Posted on 10/10/2017 4:34:54 AM PDT by PapaBear3625
...Few seemed concerned. So to call attention to the privacy risks, he decided to show that it was possible to use facial recognition analysis to detect something intimate, something “people should have full rights to keep private.”
After considering atheism, he settled on sexual orientation.
...
Presented with photos of gay men and straight men, a computer program was able to determine which of the two was gay with 81 percent accuracy, according to Dr. Kosinski and co-author Yilun Wang’s paper.
The backlash has been fierce.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The one seated, yes. The one standing, no.
That must be one, slick algorithm to try to program!
(Or not...)
Isaiah 3:9 The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it.
Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.
The BOOK has the answer.
Once again:
Romans 8:16 niv
The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.
EEWWWWWWW
Nasty.
My wife and I were having breakfast in Provincetown, MA years ago right around the time that town was beginning to the make the permanent shift from sleepy Portugese-American fishing village with a little homosexuality to a full-blown homosexual destination.
As we had breakfast, we were playing the “Are They or Aren’t They” game, and two guys walked in. We couldn’t tell.
They looked ‘straight’.
They talked ‘straight’.
We were pondering this, when two other guys walked in.
As soon as the guys sitting down saw the guys enter the door, they changed as if a light switch had been turned on.
Never heard two more stereotypically lilted homosexual voices in our lives! It was a stunning turnabout.
It reminded me of a time I went to a vendor booth at a trade show. I saw a sales guy from the company manning the booth who I liked, and I went over to say hello.
Americans (most of us know this) are suckers for Australian accents...we tend to like Aussies, especially friendly and outgoing ones. Kind of reminds us of...well...us, with the flair of the accent.
This guy had a very strong Aussie accent, and everyone who met him remembered him...called everyone mate, etc.
So I walk over, and he was talking to someone...when I got within earshot, the guy had almost no accent at all, could have been an American!!!!!!!
Ahh, I thought...he is a sales guy and that is his angle...:) I still liked him, but thought that was quite funny!
Just for talking purposes check the alignment of the ears and eyes on known gays. The hypothesis is that low ears in relationship to the horizontal line from the eye to the back of the head indicate the propensity.
My wife’s gaydar is 99% accurate.
If there’s any doubt, watch what they watch, while they’re unaware that you’re doing that. You’ll know what they’re about in ten minutes if there’s a crowd around.
My GD is in school to become a speech therapist. One of her 1st patients in grad school was a young man whose voice didn’t change at puberty. It didn’t take her long to figure out that he was gay. She told him that he couldn’t do that “gay” talk anymore and had to talk normally or she couldn’t help him.
In the end her treatment was successful and he was able to lower his speaking voice quite a bit. She doesn’t think it had anything to do with lack of voice change but of adopting the gay-type speech around puberty.
If it has a limp wrist, talks with a fake lisp, wears plaid dress shirts, wears purple, uses hair products, or has other homosexual identifying traits, it’s a homosexual wearing identifying traits.
I worked with dozens in graphics depts of investment banks in Manhattan.
75 percent are easy pickings.
The other 25 percent I couldn’t tell until someone told me.
The ones that aren’t really effeminate are a little tough to tell.
Unless you ask them about their life. Which i didn’t get a chance to
But behavior does effect brain chemistry, this is true ranging from narcotic use, to sexual activities, to just plain prolonged anger or sadness. The brain is stimulated in various ways by various activities, and people do associate activities with feelings.
“When an algorithm with 91 percent accuracy operates in the real world,” Dr. Cox said, “almost two-thirds of the times it says someone is gay, it would be wrong.”
If it is 91% accurate why would it wrongly identify gays 66% of the time?
MIT scientists tried Pavlovian theory in creating a Homo testing machine.
They were able to get cooperation from some public figures in testing the machine.
Shepard Smith allowed himself to be strapped into the gay testing chair and electrodes attached.
They showed Sheo images of beautiful women in various stages of undress.
There was one faint ring of the bell, a picture of Miss America contestants and the male MC.
Richard Simmons tested a little better.
Then Anderson Cooper. Zip.
Male models, actors, newsmen and a number of others, all with various results.
BaracK Obama took the chair. Nothing. Absolute flat-line.
“Thank you Mr. President. You can go join the others.”
Ding ding ding ding ding Ding ding ding ding ding Ding ding ding ding ding Ding ding ding ding ding
This is just research though - They usually have 5% significance, so if the accuracy is over 5% higher than flipping a coin (50%), it’s significant. What I took away was that humans can pick out gays significantly better than chance (61%) and the machine did it extremely well (84%). It’s impressive.
Re physical and chemical changes, there is no question many, but not all (as the 20% failure rate in this study attests) homosexual men and women appear different than heterosexuals. Their body language, manner of speaking, and facial “geography” all can provide unmistakable clues even when they are so-called in the closet.
Can they program it to detect terrorist and or murderers?
Rapist?
RINOs?
Given both GLAAD and the “Human Rights Campaign” (HRC) have both celebrated others being outed against their will, their protesting a “gaydar” machine seems pretty hypocritical I think....
This is one of those counter-intuitive mathematical facts about statistics that drive math students to distraction and gamblers to bankruptcy.
Remember that 97% to 99% of a general sample of men will be ‘straight’. If your algorithm were simply to declare all and any individual ‘straight’, it would operate with a 94% to 96% accuracy, misidentifying 1% to 3% of the sample as ‘straight’ when they were ‘gay’. The accuracy would be the percentage of correct hits minus the percentage of “False negatives.”
When the test correctly identifies 91% of the sample, it gives back “false positive” results as well as “false negatives”. Consider a hypothetical sample of 1000 men; allow for ten of them to be ‘gay’, 990 of them to be ‘straight’. Nine of the ‘gay’ men would be correctly identified; 891 of the ‘straight’ men would be correctly identified. That leaves 10 individuals as misidentified; one false negative, and nine false positives. In my hypothetical sample, the algorithm identifies 18 individuals as ‘gay’, when only 9 actually are; that is half the time my hypothetical test identifies an individual as ‘gay’, it would be wrong. Dr. Cox’s statement applies to his algorithm and samples, which are more complex than my simplified example.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.