This is for topical issues effecting our fair world... you can quit snickering anytime. Note: It is the desire of the leadership of SFDebris Conglomerate that all posters maintain a civil and polite bearing in this forum, regardless of how you feel about any particular issue. Violators will be turned over to Captain Janeway for experimentation.
Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:38 am
If it was possible to tell who is gay just by the way they sit, I assure you, a lot more of us would have been murdered by our parents or peers by now.
Worffan101 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:33 pm
I usually sit in a chair with my legs crossed and my hands in my lap, and rarely if ever talk about sports. Does that make me gay?
Seriously, the only kind of behavior that can tell you someone's gay for sure is if they are visibly hitting on another dude. That's...that's how sexuality works, you guys.
"For sure" and "probably" or "possibly" are quite far apart. For the first you're right. For the last the idea that better results can be achieved than simply by blind guessing doesn't seem completely implausible.
It might be worth noting that getting a 60% - 80% accuracy rate when half the subjects are gay may not translate to a solid gaydar in a population where only a few percent are gay. You might get a lot more false positives in real life.
Darth Wedgius wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:54 pm
It might be worth noting that getting a 60% - 80% accuracy rate when half the subjects are gay may not translate to a solid gaydar in a population where only a few percent are gay. You might get a lot more false positives in real life.
"Some researchers believe that accuracy could potentially be even higher in the real world, where people usually have more cues and information to go off of compared to lab studies."
Darth Wedgius wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:54 pm
It might be worth noting that getting a 60% - 80% accuracy rate when half the subjects are gay may not translate to a solid gaydar in a population where only a few percent are gay. You might get a lot more false positives in real life.
"Some researchers believe that accuracy could potentially be even higher in the real world, where people usually have more cues and information to go off of compared to lab studies."
Not that there will necessarily be more false positives, of course.
I'm not interested in paying $40 on the paper to see the criteria or size of sample. So there is always a matter of sample size and how testing was conducted, especially with social sciences where often the study group is woefully small.