informed of genetic overlap between strangers were less likely to racially profile.


According to the researchers, the results suggest that people’s beliefs about genetic variation are malleable. Education, therefore, could be a useful target for anti-prejudice interventions. “People without a strong motivation for prejudice — and even those with professed egalitarian ideals — frequently display signs of racial stereotyping,” they concluded. “We suggest that people with egalitarian ideals may still exhibit stereotyping at least partly because they harbor particular assumptions about genetic variation.”


We can all be guilty of focusing too much on identifying, criticizing and being frustrated by racism, and not enough figuring out how to do away with it. This is a step in the right direction. And while it strikes us as surprising that a little awareness of the biological version of “we all have more in common than we think” could do so much to alter long-held beliefs about race, if it works as well as the researchers suggest (at least as one piece of the puzzle), we’re all for it.

Psychologists have long known that many people are prejudiced towards others based on group affiliations, be they racial, ethnic, religious, or even political. However, we know far less about why people are prone to prejudice in the first place. New research, using monkeys, suggests that the roots lie deep in our evolutionary past.


Yale graduate student Neha Mahajan, along with a team of psychologists, traveled to Cayo Santiago, an uninhabited island southeast of Puerto Rico also known as “Monkey Island,” in order to study the behavior of rhesus monkeys. Like humans, rhesus monkeys live in groups and form strong social bonds. The monkeys also tend to be wary of those they perceive as potentially threatening.

But what does Scientific American know? Obviously this study is pseudoscience, easily dismissed because it fails to properly buttress BRA with empirically convenient data.
 
Which is why were are here to begin with, knowing that Black women are obviously lusted over by males of every race at rates that far exceed that of pale, white women.

In searching the data on how the percentage of Black psychologists (1.8 percent are Black), we came across these interesting points which show that Black people have no desire to have their mental health evaluated by pseudoscientific white people:
African Americans have lower expectations of White psychologists and counselors (Watkins and Terrell, 1988).
         African Americans view White psychologists as less credible and less capable. (Watkins, Terrell, Miller, & Terrell, 1989) .
         African Americans are less disclosing to White psychologists (Thompson, Worthington and Atkinson, 1994).  
         Mental health practices can be used as a form of cultural oppression against people of color (Sue & Sue, 2003). 
         African Americans are less likely to receive a Black psychologist for those who prefer one because only 1.8% of all psychologists are Black.  Of that 1.8%, a smaller percentage, 0.5% (one-half of 1%) are Black male psychologists. (Townes, 2004; American Psychological Association, 2007).
“When seeking to explain differences between African Americans and whites, it is important that researchers first consider the impact of black-white demographic and socioeconomic differences. This is because disparities found in research sometimes are attributable to differences in poverty and marriage rates, regional distribution, and other population characteristics. However, investigators often continue to observe black-white differences after controlling for differences in social status and demographics and must look elsewhere to explain their findings. One of many possible explanations is racial bias:  African Americans might, under the circumstances being investigated, be victims of adverse treatment because they are black.”

When four decades of research and psychology literature suggest that Black clients generally prefer Black counselors (Wintersteen, Mensinger, & Diamond,  2005; Campbell & Alexander, 2002; Thompson, Bazile, & Akbar, 2004; Speight & Vera, 1997; Okonji, Ososkie, & Pulos, 1996; Coleman, Wampold, & Casali, 1995; Atkinson, 1985, 1983; Casas, 1984; Sue & Sue, 1977; Harrison, 1975; Burell & Rayder, 1971; White, 1970; Grier & Cobbs, 1968; Vontress, 1967), it creates a public health dilemma when Black people are underrepresented in the mental health profession and overrepresented in populations that have a high need for mental health services. When Black people need psychological help in a White-dominated society, the race of their counselor can be a critical factor as to whether or not they seek and receive help.  Black clients are more likely to receive mental health treatment under emergency conditions, and under coerced and mandated conditions rather than the preferred conditions that Whites receive treatment, like voluntarily and self-referred (Hu, Snowdwn, Jerrell, Nguyen, 1991; Takeuchi & Chueng, 1998).  Black people often have no choice but to be seen by providers that they might not have chosen or preferred if given the chance to select a mental health provider (Thompson Sanders, Brazile & Akbar, 2004)
Gosh, why aren’t more Black people entering the field of psychology, considering such vast potential for garnering a significant slice of an under-served market segment is available as clients immediately due to Black people’s desire to only have their mental health evaluated by Black people? To answer that question, we might have to venture into a territory reserved for those who practice a vile form of pseudoscience.
 

Knowing that the degrees pursued by college students are highly segregated (by choice, as no one is keeping Black students from pursuing degrees in molecular biology, geological studies, or engineering; their test scores and study habits are sufficient barriers to entry), the only way to increase Black participation in the field of psychology is to lower the standards required to study and earn a masters and doctorate so the many, admittedly under-served mentally ill Black people – who eschew white psychologists – can finally find out why they have voices in their head. 

 

Hey, we are doing it for doctors and lawyers, why not mental-health evaluators? To see how colleges are implementing BRAs agenda, check out this site
 

So congrats to Color of Change for working diligently to remove pseudoscience and Satoshi Kanazawa from infecting the BRA-approved discourse on beauty. Remember that Allure magazine, in a scientifically-correct poll, found that mixed-race women are the most attractive.
 
We all know that Black women are the most beautiful. And if you don’t admit that, Color of Change will come after you because no dissenting opinion – no matter how scientifically sound – is allowed in BRA, where the color of our democracy has been changed to a dominating shade of Black.
Advertisements

About SBPDL

Stuff Black People Don't Like (formerly SBPDL.com) has moved to SBPDL.net!
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s