Hey everyone. I stumbled across these articles on Psychology Today's website and I'm wondering if you guys agree with them. They're written by Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist who is somewhat estranged from much of the psychological community for his findings. Read them, if you please; the jist is: Beauty is never in the eye of the beholder, and all standards of beauty are exactly the same; beauty is NOT only skin deep, beautiful people are just better people; you can certainly judge a book by its cover; and generally, gay men are just uglier than straight men. Despite not being a trained psychologist in any respects, I think a lot of his stuff is, well...kinda crap. I will acknowledge that standards on physical attractiveness are rooted in our genes, and there are just some people who achieve these standards more than others. But is that really beauty? Here are the articles; you can reach your own opinions. All stereotypes are true, except... II: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" | Psychology Today All stereotypes are true, except... III: "Beauty is only skin deep" | Psychology Today All stereotypes are true, except... IV: All stereotypes are true, except...V: "All extremely handsome men are gay" | Psychology Today What do you think?
I read the last article and my impression is that his argument is this: Handsome/Tall men ---> [attractive] ----> reproduce ----> genes carry on. Ugly/short men ---> [not attractive] ----> [somehow becomes gay] ---> genes don't carry on. There are several assumptions here that are not substantiated. 1. Attractive leading to reproduction: a) some Handsome men like to sleep around in their youth and by the time they want to "settle" they are unattractive. b) some Handsome men are gay and therefore does not reproduce. c) It assumes that handsome and tall are the attractive attributes of men to a woman who would reproduce with that man throughout history of the human kind. Which is not true. 2. It suggests that gay men are gay because they were not able to attract women. The tone of the article contains this assumption. Because in reality, attractive physical attributes and homosexuality (if assumed to be genetically disposed) are two unrelated variables in the genetic code, and the transmission of these two codes under the following assumptions would only lead to the disappearance of beautiful gay men: -- all gay men do not reproduce with women throughout the history of the human kind. (and this assumption is in fact false) 3. As a corollary to 2, we should also consider the mechanism of transmission for the two genetic variables. suppose that we assume that "all gay men does not reproduce with women throughout the history of human kind" IS TRUE. And that the mechanism we stated in 2, that this assumption leads to the disappearance of men who are both attractive and gay, then this should lead to the disappearance of men who are gay altogether. This is also in fact false in reality. With this I would say that the person who wrote the article has not really grasped his logics very well, and without logic, one of the basic tools in the scientific method, you cannot claim to be a scientist of any specialization.
He also forgot to mention bisexuals. But homosexuality can "choose" anyone, regardless of whether they're straight, gay, bisexual or whatever. His study is BS, the reason "more" straight guys appear handsome/attractive is because they make up 95% of the male population. At the same time, there are also "more" ugly ones. He may be right about the ugly ones not reproducing, but they're not going to "turn gay" unless they seek to have sex with men in desparation to lose their virginity.
If this were true, wouldn't there be no good looking gay men? Because I've seen more than my fair share of fucking bangable guys.
