Author Topic: GBS freaks out because Gaydar might be real  (Read 1996 times)

Dog-O-Tron 5000v4.0

  • 5000 Posters Club
  • Fagmin
  • *
  • Posts: 9000
  • We don't need another hero
  • Awards Metal Fan Classicist You're Great...No, YOU'RE Great! Took Down an Admin old Took down a Moderator Something Wonderful Goon or Ex-Goon TNE Veteran Sasstronaut United Statesian Bah Jaysus!
    • Awards
GBS freaks out because Gaydar might be real
« on: June 03, 2012, 06:53:40 PM »

This is a very complex Goon issue.

Some science guys did a study where they had subjects look at faces and try and guess if they were gay. The subjects were right 60% of the time.

Now, whatever your own feelings on this (choice vs born that way) it's funny to see the convoluted ways Gibbis gets freaked out by this. You'd think they'd love it that something helps prove being gay might be genetic, but no, because there's a greater liberal trope at stake here: Everyone Is Equal and There Are No Inherent Differences In Anyone. Because they MUST believe that intelligence is not genetic, that woman are actually just as physically strong as men, etc they can't abide by the idea that you might "look" gay. Like you can be born gay but nobody can every tell with any gay man that he's gay, even if he's the most prancing queen, clearly it is YOU who is the bigot if you assume he's gay. So of course the Study Is Flawed.

Quote from: Cpt. Spring Types" post="404204942
What they really need to study is how blind people react to seeing the photos.

Quote from: AngryCaterpillar" post="404205014
Presumably half of the faces belonged to gay people and half of them were straight. So someone making random guesses would probably have a 50% chance of getting all of them right anyway.

Quote from: lohli" post="404205164
This seems pretty dumb, 60% of the time they got a 50/50 call right, therefore gaydar is definitely a thing.

This guy seems to be pretty levelheaded, basically saying the science and statistics do work out.
Quote from: Leovinus" post="404208949
Actually, the results are still fine. The leap from 55% to 57% is a lot further, in this case, than the leap from 53% to 55%, which is a harder leap again than that from 50% to 53%. The statistical significance of a percentage point increases the further you go from the mean.

You say it's easy to get results between 45 and 55%, which is likely true, but it's a fallacy to say that therefore 57% is not impressive. Run your program again, a hundred times. See how many times in that 100 you score 57% or more. It will, in all likelihood, be five times or less out of a hundred. That is why it is a significant result - there's less than a 5% chance that a result of 57% is a statistical blip. There's a 95% chance it genuinely means something.

Statistics is not intuitive stuff, and a lot of people make assumptions based on their regular math knowledge that simply doesn't hold from a statistical view.

Why would a larger sample size mean a larger result? Or do you mean that women are better at spotting lesbians than men? If you meant the latter, that's not just something you can say in the context of the paper. You've got to draw conclusions from the data, not justify the data with your personal opinion. What previous evidence do you have that supports that idea?

Sorry if it seems like I'm being picky, but bad science is one of those things that I really think is worth discussing.

But that only makes some people angry!
Quote from: Cubone" post="404210632
You see, ordinarily, you try to identify gayface you got a 50/50 chance of getting it right. But University of Washington Students are genetic freaks, and they're not normal. You've got a 25% chance, at best, at identifying gayface. And then you add in the lack of hair, clothing, and jewelry, your chances of identifying it drastic go down. See, you have a 33 and one third chance of identifying gayface, but they've got a 66 and two thirds chance of identifying gayface, because University of Washington students know they can't identify gayface, so they're not even gonna try. So you take your 33 and one third chance, minus their 25% chance, you've got an 8 and one third chance of identifying gay face. But then you take their 75% chance of identifying gay face, and add 66 and two thirds chance, there is a 141 and 2/3 percent chance of identifying gay face. The numbers don't lie.


Quote from: superv0zz" post="404217008
This is what I was going to post, 60% is not much better than randomly getting it correct.  I doubt it is statistically significant.
"I don't understand 'statistics' per se, but I doubt this study is correct because it doesn't fall into my preconceived worldview, you see"

Quote from: Atom" post="404220173
The gay lisp doesn't exist and is a hurtful stereotype perpetuated by the media.

Tell us more!
Quote from: Atom" post="404223933
The idea that homosexuals are more feminine is another media assault that has been internalized by certain degenerate aspects of the homosexual community. Reminder that up until the 1980's the homosexual stereotype was "manly-men mustachioed bears." But of course, that demeanor was too respectable for the hollywood elite, who really wanted us to tolerate sissification, something that is completely alien to homosexuality in its natural state.

What? Yes, the Paul Lynde/Oscar Wilde mincing gay stereotype was invented in the 80s.

Quote from: ashgromnies" post="404225447
It's not a 50/50 decision... unless they didn't pick a sample representative of the population. Isn't the percentage of gay people between 10 and 15%?
O rly?

Quote from: Dr. Notadoctor" post="404230643
The belief that homosexuality is feminine is partially the result of people confusing sexuality with gender identity. Partially because to them gay = bad and femininity = bad. Neither is true.


Also because straight men are so insecure in their sexuality they want to make as much of an "us" vs. "them"
scenario as possible.

edit 2: so no, gaydar is bullshit.

Well I guess it's settled then. It's all the fault of straight white men again!


  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 1282
    • Awards
Re: GBS freaks out because Gaydar might be real
« Reply #1 on: June 03, 2012, 10:05:19 PM »
Leovinus nails it.

Then again, I'm having a hard time figuring out why the results of the study are a bad thing. Why does noticing something mean you think it's bad, as according to Dr. Notadoctor? And wasn't Gaydar invented by queer men themselves in order to find other gay dudes?

By the way, here's a similar study they did but with Jews. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fboXaOSY9LY


  • 5000 Posters Club
  • Cosmonauts
  • *
  • Posts: 12234
  • Don't call me a lawyer; I'll call my own!
  • Awards Fucked a lesbian You're Great...No, YOU'RE Great! cold, dead hands old Something Wonderful Prepper The Gentry For Dixie's land we'll take our stand! Libertarian TNE Veteran Goon or Ex-Goon Sasstronaut Wounded in the line of posting. Motorcyclist
    • Awards
Re: GBS freaks out because Gaydar might be real
« Reply #2 on: June 03, 2012, 10:13:53 PM »
I remember a thread on SA from about 10 years ago called somethign like "Why do gay guys talk 'that way'?" It was very interesting and several gay people posted in it talking about that very thing and why they did it. It didn't melt down into white/straight guilt. It was actually a pretty cool read, from what I remember. I wish someone would pull that out of the archive and post it in that thread. Hell, I think there have been a few gaydar threads as well from those times.
Yes, that is me in court with my enormous penis.


  • Guest
Re: GBS freaks out because Gaydar might be real
« Reply #3 on: June 03, 2012, 11:01:24 PM »
I dunno if the study is flawed, but it's a waste of time.

internet culture

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 2018
  • cyber-society scholar
  • Awards Fuck you, dad! Autistic Inshallah! Goon or Ex-Goon You can't know! Sasstronaut Anonymous
    • Awards
Re: GBS freaks out because Gaydar might be real
« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2012, 08:53:18 AM »
I really don't buy the BORN THAT WAY thing, at least definitely not for everyone. A lot of them have moved on from "we were born that way :)" to "sexuality is fluid :)" anyway. Hangly said a lot of silly shit but I agree with him that given all the batshit, super-specific things that people can grow to become turned on by, developing attraction for a certain sex is hardly that far-fetched.