Being in modern 'social science' must be a little like being an artist: you're always thinking of new ways to channel your Muse, and you have a freedom to array any and all tools at your disposal to do so. You're liberated from the usual constraints of actual science, in other words.

I'm talking about this article detailing a Kellogg School of Management study that claims to show that if black CEOs have a "baby-face", they'll be more successful. What the heck is a "baby-face", you ask? Never fear, our brave social scientist has defined it (i.e. made it up):


...rounder face, larger forehead, smaller nose, larger ears and fuller, pouty lips....


So they made up a collection of traits they call "babyfaceness". Then they asked random people to rate how "babyfaced" people are based on headshots. (The number of black headshots used in this study: a grand total of 10.) From what I can tell they also asked people to predict how much money the headshot subjects make (whatever that's supposed to prove). It gets fuzzier from there and I started to zone out.

Let me just jump to the punch-line and translate this all for you:

1. America is racist and should be criticized. (This goes without saying and one doesn't even need a study)

2. In this particular instance the evidence for America being racist is that there aren't many CEOs who look like scary gangsta rappers - which is totally not fair.

3. America will merit the criticism of being racist unless/until she overcomes her racist, stereotypical, unfair slight aversion to promoting guys who look like scary gangsta rappers to position of CEO of Fortune 500 companies.

4. But actually then, she'll still be racist. It's just that we'll need other sorts of social science studies than this one (and continued research funding for the researchers), in order to continue to prove it.

[Originally posted at Rhymes With Cars And Girls]