I'm not going to read the paper, because it seems too much like work, but:
Given a single facial image, a classifier could correctly distinguish between gay and heterosexual men in 81% of cases, and in 74% of cases for women.
doesn't seem very hard to do. Below, is complete code for my AI bot that I suspect can achieve about 90% accuracy. Programmed in SAS for ease of use.
data aibot;
input prediction $7.;
datalines;
Not gay
;run;
It's easier to be better than people because people are shit at understanding base rates.
Prediction models aimed at gender alone allowed for detecting gay males with 57% accuracy and gay females with 58% accuracy.
I don't understand this line. Can anyone explain it better?
Consistent with the prenatal hormone theory of sexual orientation, gay men and women tended to have gender-atypical facial morphology, expression, and grooming styles.
The last thing on that list doesn't seem to belong. I mean, I don't know the details of the prenatal hormone theory of sexual orientation, but assuming a plain English meaning, it doesn't seem to have much to do with grooming styles.
Just try drinking a cup of estrogen and wearing an Ed Hardy t-shirt and you'll see.
Moby, I love you completely in whatever way is appropriatrly non-creepy I hope and 1 is perfection.
I don't know how masculine my face is without grooming markers but my finger length conforms to the prenatal hormone theory. And I'm not perfectly gay, so to ogged's too I guess.
Do heterosexual men worry about creepy? Let's ask a computer.
IANAComputer but can assure you not enough of them and not enough.
I'm not perfectly gay
Don't be too hard on yourself. We know you're being the best gay you can be.
I wonder about the finger-measuring thing. As near as I can tell, my index and ring fingers are the same length, but that depends on how you pick the bottom of the finger.
How does the finger-measuring thing work?
The link doesn't seem to provide their gaydar test, so I found one here.
(It's a pretty long test, and doesn't give you any indication of how far along you are as you take it, which makes it seem even longer, I think.)
I scored 56.7%, which was a little worse than the 58.5% average. Here's how they say that breaks down by orientation:
Straight 58.0%
Bisexual 58.6%
Gay/Lesbian 59.7%
Asexual 55.6%
You measure your fingers and if the ring finger is shorter than the index finger, you're supposed to become fond of your mother.
Huh. My ring fingers are substantially longer, such that there's no need to measure (the first knuckles are pretty much in a straight line, so that's not an issue). I didn't know there was so much variation in hand shape.
Congrats, Mossy. You're a straight boy! Though so am I by that standard.
The boringly obvious response to 1--probably too boring, but alas that is my way--is that the set they were testing it on has equal numbers of straight and gay men, and straight and gay women. However, for larger numbers of pictures per subject it's skewed slightly towards straight men and lesbians.
Consistent with the PHT, gay faces tended to be gender atypical. Average landmark locations revealed that gay men had narrower jaws and longer noses, while lesbians had larger jaws. Composite faces suggest that gay men had larger foreheads than heterosexual men, while lesbians had smaller foreheads than heterosexual women.
I can't say my gaydar is very good, but I would never have guessed nose length is one of the factors visually distinguishing gay men.
I would never have guessed nose length is one of the factors visually distinguishing gay men.
IT'S SUBTEXT.
I got a 66.7 on the test in 11, which does and doesn't surprise me. (I think I have very good gaydar IRL, but the images test was hard.)
I have super a femme face and build, and I think it's why even when i get a pixie cut and even though I prefer to dress fairly androgynously, people still see me as a pretty femmy woman. My index finger is also noticeably longer than my ring finger, which makes me a straight woman.
The longer nose thing for gay men doesn't surprise me, when I think about it now. And thinking about the pictures, stubbier noses read as more hetero to me.
Lorenzo Medici, Mossadegh, and Suleiman all revealed by the ways of science.
I, like pf, also got 56.7%. It's a hard test.
65% on the test. Ring and index fingers on my right hand are the same length. (So far as I can tell - I'm with Moby in not being sure what counts as the base of the finger.) On the left, the ring finger is about 0.5 cm longer. Cue Whitman quote...
Just visually, looking at my hand the ring finger looks much longer, but the base of the index finger (looking on the palm side) is lower.
60%, but I got bored and started clicking at random.
I wonder whether people would do better if they watched a short video clip rather than just looking at a photo.
I find the facial structure claims really super hard to believe.
That test is too goddamned long. This is the internet, ffs, and allofasudden I'm supposed to have an attention span.
I scored dead-on average, although I ran out of patience about 2/3 way through and just started clicking every picture on the right. But if that's a representative score for me, maybe that explains something about my dating record... Although seriously, it's a bit silly to understand this in terms of IRL gaydar. Nobody in practices makes the call based on what a picture of somebody's face looks like.
Where's the link to the test? I just see the link to the paper.
The test is the paper.
I did worse than average, which doesn't surprise me. Anyone who's not displaying explicit signifiers, I make guesses but they're usually wrong.
I did worse than average, which doesn't surprise me. Anyone who's not displaying explicit signifiers, I make guesses but they're usually wrong.
I was almost exactly average (Your score was 58.3%. / The average score is 58.5%) which surprised me because I was just randomly guessing for a bunch of them.
It's easier to be better than people because people are shit at understanding base rates.
On the other hand, I don't even SEE "remember personal info."
although I ran out of patience about 2/3 way through and just started clicking every picture on the right.
Twinsies!
I have trouble dealing with anything that involves looking at lots of faces. This probably explains my dating record.
Until the rise of the carnivorous yoga pants.
39
You can tell if a person is gay by his/her butt?
The general question is tough to answer, but generally you can tell after a while if they're interested right now.
When their butt cozies right up to you.
You can tell if you are gay by whose butts you stare at.
heebie gives a new meaning to "heteroflexible."
heebie gives a new meaning to "heteroflexible."
What's really difficult is staring at the butts of all those who don't stare at their own butts.
And here's a fight between the authors of the thing in the OP and HRC and Glaad.
I got 66.7% on that test. Guessing the men seemed easier than guessing the women.
Anyone who's not displaying explicit signifiers, I make guesses but they're usually wrong.
If someone of the same sex as you doesn't want to display their explicit signifiers to you, they're probably not gay.
To the OP, this is interesting: https://theoutline.com/post/2228/that-study-on-artificially-intelligent-gaydar-is-now-under-ethical-review-michal-kosinski
I still can't find the link to the test though, is it on Standpipe's blog?
I don't think it was ever linked in the original article.