Freakonomics: “The Plight of Mixed Race Children”

by Latoya Peterson

I love Sudhir Venkatesh but I am starting to fucking hate the Freakonomics blog. Especially when they decide to touch race.

Mixed race people, step right up to be essentialized into neat little patterns of behavior!

In a recent paper I [Steven D. Levitt] co-authored with Roland Fryer, Lisa Kahn, and Jorg Spenkuch, we look at data to try to answer that question. Here is what we find:

1) Mixed-race kids grow up in households that are similar along many dimensions to those in which black children grow up: similar incomes, the father is much less likely to be around than in white households, etc.

2) In terms of academic performance, mixed-race kids fall in between blacks and whites.

3) Mixed-race kids do have one advantage over white and black kids: the mixed-race kids are much more attractive on average.

The really interesting result, though, is the next one.

4) There are some bad adolescent behaviors that whites do more than blacks (like drinking and smoking), and there are other bad adolescent behaviors that blacks do more than whites (watching TV, fighting, getting sexually transmitted diseases). Mixed-race kids manage to be as bad as whites on the white behaviors and as bad as blacks on the black behaviors. Mixed-race kids act out in almost every way measured in the data set.

Holy bucket of stereotypes, Batman! Number three is really killing me though - how the fuck did they measure that? By panel survey? Researchers opinion on hotness? Comparison to a eurocentric beauty standard? (According to the study, the person doing the at home interviews was the sole judge of hotness.)

I was wondering what economic theories they used to get to this point, but surprise - there ain’t none!

We try to use economic theory to explain this set of facts. I can’t say we are entirely successful. If we had to pick an explanation that best fits the facts, it would be the old sociology model of mixed-race individuals as the “marginal man”: not part of either racial group and therefore torn by inner conflict.

Other gems from the study:

We reinterpret and formalize the marginal man hypothesis using a simplified two sector Roy model (Roy 1951), in which all adolescents face pressure to conform to peer norms. For mono-racial adolescents, this norm is determined by their race: black adolescents adhere to black norms and white adolescents adhere to white norms. Mixed race children have a choice, they can choose to associate with black children and adopt their norms, befriend white children and adopt their norms, or both. It is this outside option that gives mixed race adolescents a higher cost of group acceptance, resulting in them choosing riskier behaviors to gain such acceptance. The key distinction between a Bernheim-type conformity model (Bernheim 1994) and the Roy model is that the former predicts that mixed race children who mostly interact with whites will adopt white behaviors, whereas mixed race children whose peer groups are mostly black will act black. In contrast, in the Roy model, when there are few blacks around, mixed race children can have a comparative advantage in black behaviors, inducing them to act particularly “black.”

—p. 5 - 6

Behavior at school by mixed race adolescents generally mirrors that of blacks, except with regard to exerting effort and skipping school – two dimensions on which mixed race children are significantly worse than blacks. The bad behavior of mixed race children stands out even more clearly outside of school. With the exception of watching television (which blacks do more of), mixed race adolescents are the worst or essentially tied for worst on every other behavior considered. This is true whether the risky behaviors are those more common to whites (e.g. drinking and smoking) or to blacks (e.g. sex and violence).

—p. 14

It is important to note that when there are few blacks present, the costs of acting black for mixed race adolescents is lower. For example, fighting is one aspect of behavior more associated with blacks than whites. If blacks are more experienced fighters than whites, than it is less costly for a mixed race child to prove he can fight when the only opponents are whites.

— p. 21-22

Now, if our last site survey is correct, our readers who identify as mixed race should be in the high hundreds to low thousands. So, I want to hear from y’all. Is Steve Levitt’s theory right, and you really are all a bunch of attractive, fight-happy, hard drinking, cancer stick sucking, television junkies awaiting your clinic results? Or is there something more at play here?

Oh wait, y’all don’t count. According to this NY Times commenter:

Its interesting to note that those that take exception to the data, are those posting on an economics blog on the New York Times site. Probably not the reading material of choice of the mixed race (or white, black, or asian for that matter) kid in Rikers.

— Posted by Gary

I guess mixed people have their own version of the Talented Tenth.


(Thanks to Jason for the heads up!)

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. bastard.logic on 16 Aug 2008 at 9:23 am

    Trying Not To Freak Out…

    by matttbastard

    Is this what they call ‘baffling them with bullshit?’ Cos, brother, consider me baffled:
    In a recent paper I [Steven D. Levitt] co-authored with Roland Fryer, Lisa Kahn, and Jorg Spenkuch, we look at data to try to answer t…

  2. in that hip-hop way « Molecular Shyness on 16 Aug 2008 at 8:14 pm

    […] black and what that means.  Or being biracial [specifically black and white, most frequently] and what that means.   Some of the hype might be because Obama’s got the [presumptive] nomination and everyone […]

  3. Study Says Biracial Kids Are More Attractive And Less Well-Behaved / Stereohyped on 18 Aug 2008 at 9:20 am

    […] Racialicious points us toward the ever-illuminating Freakonomics blog, which excerpts a study that breaks down the behavior, looks, and academic prowess of people of mixed race, specifically those who have one black parent and one white parent. Here are the results: In a recent paper I [Steven D. Levitt] co-authored with Roland Fryer, Lisa Kahn, and Jorg Spenkuch, we look at data to try to answer that question. Here is what we find: […]

  4. Singersroom Celebs » Blog Archive » Study: Biracial Kids Are Cuter; Less Well-Behaved… on 20 Aug 2008 at 7:30 am

    […] came to this article on Racialicious (damned good blog) via Stereohyped and was floored.I don’t really feel like posting patent […]

  5. New study: biracial asian-americans are more likely to be sad at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 25 Aug 2008 at 7:17 am

    […] you remember last last week’s Freakonomics study that claimed biracial black/white kids were liable to be twice as messed up as kids who were […]

Comments

  1. Jack D. wrote:

    Oh fer cryin’ out loud. (Insert earth-shaking sigh here.) … Sounds like the half-assed descriptive text for the half-elf “race” in Dungeons & Dragons.

  2. Dawud wrote:

    Steven Levitt must be on something.

    What empirical basis is he using for items that cannot be measured empircally such as #3?

    So, he reduced watching tv as a bad behavior and connected this with black kids fighting more and catching more STD’s? Wow!

    Maybe he’s related somehow to GWB.

  3. Glossolalia Black wrote:

    Is Steve Levitt’s theory right, and you really are all a bunch of attractive, fight-happy, hard drinking, cancer stick sucking, television junkies awaiting your clinic results?

    Only on the weekends. My secret identity is “social justice/city worker”.

  4. Sara Anderson wrote:

    Who needs sociology when we’ve got economics? Not Slate magazine!

  5. C-Marsh wrote:

    I’m not mixed, but WTF!

  6. sylvie wrote:

    they essentially used social science jargon to say: “those mulattoes sure are tragic.”

    and a quick question: were they only interviewing Black/White mixed children?

  7. Steve W wrote:

    I hate to say it but in my experience mixed race kids do tend to be more attractive “on average”. It’s a pointless point, but nevertheless it’s a point I don’t dispute personally.

    (I didn’t actually take the time to read the whole thing)

  8. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Glossolalia Black -

    I’ll remember to avoid alleys on the weekends. Oh wait no - by their logic, my mono-racial* blackness means I am a more experienced fighter. In that case, it’s on!

    @Sylvie - They set their evidence up as if that is the case, but I doubt it. A lot of what they were using was self-reported data from a very small sample group.

    And yes, everyone’s a tragic mulatto. Including the mixed race folks who posted that they had fairly normal childhoods, thanks, but were quickly told by the other commenters they didn’t understand what “average” meant.

    *headdesk*

    @Steve W. -

    Two words for ya - positive stereotype. Don’t believe me? Try this sentence out:

    “Oh, YOU’RE mixed? With what? I thought mixed kids were supposed to be hot, but you just look normal.”

    *As mono-racial as the slavery era remix allows us to be.

  9. atlasien wrote:

    @Jack D: Half-elf? I disagree. Half-vampire/half-werewolf is more like it. Or maybe halfsharkalligatorhalfman.

  10. C-Marsh wrote:

    “We begin our analysis by considering the most prominent
    sociological theory, re-interpreting it through an economic lens”

    This quote is demonstrative of why the Freakonomics blog’s attempt to peddle these findings as indicative of the “mixed race experience” should be considered an (Booming Voice) “EPIC FAIL!!!!!”

    Overall, I think that the study is inherently flawed because it attempts to translate a sociological/psychological theory and modify that theory to produce accurate findings regarding race; however, as economists often do, they neglect to mention the influence that power and privilege have on race relations. The entire argument is proffered on the notion of absolute choice rather than significant social influences. Although conformity is somewhat considered, the power dynamic is with race relations moves far beyond the scope of conformity.

    I don’t feel that any helpful implications for the sociological/psychological world can be extracted from this study because it neglects a powerful dynamic of the subject matter in which it speaks.

  11. C-Marsh wrote:

    “because it neglects a powerfuld dynamic of the subject matter *for which it speaks*

  12. GeeLennox wrote:

    More attractive according to whose standards? Oh, I forgot the Euro centered beauty standards in our society.

    No nappy hair + no broad nose + not to dark= more attractive than your average black person

  13. CEdwards wrote:

    Well, now…here it was I thought the “tragic mulatto” (HATE that word, sounds like mongrel) was dead. Thanks for the resurrection, Freakonomics.

  14. Jen wrote:

    Roland Fryer, one of the co-authors, is the academic who promotes the slavery-hypertension lie, which was featured on the CNN “Black in America” series. See
    http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Kaufman/ for more info.

  15. Steven D. Levitt wrote:

    Hi there, I just wanted to say that I love to flippantly editorialize areas where I have no experience, academic background, or training. Smell that? That’s the lovely scent of my racist ignorance. *flush*

  16. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Steven -

    Welcome! Unlike the other people we bitch about, you actually made it in a timely matter. Congrats!

    If you run a search on Freakonomics on this site, you’ll see where else we have taken you to task on other things as well. (Particularly the black names bit).

    “I love to flippantly editorialize areas where I have no experience, academic background, or training.”

    No one argued that. However you used flawed racial assumptions in your research and presented findings based on these assumptions. That has been happing since time began, so I am not shocked.

    I read your whole paper, and I paid special attention to your methods, the sample group, and how you reported. But that doesn’t change the fact that report assumes quite a bit, which opened your analysis up for racial bias, which is why it is flawed.

    If you want to speak further, feel free to participate here or drop me an email.

  17. Kandee wrote:

    If that were is doctoral thesis, it would be shredded before it even made first draft. What kind of faulty research methods are those? WTF. Did he go to the bar, listen to some guy’s racist rant, type it up and hit “Publish”?

  18. Thea wrote:

    I assumed that “the plight of mixed race children” was your tongue in cheek title Latoya! I was a little shocked to find Leavitt’s article was actually titled that way.

    Apart from the ridiculous and gross stereotypes, it’s interesting that Leavitt only saw it important to study mixed kids who were black and white. As I learned from Carmen white/east Asian mixes are more common.

    The more I learn about race relations with ref to mixed-ness in the US, the more surprised I am at how “mixed” more ofthen than not means black/white.

  19. Phrone wrote:

    Ah, the good old “mixed = half-black, half-white!” model. Not problematic or marginalizing at all.

    Also, clearly watching TV is just as bad as getting an STD. Love it!

  20. Alexandra wrote:

    Ick. I remember reading this piece some where else. I especially love how the “bad behaviors” for black children were blatantly stereotypical(watching tv-lazy, getting sexually transmitted diseases-promiscuous/sex crazed and fighting- violent). But #3 really threw me for loop way to help foster self-hate and colorism.

  21. i-geek wrote:

    “and a quick question: were they only interviewing Black/White mixed children?”

    That was my third question, right after “Seriously, WTF???” and “How the hell did they get funding for this study, let alone get it published? My lab’s research is directly connected with human cancer and vascular disease and GWB’s lackeys won’t fund us. WTF?”

    I’m a light-skinned daughter of a white mother and a Latino father. But I’m sure I don’t count. There’s only one type of “mixed” in this country. Riiiight.

  22. i-geek wrote:

    Okay, open mouth, insert foot.

    I just realized that my question in post 21, “How the hell did they get funding for this study, let alone get it published? My lab’s research is directly connected with human cancer and vascular disease and GWB’s lackeys won’t fund us. WTF?”, could very easily be taken the wrong way. I would probably take it the wrong way if I hadn’t written it. I apologize if I’ve offended anyone. I didn’t intend to sound so in-your-face pro-hard science or dismissive of other work there. I do realize (when I pull my head out of the sand) that not all researchers are funded through the NIH and that a lot of important research is done in fields other than mine.

    I can see getting funding for the study. It’s an interesting question for a sociological study and one that needs answering. The conclusions as written..I stand by my question regarding journal publication.

  23. thesciencegirl wrote:

    I’m struck speechless at the moment. I am going to go sit, think, and come back with a thoughtful comment when I’m less pissed off.

  24. Phil Deeze wrote:

    Latoya,
    I know this fool from “Freakonmics” didn’t just write that mixed race children are more attractive than “plain old” black kids! WTF. That’s just a big ole bowl of wrong right there.

  25. gatamala wrote:

    If mixed folks are sexy couch potato germ-carryin’ smokin’ truants…like that hottie in the picture. I’d smash…with Magnums (he gets it from his black daddy)!!

    “plight”

    “act black”

    “black norms”

    “white n0rms”

    this is pure d. bullshit served up with a side of cherry-picked stats

    footnote on the cost of fighting:

    “Anecdotally, this phenomenon has been observed among the programs for gifted minority youth held at M.I.T.
    each summer. These programs attract a subset of black and mixed race children who are among the “whitest” acting
    in their schools. At M.I.T., however, they have a comparative advantage in acting “black,” and engage in a wide
    range of behaviors to signal how “black” they are (Suskind 1999).”

    I wish someone would study the effects of an environment steeped in racist bullshit cloaked in academic-jargon on minority attraction and retention rates.

  26. Jae Ran wrote:

    After reading what Leavitt writes regarding transracial adoption, I have no doubt he is mining the same old, stereotyped b.s. to do this piece on mixed-race identity.

  27. Renee wrote:

    Isn’t it nice to know that a group of people can be so easily summed up. I love neat and easy answers like this…we just have to pretend that they make sense to make it the least bit coherent.

  28. sejw wrote:

    Once again, I’m loving *so much* how certain white folks barge into POC spaces not with a sense of respect and dialogue, but with a nasty attitude (Seal Press, anyone?).

  29. HotConflict wrote:

    White skinned and have a British Mother.
    Brown skinned father from India. raised as a Muslim growing up.

    Imagine living in America where Muslims and Islam is a negative label and then being in Muslims countries where you are considered a western foreigner.

    Sometimes it is hard to fit in…

    DO you really want to FIT in?

    I started the website HotConflict to talk about race and many other cultural issues that are facing Muslims in the west.

    Perception is Reality?

    http://www.HotConflict.com

    Mod Note
    - I will approve this one, but blatant self promotion for your own site is not allowed here. Future comments like this will be deleted. - LDP

  30. Z wrote:

    Sheesh as a black/white mixed race person i am really not living up to my stereotypes. But i do watch a good amount of tv… oh no here comes the fighting, drinking, smoking and sex.

    But seriously i love how this just perpetuates the “oh no having kids with black people will mess them up” myth. Not only does it stereotype black/white mixed people (and completely leave out people of other racial mixes) it also stereotypes whites and blacks. Way to go freakanomics.

  31. Janine deManda wrote:

    Steven D. Levitt wrote:
    “Hi there, I just wanted to say that I love to flippantly editorialize areas where I have no experience, academic background, or training. Smell that? That’s the lovely scent of my racist ignorance. *flush*”

    where to begin? first, a helluva lot of us posting on this thread have so much more “experience” with “the plight of mixed race children” than you could possibly have that i have difficulty believing you had the outright intentionaly ignorant ‘nads to pretend otherwise right here in front of us!

    of course, perhaps my “experience” doesn’t count ‘cuz i’m generationally mixed and am not a black/white mix. or maybe it doesn’t count ‘cuz i put my tv-watching, cig-smoking, std-havin’ truant ass through college, grad school, and law school on academic scholarships? hmmm, i wonder if my kid’ll count since her father’s a black indian? guess i better stock up on ointment before she hits puberty.

    puh-leeze, “the lovely scent of your racist ignorance” - as if that’s an absurdity? or do you just not care?

    wasn’t someone on this site saying just the other day that there’s no racist bias in the sciences? well, looks like a very recent example just went down mr. levitt’s virtual toilet.

  32. leftofemma wrote:

    Is Steve Levitt’s theory right, and you really are all a bunch of attractive, fight-happy, hard drinking, cancer stick sucking, television junkies awaiting your clinic results? Or is there something more at play here?

    Well, my Mom thinks I’m cute, but she’s a little biased.

    I find it hard to believe that mixed kids can be summed up so easily. Most of my cousins on both sides of my family are mixed with many different combinations and they’re as different as non-mixed folks. SOme do better, some do worse. Maybe that’s because they’re people. I’m half black and half Thai and I do pretty well, but maybe that’s the Model Minority side of me coming out. j/k

    I feel like this is just a new, updated version of the article that helped start the model minority myth written for the New York Times in 1966. That article, written by a sociologist, was terribly flawed and mostly worked to pit races against each other and cause in-fighting. I think it’s unusual that some actions are charecterized as being more black or more white. I also think that it’s unfortunate that they didn’t evaluate a more diverse group of mixed kids.

  33. Miss Fruitfly wrote:

    Another reason to stop reading the NY Times.

  34. Dawud wrote:

    Steven D. Levitt wrote:
    “Hi there, I just wanted to say that I love to flippantly editorialize areas where I have no experience, academic background, or training. Smell that? That’s the lovely scent of my racist ignorance. *flush*”

    We have to give Mr. Levitt kundos for posting his comment, which has invited him to get blazed even more.

    Although I’m sure that all of us may not have the “academic background” to comment on your writings, some of us have a couple of things that you may be lacking.

    1) Expertiental knowledge
    2) Logic

    You have to admit that your broad generalization about mixed raced children is just that. And what is the standard of beauty? Is it lighter skin? Maybe straigther hair? Perhaps a flat “buttocks”?

    I suggest that you revist some of your misperceptions.

    Man o man…

  35. Brian wrote:

    This is the typical nonsense that Freakonomics turns out. They take half-cocked ideas that they already have conclusions about and cherry-pick information to make them look legitimate. They also think that EVERYTHING can be determined with an economic model, which is just ridiculous. This is just the tip of the iceberg that demonstrates the racist/classist/sexist thinking that dominates their work. The problem is, whenever they are criticized in such a way, they say, “Don’t blame us, blame the numbers,” as if the cockamamy system they have that completely ignores individual and group humanness is somehow not indicative of their own perspective. UGH!

  36. Brian wrote:

    Was that really Levitt posting? I can’t believe that was serious. It was probably someone posing as him to mock him. But, if that really was him, then it just points out what a smug piece of S*** he is. Rather than actually respond to legit criticism, he just mocks those who disagree with him. I hope, for his sake, it was a fake. Anyway to find out?

  37. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Brian -

    I’ll shoot him an email, but a lot of the people who post here who have been criticized never get back to me.

  38. Myles wrote:

    Okay, you guys are looking for Half-Vampire/Half-Werewolf. Multiracial “people” must not be confused with Normal monoracial people

    *headdesk*

    But it’s always good to remember that I’m a slutty abomination ;)

    Mmm, got to love how they always put it in there that we are more attractive, on average. Not just more attractive than Black people, but White people, too. And how that is always a benefit.

    The only real common thread among the mixed people that I know is that pretty much all of us have had to deal with a lot of unwanted sexual attention from monoracial people who assumed that we would be freakier in bed than “regular people” or monoracial people who just had some fetish that we satisfied.

    And none of us have gotten STIs!

  39. jlf wrote:

    Is there any basis for assuming that Levitt actually posted this comment at all? Presumably editors have IP addresses and the such?

    Additionally, if people will read the paper (an ungated copy is linked right there in the blog post), it clearly states how attractiveness is judged.

    As a person who 1) actually attended the MIT program in question and 2) went to high school with another person who attended the program, I agree wholeheartedly with Suskind’s claim.

    I read this blog every day because it is generally quite well-written, but it really upsets me when people fly off the handle without reading primary sources. Complain about the study’s methodology if you wish, but do so after actually reading the whole study.

    And, finally, Roland Fryer pretty much does nothing but study race. I have no idea why people are bashing Levitt when Fryer, a black man, is most likely the driving force behind the paper.

  40. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Jlf - We have an email address and have sent the info of to confirm.

    2. Read the sources (both in the paper and as reposted in the Freakonmics comments). Beauty is still something subjective and still heavily influenced by eurocentric standards.

    3. Were you one of the nine students cited as being heavily influential to the study?

  41. jlf wrote:

    @Latoya

    No, it is a total coincidence that I happened to see this post. As I said, I read this blog every day, but this is the first time I felt the urge to post.

  42. gabby wrote:

    (whoops! anon comment was this one, by me:)

    Is Steve Levitt’s theory right, and you really are all a bunch of attractive, fight-happy, hard drinking, cancer stick sucking, television junkies awaiting your clinic results?

    This is clearly wrong. I’m a very moderate television watcher.

    I really think I could have swallowed this as blind statistics-reporting generalizations, were it not for #3. That just points to either a badly-expressed sense of humor, or a lack of objectivity that then colors the rest of the post and, by association, the report itself. It’s disappointing.

  43. Jenn wrote:

    So this guy is basically saying white women are tainting their great legacy by having children w/ under achieving black men. Black folks don’t know how to raise kids anyway, I mean look at the HS drop out rate of black students. He didn’t mention which gender of which parent but thats what he meant. Unless he is saying WM are bailing out on theri biracial children as well

  44. David Wynn wrote:

    I can’t say I’m that offended, because I wouldn’t really expect anything different from the freakonomics blog. They’re big data geeks, and when you use simple opinion surveys, you’ll tend to get the results that people draw stereotypes from. It sucks for… well… any category of person that can fit into a survey question… but it’s what I would expect of Levitt and Venkatesh.

    After all, they don’t pretend to posit absolute truth, aesthetic or otherwise, a know? They just say “this is what we saw in the data.” Super, except when dealing with cultural phenomena it doesn’t always fits graphs so neatly.

  45. thesciencegirl wrote:

    Latoya, please delete my prior comment. I had some errors! Thanks.

    My initial reaction was to provide a bunch of anecdotal evidence about why this study’s conclusions are wrong. Like the fact that I’m a biracial, non-smoking, non-drinking, average-looking, well-adjusted, self-sufficient, virgin MD/PhD student. But then I realized that a response like this doesn’t really mean anything because it is easily dismissed as an exception, an outlier, an anomaly. I imagine that’s a retort heard often by any person of color who dares to describe his/her own existence as something other than a stereotype.

    I will then merely say this: People have been publishing their racist views and labeling them science for centuries. It’s nothing new, and it doesn’t impress me.

    As a scientist, I know that even peer-reviewed literature can be total bull. Well, I call bull. The myth of the tragic mulatto is just that: a myth. And I wish I could point to some well-designed studies with real statistical power to prove that, but, alas, they have not been done. But as a first step, let’s try controlling for economic status, education level of parents, and quality of school system, just to name a few confounding variables that were ignored in this study. And let’s talk about all of your overlapping error bars, and the meaning of statistical significance. We could also talk about the fact that the sample size of mixed race students in the Add Health survey is a mere 0.34%. That presents a little problem called small sample bias. And we won’t even touch the pseudo-science you employed to measure attractiveness.

  46. bas bleu wrote:

    Wow. They put that racist “more attractive” nonsense into a “study.”

  47. Rumble wrote:

    Right. My father is Pathan and my mother is a white Appalachian. Obviously, I’m not the right kind of mixed kid for this article. What was that about the marginalized man again?

    As for how they evaluated attractiveness, the paper explains:

    “At the end of the in-home interview in Wave I the interviewer was asked to rate the physical attractiveness of the respondent on a scale from 1 to 5, where 0 indicates “very unattractive”, and 5 indicates “very attractive.””

    The really horrific thing is that white children are rated as more attractive than black children in the paper. (pg 42)

  48. Donald E wrote:

    First of all, what is the question? Who is Levitt? What race is he, and why is he writing about mixed raced kids?

  49. jlf wrote:

    @ thesciencegirl

    I agree 100% with your last paragraph. Claims of this nature demand far more rigor than this study provided.

  50. jen* wrote:

    When greeted with this type of pseudoscientific reasoning for embracing stereotypes, I don’t mince words. This article has officially won the ‘Crap On a Stick’ Award for 2008. There may be other contenders before the end of the year, but I think this one remains the ‘winner’.

    cosign with you, thesciencegirl. all my data would be thrown out as outlying exception, but I remain a “non-smoking, non-drinking, average-looking, well-adjusted, self-sufficient, virgin” chemist in the boonies of SC. Oh yeah - and my daddy never left, either.

  51. Prometheus wrote:

    The flaws of this summary are blatant, but thing that I’ve found disturbing is the repetative comment of mixed children only thought of as more beautiful because of the “Euro-centered standard of beauty.”

    I’m not sure if this study focused solely on White-Black children or not, but I find it incredulous that some of us are faulting multi-racial children because they may look more “Euro” than Black kids. To be honest, that assertion is really tactless and disrespectful AND is quite helpful in facilitating racial identity issues in multi-racial children. Who says it’s a bad thing to appear more “Euro”? And, yes I am one of them.

    And for the record, breeds are mixed. Not people.

  52. Tony wrote:

    Hmm

    My father was around all my life.
    I did very well in school
    I do not dare try to judge myself on a scale of attractiveness.
    I never drank, smoke, got an STD, and the only fights were like one or two quick punches when I was very little (more playing than actual fighting)

    About the only correct thing is I do watch alot of TV, but I am also an avid reader (Both sides of my family often refer to me as “the one with the book in his hand” at every family function).

  53. Phil Deeze wrote:

    jlf,
    I’m sorry, but some of the assertions in Leavitt’s research aren’t right. I was with Leavitt on O-ron-jell-O and Le-mon-jell-O, but he lost me with the “more attractive bi-racial child” thing.
    For every Halle Berry out there, there are hundreds of kids that don’t get the genetic “long straw” of looks, OK? Please give us the courtesy of acknowledging that? Because, in the grand scheme of things, the aesthetic of “beauty” is not an absolute and it isn’t dispersed in a universal sprinking. There are actually more “ugly” people than beautiful. If you take into account the hip/waist ratios, breast size/shoulder broadness, size of buttocks, symmetry of the face, eye shape, height, weight, muscle tone, etc.
    I think what most people consider beauty is the uber-people in that machine in the underwear ad where regular people go in and come out looking like fembots (with blonde hair and swelling bosoms that pop out of the bra like a muffin top) and manbots (with perfectly squared Aryan fantasy jaws.)
    For the most part, the “more attractive” bi-racial children aren’t going to be considered AS attractive of the non-black side of them, so even if you are biracial, you aren’t as good as the “good half” of you. Now, guess what the good half is and what the not-so-good half is.
    Please tell me that you aren’t down with this. If I were a part of a study that called me inferior or that PART of me were inferior, what does that make the subject of the study?

  54. Lyonside wrote:

    Ah, you all (the mixed folks and our allies and friends) said it for me. Cosign to almost all of you.

  55. Lola wrote:

    GeeLennox wrote:

    More attractive according to whose standards? Oh, I forgot the Euro centered beauty standards in our society.

    No nappy hair + no broad nose + not to dark= more attractive than your average black person

    Funny thing is, I have mixed relatives with nappy hair, broad noses, and dark skin. They look BLACK, blacker than me and I’m not mixed. If I didn’t know their parents I wouldn’t know they were mixed. I know a guy who’s blasian and looks pure black. There are so many mixed people who don’t fit the stereotypical look.

    Not only do they base their studies on stereotypical looks, but obviously mixed is just black and white to them!

  56. Ilario wrote:

    Hi, that’s Ilario from Italy,

    I was thinking to buy Freakonomics but if this is the quality of the researches…. I’d better save my Euros.

    By the way, I am a mixed white/black guy, graduated in Economy with the top marks, and awarded with outstanding student scholarship.

    So far I don’t have any STD… should I catch some so that Mr. Freak won’t be disappointed?

    My bad, too much red wine during meals.. this should because of my white 50%…

    This is low quality research, indeed.

    It’s amazing how researchers are so prone to divide people and to create hate instead of thinking about solutions for a better society.

    Being educated doesn’t mean anything if there is a lack of basic moral standards.

    Mr. Freak should redirect his energy to another direction. Some hints: global warming, increasing cost of food… Should this subjects be to difficult for him, what about, determining the existence of the G-spot?

    Scientist and so called “experts” can easily support this or that theory, using any kind of argument. They are good at that. Give them a stereotype to support, they’ll find the way.

    Cheers!

    Ps: about the G-spot, I am damn serious!

  57. browne wrote:

    “No nappy hair + no broad nose + not to dark= more attractive than your average black person” Gee Lennox

    Exactly. The attractive comment we all know was a code dig at “ugly” black people.

    Browne

  58. Sharon wrote:

    I would say that this paper on mixed race people is not worthy of comment but apparently there several — probably the people who have commented — who would disagree.

    But I’ll say it anyway. Why are we so pre-occupied with this ?

  59. Princess wrote:

    “The Plight of Mixed Race Children” should be titled, The Plight of Racist Studies and the People Who Perpetuate Racial Stereotypes”

    Now, I have nephews and nieces who are biracial and multi-cultural (Black/ Caucasion and Black/South American. I have to say each one of them, even siblings being raised in the same households is uniquely different. Some are straight “A” students, while others are more artistic. Some like TV, and some prefer computers, music, etc.

    Therefore, I totally disagree with the results/findings of this bogus study. And I agree with the majority of the posts here.

    This is clearly another aim in the dark and a failed attempt to box persons in while perpetuating overt and covert racial stereotypes in the guise of a study.

    What planet are these people on anyway?

  60. louise wrote:

    likely #3 is due to the fact that these male pannelists think a little bit of exoticism is nice, but too much is gross.

  61. RainaWeather wrote:

    What the HELL did I just read.?! I don’t know what else to say except that I had no idea watching TV was bad behavior?

  62. Tariq Nelson wrote:

    I can’t believe that rubbish was even posted. Sad part is that many people believe those things.

    “Oh my, a mixed race person is having a problem. It must be because he/she is mixed race”

  63. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Sharon -

    Why are you asking that question?

  64. Tim wrote:

    We sure are good-looking — more attractive than black or white children according to Levitt. I think it’s because of all of the television we watch. But I don’t think anecdotal hotness passes much economic muster.

  65. Tim wrote:

    P.S.: If you guys really want to read some howlers, check out Gary Becker’s research on interracial marriage. He uses above-average rates of divorce to argue — I am not kidding you — that people marry outside the race because they have no prospects for intraracial marriage.

  66. Torontonian wrote:

    Those claims about mixed people are probably about averages rather than about all mixed people, so offering personal testimony why you don’t fit the average doesn’t disprove the average. Similarly, however, using a sample of one to judge attractiveness doesn’t say anything about how attractive those children are to the general American population, or even to the community they are living in.

    Statistics are great, but when you use flawed racial assumptions (e.g. marginal man), the conclusions are going to be unsound.

  67. Abu Sinan wrote:

    Too many stereotypes! I also love the assumption that “Bi-racial” children automatically means children that are products of black and white relationships.

    One more stereotype to get over.

  68. knowhow wrote:

    just so you all know…the steven d levitt post was NOT him, (clearly). It was satire. based on his “journalism” i doubt he reads racialicious.

    I have tried to post responses to his article at the nyt about how they should retract and apologize for the shit piece, but they do not approve my comments.

    After this, I am done with the NYT and will never buy their paper/products again. The fact that their editors allowed this garbage to be published is appalling. This piece has ruined their brand image for me. They might as well be the Post at this point.

    That’s what really seals it for me, is that it is not only racist, but it is also horrible “scientific” journalism. It is lazy, hackish, and poorly conceived. I suggest a boycott of the NYT until they fully retract and apologize for this outrage.

  69. knowhow wrote:

    we need our own mixed ADL.

  70. Steven D. Levitt wrote:

    Hi,

    I’m not really Steven D. Levitt. I just wanted to see how easy it would be to post a fake message “from him.”

    Rob Schmidt

    Mod Note
    - It is that easy Rob, we have open commenting on this site. However your IP and email give you away. I am really glad that most of the readers are willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but as this blog gets more and more popular, we get back more and more comments from those we criticize. And, of the seven or so times I can recall this happening, I can only think of one person who actually wanted to engage with what was written - Christopher Tidus. Steven D. Levitt’s information is inconclusive, and while I have sent an email asking him to confirm, most of the time the people we criticize come in, drop a nasty note, and don’t bother to return emails. Let’s hope this time is different. - LDP

  71. bas bleu wrote:

    knowhow - It’s sad that they won’t approve your comment!

    I say we start writing letters to the editor. There are lots of brilliant people (so articulate!) who post here. I’m a former journalist, and I know that papers want to seem credible and racially sensitive. A load of thoughtful letters telling them how racist this article was will make them take notice… At least for now.

    I’m tied up today, but I’m definitely crafting one tomorrow.

  72. Pololly wrote:

    I’m sure I’m gonna get shouted down and I honestly don’t want to disagree with everyone, especially since I have just discovered racialicious and think it is spectacular… but I’m not sure why everyone is so angry. I am reading through the paper and see sooo much to criticize, believe me. This is where economic analysis goes out of bounds and I think the weaknesses are clear and I haven’t finished reading yet. I also think the author’s arrogance in addressing communities of color in the NYT article is quite offensive.

    BUT I don’t understand the reaction. I actually expected a comprehensive critique rather than a fairly superficial dismissal of the author. I also don’t quite understand the counter arguments that are being made.

    1. I’m/you’re mixed race and we’re not like that. These are just stereotypes of minorities.

    The author used words like likely, average and ‘more than’. I don’t think that every study uses some level of generalization and I’m not sure that this is an effective critique.

    Again, I’m not sure that you can dismiss these underlying statistics unless they are false. You can say the author is wrongly interpreting them, has his causation mixed up etc but you can hardly accuse him of ’stereotyping’ when he’s trying to make an academic point in an academic paper. He’s not just throwing them into an editorial for giggles. I mean if statistically white youth are more likely to smoke and drink then that’s kind of a statistical fact or it’s not.

    2. The issue of beauty

    This is a difficult one and I don’t really want to get dragged down into it but, as has been noted numerous times on racialicious even, white standards of beauty are adhered to in society. So it is not a stretch to assume that mixed race people are on average perceived to be prettier. Presumably this would affect socialization in the same way that race, as a social construct, does. I’m black African - dark skinned, strong features and the rest - so I’m probably the person on this blog who is furthest away from this standard.

    Look, I’m not mixed race and I’m not African American (I’m black and European) and I hold my hands up to any ignorance here. I may have a bias because I do like sociological analysis and love to read articles about race and critique/rubbish them. But I don’t really agree with the critiques so far. In pretty much all the articles I’ve read on racialicious up to now, I’ve pretty much agreed, especially with LaToya, but I actually think I may be missing something here.

    I’m gonna read through the article and

  73. Pololly wrote:

    list what I think are its flaws as a study and maybe post them. But I’m not sure I get why this article is offensive or racist. *ducks for cover*

  74. browne wrote:

    The reason I’m commenting on this topic, when I don’t really care about TV or movies is because this is because the New York Times. It is the paper of record for the USA. That’s the paper other countries go to, to see what we think. If this nonsense was in the LA Times I wouldn’t care, the NY Post I wouldn’t care, but the NY Times? It’s like going to Stanford and Harvard and having a professor speak on the evils of evolutions. It’s pretty outrageous.

  75. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Pololloy -

    Before we were Racialicious, we were Mixed Media Watch, a site dedicated to tracking the representation of mixed race individuals and interracial couples in the media.

    Carmen and Jen Chau (of Swirl, Inc.) spent a lot of time debunking both the negative stereotypes and the positive stereotypes of mixed race identity.

    And this study is regurgitating stereotypes under the name of “research.”

    The author used words like likely, average and ‘more than’. I don’t think that every study uses some level of generalization and I’m not sure that this is an effective critique.

    It does, but this study was also founded in racial stereotypes to begin with. Combine that with the teeny sample group which acknowledges that even that may be flawed, the influence of 9 students to speak on their experiences and the ideas already circulating, and there you go.

    And, unfortunately, for us brown groups in the US, these studies on theory can actually give rise to biased policy. Looking at the confused reaction to some about this post makes me think we need to do a post on race-biased scientific studies.

    So it is not a stretch to assume that mixed race people are on average perceived to be prettier.

    It is suspect as to why that bit was included in the study after all, especially since most of the focus was factors on risky behavior. It is more suspect that one person is considered the sole, unbiased judge of attractiveness, and that the study notes show a marked pattern who was considered attractive by this person. So there is the question of *why* this info was included and *why* they would use the sole judgment of one person on which to base their ideas.

    We have had issues with Freakonomics before, and while it looks like they at least put in some effort on the black names study they published.

    I ran it down here.

    I remember that chapter in Freakonomics quite well, and not just because it directly applies to me. What I found were people trying to explain away my name based on the Freakonomics theory without paying attention to (1) the conclusion that the authors come to in the chapter and (2) that Freakonomics is a book applying economic theory to random events in real life. Just because Levitt and Freyer came up with a conclusion that does not make their results fact.

    If you check out Levitt and Freyer’s original research paper, you see their conclusion clear as day in the first paragraph:

    We find, however, no negative relationship between having a distinctively Black name and later life outcomes after controlling for a child’s circumstances at birth.

    So research suggests there is no negative relationship.

    However, there is a social penalty, which we discovered in Wendi’s post Sumpin’ Turrrble. There are still many people who will place a value judgement on your name, which does have an impact on one very key area of life. Let’s revisit the second paragraph from the Times’ article:

    “Names only have a significant influence when that is the only thing you know about the person,” said Dr. Ford, a developmental psychologist at George Mason University. “Add a picture, and the impact of the name recedes. Add information about personality, motivation and ability, and the impact of the name shrinks to minimal significance.”

    So, where in life does it occur when someone is in the position to make a value judgement about you based only on your name?

    In the hiring process.

    If you look at how the two studies were handled, this one was just sloppy.

  76. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Jae Ran Kim also allowed us to cross post one of her critiques on how Freakonomics showed their bias in the area of international adoption:

    http://www.racialicious.com/2008/03/12/freaking-out-over-freakonomics/

  77. Ismone wrote:

    On bad habits of “white” vs. “black” kids.

    My husband watched a lot of TV when he stayed with one set of his grandparents, and again when he lived in D.C. This was because it was too dangerous to go outside. More fighting may have more to do with the environments some of our kids disproportionately find themselves in due to poverty and inner-city living. I had a prof. who grew up in a mostly-white steel town, and there were constant fights.

    Regarding alcohol and cigarettes, they’re both expensive, and easier to get ahold of if mommy and daddy stock a big liquor cabinet/keep a lot of cigarettes around and won’t miss a few. If I recall correctly, the middle-class kids of all races I knew were able to get their hands on alcohol fairly easily–maybe with the exception of first gen. immigrant kids with strict parents.

    Again, I think this has to do with social class and neighborhood. If they didn’t look at these kind of factors, the study is basically worthless. (And even STDs/sex may have something do with social class–if mom and dad have more $, they have more time to supervise the kids and hit them over the head with the social wrath that will be visited on their middle class ‘respectability’ if their kid gets knocked up/knocks someone else up.)

    That’s just my however many cents.

  78. Pololly wrote:

    Hi Latoya, I would really welcome a post on biased racial studies because, while I see the bias in the working paper, I see it as fairly explicit and no more than on any topic in any issue. They start from a set of hypotheses and use it to interpret data. To me, that is what social science is. I actually understand Browne over this being published in the NYT but I’m still not clear over this whole issue.

    Basically, apart from it being a poor study, what makes it horribly bad over that? It’s audience and it’s impact, fine. But wouldn’t it be more influential to write a detailed academic critique of the article rather than just dismiss it as ‘peddling stereotypes’?

    Maybe I’m just the wrong audience for this because I am always very critical of studies BUT I love the structure of academic analysis precisely BECAUSE it allows us to debunk it. If he had written a long flowery article in the style of typical NYT: “Jamal looked out of his bedroom onto the cracked pavement below. He walked those streets daily, blah blah blah ” etc etc, there is no comeback! But because it is a study, I’d prefer to treat it as a study and attack it on that basis.

    But I’m happy to bow on this issue because I love racialicious but I can tell I’m never going to agree on this topic.

  79. Big Man wrote:

    I’ve been unable to take that blog seriously on race since one of the authors suggested that the best way to deal with discrimination regarding ethnic names is to just change your name and assimilate more.

    Yeah, that was fucked up.

  80. C-Marsh wrote:

    @Pololly

    “Basically, apart from it being a poor study, what makes it horribly bad over that? It’s audience and it’s impact, fine. But wouldn’t it be more influential to write a detailed academic critique of the article rather than just dismiss it as ‘peddling stereotypes’?”

    I think that your initial statements basically sum up the critiques of this study. It was poorly done. The language contained within the paper made sweeping generalizations, which then, Freakonomics attempts to apply the study’s implications to a broader context. Below are a few statements that I find to problematic within the body of the paper.

    “This paper describes basic facts about the plight of mixed race individuals
    during their adolescence and early adulthood. As one might expect, on a host of background and achievement characteristics, mixed race adolescents fall in between whites and blacks.”

    “Thus, popularity is determined by other students’ perceptions of a student’s type. We assume that all agents within a racial group will, in equilibrium, form the same inferences about an individual’s type;”

    “For instance, it is possible that among whites one incident of fighting in a school year is ‘very often’ whereas among black adolescents that frequency is considered ‘not at all.’”

    “Broadly summarizing, the data on mixed race black-white children suggests that they grow up in home environments that are similar to blacks, have academic achievement in between that of whites and blacks, but engage in much more risky behaviors and are slightly worse off psychologically.”

    Although class was controlled, I don’t feel that this study can jump to applying its findings in a more generalized manner as I feel Levitt attempts to do on his blog.

    “We try to use economic theory to explain this set of facts. I can’t say we are entirely successful. If we had to pick an explanation that best fits the facts, it would be the old sociology model of mixed-race individuals as the “marginal man”: not part of either racial group and therefore torn by inner conflict. One reason this model is largely consistent with our facts is because it makes so few strong predictions that it is hard to falsify, which isn’t really fair to the competing models.”

    Here, Levitt essentially says that “We picked an old theory that would confirm our findings.” I thought that researchers are supposed to avoid a confirmation bias. I would have felt more comfortable with the study if they would have used words specific to their sample (i.e. in the sample we find….). My biggest problem with the study is that it seems as if it is presenting itself as finding sound data that can be applied to the greater society; however, it fails to recognize its bias.

    I think it would be great if someone put together an academic article that debunked this entire study, but it can take quite a few years to have an article published in a reputable scholarly journal. Furthermore, I would venture to say that there are studies that debunk the general idea of some of the key points in this paper (have to check, not absolutely sure) or at least are general enough to discount the generalizations made by Levitt. Additionally, Park’s “Marginilized Man” study was conducted in 1928. Race has become more complex since that time and his theory is clearly out dated. (I plan on reading Park’s original article and if I am incorrect I will retract this statement).

    There is a great necessity to speak out against this paper now! If we are forced to wait for a journal article to get published refuting Levitt’s claims, the damage can already be done. The out cry heard from Racialicious and other sites should be echoed by other academics. This study needs to be subject to replication and the introduction of a more representative population (among other corrections).

  81. C-Marsh wrote:

    Here’s a study you should check out.

    Development and risk behavior among African American, Caucasian, and mixed-race adolescents living in high poverty inner-city neighborhoods.Preview Bolland, John M.; Bryant, Chalandra M.; Lian, Bradley E.; McCallum, Debra M.; Vazsonyi, Alexander T.; Barth, Joan M.; American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol 40(3-4), Dec 2007. pp. 230-249. [Journal Article]

  82. Cameron wrote:

    Um… was 15 actually Levitt, or a troll?

  83. SamJ wrote:

    Maybe Latoya can clear this up a bit, but..

    I’m not really sure what’s so bad about this besides the part about attractiveness. In comment 16 Latoya says the study “assumes quite a bit” and that that opened the analysis up to bias. Besides the measurement of attractiveness (which is pointless to measure anyway, in any circumstance) which likely assumes white standards of beauty, what other assumptions were made and what was wrong with those assumptions?

    The original post doesn’t do much to refute the study.

    Note: this isn’t an attack! It’s just that I’d never have taken offense at this study besides the part where attractiveness was rated, so I’d like to see what the rest of you see.

  84. Kaonashi wrote:

    SamJ: My economics teacher in college told us that you could pretty much make any study come to whatever conclusion you want; depending on the sampling. Working in marketing and advertising industry, I’ve seen enough of this sleight of hand to completely believe it.

    1. There’s more to being Biracial than just Black/White

    2. 2 parent homes, or homes where the parents were together long-term but not married didn’t seem to be included in the study

    3. More than likely, the sampling was taken from areas where they were more likely to get the results they sought and was small to boot.

    4. ANY study that assigns certain behaviours to someone’s race (whether positive or negative) raises an automatic red flag.

    5. The attractiveness thing just blew the whole thing out of the water for me. There are some features that are scientifically proven to be attractive to everyone regardless of race or sex but in the end it’s still relative to the person doing the judging.

  85. de-liberated wrote:

    @#25 gatamala
    “I wish someone would study the effects of an environment steeped in racist bullshit cloaked in academic-jargon on minority attraction and retention rates.”

    Tah-dah!!

    Thanks Gatamala. BTW, put me on the mailing list to receive a copy.

    @ #78 Pololly
    “But wouldn’t it be more influential to write a detailed academic critique of the article rather than just dismiss it as ‘peddling stereotypes’? ”

    Will society really benefit from another thesis explaining what shit is?

  86. nicene42 wrote:

    I have several biracial people in my family and grew up next door to a biracial family with 10 kids. They don’t act “black” or act “white” they act like themselves. Race is a social construct. When a person is biracial, they live outside the pigeonholes that society creates to marginalize individuality. This BS of a study tries to assert voodoo science and flawed research to wide variety of people. I have always thought more of nurture than nature as key component of personality. People are not one-dimensional and stereotypes are not guidelines but barriers.

  87. Michelle wrote:

    @ Pololly

    I just want to reiterate LaToya’s point about articles such as this, found in the NYT, can influence policy. What that means is that someone could pass through questionable legislation based on the flawed research that funnels money to inner city schools that hinges on Black girls being given the HPV vaccine. Or some legislation that assumes that if you are Black and in the inner city you will pretty much have an STD. An article like this has the potential to be very dangerous.

    Also, a comment that says that Bi-racial kids (Black and White, in this case) are just plain “prettier” can also be used to justify the logic of some woman who claims (in public) her Bi-racial children are just better looking than other Black children. Thinking like that has a negative ripple affect on the psyche of Bi-racial children (some of whom might not be considered universally attractive) and Black children who are already dealing with low esteem due to being considered unattractive.

  88. bas bleu wrote:

    nicene42 - “When a person is biracial, they live outside the pigeonholes that society creates to marginalize individuality. ”

    Yes, but we all live outside of those pigeonholes.

  89. S's mom wrote:

    I read the book “Freakonomics”. It made these conclusions, which I paraphrase:
    “Asians do better academically than Whites. Whites do better academically than Blacks. ”

    “Adopted children are less successfull than non-adopted children. Why? Because generally people who give up children for adoption are dumb themselves, and success depends on genetics.”

    HOWEVER, the author of the book who is a famed economist has adopted two children from China. What does this mean? This left me wondering if he felt the intelligence of Asian kids cancels out the dumbness of adopted kids.

    (Sorry if I offended anybody. Those were the author’s conclusions, not mine.)

  90. de-liberated wrote:

    The Freaknomics blog posted this comment, “BTW, the term “retardation” was once used to categorize IQ’s below 85. This was lowered to 70 by the AAMR when it was discovered just how many blacks fell into that category. ”

    To which I replied, “In the grand scheme of (historical) things, I don’t mind falling into that category (retardation) – I mean really, honestly. There are other categories I hope to not ever find myself in.

    For example, what AAMR category does tyranny, apartheid, genocide, colonialism, human trafficking, and engineered national discrimination based on ethnicity or IQ (either is tragic) fall into?

    What AAMR category do the founders, architects, engineers, leaders and proponents of such systems fall into? Whatever AAMR milieu this bunch is in I hope to never qualify for.

    I appreciate the endeavor to delineate melanin and IQ’s, attractiveness even.

    Is there research and analysis existing / ongoing which delineates tyrants, despots, imperialist, colonialist, oppressors, xenophobes? I welcome a reading list on this research. In the end, there may not even be six degrees of separation between them.” - the end -

    My comment was sent 3 times to Freakonomics…but never posted. Hmmmm.

  91. Angry White Guy wrote:

    WoW!!! REALLY???? First off, if I didn’t know they were talking about mixed people, I’d swear they were talking about the Irish :-)(fight happy drunks who love smoking). We really shouldn’t be mad at this cause all this shows is that any group of people can make up a survey. Let me know when they post who conducted the survey, who analized the data, who was responsible for the results. I mean c’mon

  92. Jason wrote:

    I’m having a difficult time understanding where anything written in the blog entry ‘The Plight of Mixed Race-Children’ has any validity whatsoever.

    I am of mixed race heritage (Scandinavian/African American/Native American). I grew up on welfare, traveling the country in a camper with my parents and 3 sisters.

    I have since graduated high school with perfect attendance - throughout my entire 12 year school career, never having a criminal record - not even an in school suspension!

    I’ve also went to college and am 32 years old, an art director of a metropolitan ad agency personally handling the production work of several multi-million dollar accounts.

    My wife grew up on an island in Alaska, also of mixed race heritage (French/African American/German). She was on welfare as well and eventually travelled a nomadic childhood throughout the lower 48 states.

    Again, she’s had near perfect school attendance, never had any disciplinary problems to speak of, graduated high school with a near 4.0.

    She is now a PhD candidate at one of the top 10 schools in America specializing in African American History.

    I find the blog entry ridiculous, insulting and just outright garbage.
    I wish the New York Times would invest in better researchers who are actually credible.

    If they were willing, I’d actually let them interview myself!

  93. yellowwallpaper wrote:

    “Mixed-race kids do have one advantage over white and black kids: the mixed-race kids are much more attractive on average.”

    what?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!? does this count for all mixed race people because I have to tell you as latino/white person I’ve never felt particularly beautiful. If only my parents had been more picky in their breeding.

  94. brianjkoscuiszka wrote:

    @de-liberated

    I have had that exact same problem with the Freak blog. They have a sketchy “editorial review” process that seems to filter out responses from people they don’t like. I emailed them about it and got one response from a contributor saying he has no idea how the process works and one from an NYT editor saying they only apply the basic restrictions that are present throughout the site, such as personal attacks, cursing, spam, and too much capitalization (not sure why that one is an issue). I copied all of my attempted posts to them to have them highlight the offensive parts and STILL haven’t heard back. It’s pretty clear they censor their comments section to avoid legit criticism of their work, especially the social aspects of it. They deliberately try to be controversial, especially with social issues, but then can’t handle the feedback. Cowards is what they are.

  95. Korolev wrote:

    Mixed people are not all attractive. I know I’m not. I’m exactly, perfectly average. My face, and the faces of my siblings (we are all English/Chinese) are painfully, painfully average. Not ugly, but so unbelievable plain and average that no one has ever said that I was ugly or handsome. I did have someone say that I looked “young” for my age, once.

    There was an Australian paper (which you might find on Pubmed, or a journal database) that used computer generated images showing a “mixture” of caucasian and asian features, and showed them to about one hundred or so people, and reported that “mixed” faces were generally perceived as being more attractive than full Caucasian or Asian faces - but that was the problem - they used computer generated “morphs”, not real people in the study.

    I think you’ll find that most mixed people are like most people in general - as in, pretty damn average looking. I know I am. The thing is, that the attractive mixed people are often immediately pointed out as being “mixed”, while the average or plain mixed people are never pointed out.

  96. Korolev wrote:

    Actually, I found the article on pubmed. It was published in the journal “perception”, 2005, volume 34, issue 3, pages 319-40, by authors Rhodes, Lee, Palermo, Weiss, Yoshikawa, Clissa, Williams, Peters, Winker and Jeffery. You’d need a university access to see the article, though.

    But again, the major problem with this study is that it used “computer generated” models. Not real faces. So this study can’t really be taken seriously. How can a computer construct a “mixed” face? I know a few mixed race people - some look like a mix, some look almost entirely Asian or Caucasian - for example, my sister and I look very Caucasian, while my brother looks quite Asian in comparison. A computer generated face cannot accurately produce this sort of thing.

    I have trawled through Pubmed for ages and ages, and I have found zero reputable articles that say “mixed race people” are more “attractive” than any other group of people in the world.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.