— FEATURED —
Guatemala: Archive of documents from Rios Montt genocide trial, overturned 10 days after guilty verdict
Guatemala: Nation's highest court throws out Ríos Montt genocide trial verdict and prison sentence
Eurovision 2013: An American in London
The Twelve-Fingered Boy - mesmerizing YA horror novel
Black Code: how spies, cops and crims are making cyberspace unfit for human habitation
ADVERTISE AT BOING BOING!
— COMICS —
Brain Rot: Hip Hop Family Tree, Compton, Lonzo Williams and the Wreckin' Cru
Real Stuff: Bad Trip
Tom the Dancing Bug
TOM THE DANCING BUG: Super-Fun-Pak Comix, featuring Caveman Robot, and MORE!
— GUATEMALA SPECIAL SERIES —
Guatemala awaits Constitutional Court rulings, defense continues legal challenges to genocide trial
— RECENTLY —
We Can Fix it! - a graphic novel time travel memoir
The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek
Odd Duck: great picture book about eccentricity and ducks
Scatter, Adapt, and Remember: How Humans Will Survive a Mass Extinction
Illustrator William Stout's Legends of the Blues - exclusive excerpt
Hackers prepare for first "national holiday" in their honor
Review: Disunion, the VR guillotine simulator
Mousetronaut: kids' picture book about mouse in space, written by a Shuttle pilot
Review: Pebble e-paper watch
Nothing Can Possibly Go Wrong: YA graphic novel about robots, romance and school elections
— FOLLOW US —
Boing Boing is on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to our RSS feed or daily email.
— POLICIES —
Except where indicated, Boing Boing is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution
— FONTS —
Maggie Koerth-Baker at 8:33 am Mon, Jun 4, 2012
Well, it’s better by a degree that is statistically significant. That’s still pretty interesting.
Yeah, I think that the 60% figure (instead of 50%) quoted in the article is fairly significantly larger than “nobody’s gaydar is really that much better than random guess work.” The article concludes this as “This demonstrates gaydar ability — which is far from judgment proficiency,” but you are underselling the study much further, I think.
That said, though, I’m a little confused about their methodology. To say that “random guesswork” should yield 50% accuracy should imply both that 50% of the faces were gay and that the participants knew this fact, neither of which seems true in the paper.
If 10% of Americans are gay (say) and I randomly flip a coin to decide if people are gay, I’m going to score 50% accuracy. But that’s terrible: if I just assume everyone is straight without even looking at them, then I’ll actually have 90% accuracy. Far, far better than chance.
I don’t quite see how the article took this into account (but I’m assuming I just overlooked it).
I was hoping this study would do more than just look at photographs of people’s faces (a la the same data that OK Cupid has been gathering through their informal quizzes for at least the last couple of years) as I suspect the accuracy of gaydar would increase if, rather than head shots, participants could see video of the subject walking towards them or speaking, as you would in a more true-to-life setting. Although granted, it would be far more difficult to control for clothing, styling, speech patterns or other cultural clues.
I know my gaydar is terrible. Both Type I and Type II errors. I’ve learned to just treat people’s sexual orientation as “?” until actual evidence comes in.
I wonder how I’d perform on the test described in the article — whether my gaydar mistakes are caused by “noise” from clothing, accessories, speech, movements, etc., and I’d get it right if I just looked at faces, or whether my processing of sexual orientation from facial features is itself wrong most of the time.
I also wonder if the fact that I’m straight has something to do with it. Has anyone looked at gaydar accuracy broken out by the sexual orientation of the observer?
nobody’s gaydar is really that much better than random guess work
Few people have gaydar. Most gays I’ve known don’t have it.
Looking at a portrait still and then consciously guessing that persons sexual orientation has little to do with gaydar.
People with gaydar see a person and just know, with a pretty high degree of certainty. In many ways just like how anyone “knows” if the person they see is a woman or a man.
Gaydar even works from a distance and doesn’t rely on obvious clues that are easy to put in words.
I have anti-gaydar. I’ve done online tests and my accuracy is usually below 5%. It’s weird because, in most other things, I’m extremely good at reading people. I can usually tell if you’ve been in jail, in the military, are on anti-depressants, any number of other things with a few seconds observation. I’m a freakishly good early pregnancy detector. Just not in the one area that might be useful.
Consider inverting your results, and then you’ll have 95% gaydar.
Yes — try Ashley’s idea. Kinda like when George Costanza was in the diner with the other felon…er….peeps and resolved to consult his instinct – then do the very opposite.
It worked, at least for awhile, but, as being a self-confessed, slow-witted bald-man, he figured out how to fcuk it up.
I appreciate the randomness of the original article´s header pic.
The study doesn’t establish that *nobody’s* gaydar is that much better than random, it says the *average* gaydar, applied to highly artificial images, is slightly better than random. Their participants were just a random set of students, likely mostly straight. If they’d chosen gay students or students with self-professed gaydar, their numbers would have been higher. If they’d used videos of gays and straights in the wild, the numbers would have been higher still.