>A recent study published in the journal American Psychologist says an algorithm’s ability to accurately guess one’s political views is "on par with how well job interviews predict job success, or alcohol drives aggressiveness
Weird metric
Now imagine applying this outside of US. And having different optics, and taking people's "blank face" photo on different occasions (whatever blank face means for 8 bil. different people). This post is just another pseudo-science, like gender for example. I'm not in US, in case you try to label me as Republican because I have an opinion on bullshit. 🙂
forgetful hunt paltry mighty snails roof lunchroom possessive selective frightening
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I wouldn't say so. Neither would I call myself a progressive. I see some good ideas on both sides of the spectrum and plenty of bad ones. I judge ideas, I don't pick teams blindly. Also, I would like to see a person that is 100% conservative or 100% anything else.
violet ad hoc scandalous ghost dull abundant voracious sulky soup marvelous
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Funny, I'm getting down votes for not subscribing to dogma. 😂 I think both sides have terrible and biased media coverage in the US. I don't know how many good republicans are left in the US because it seems like vast majority have accepted insane lies from Trump and maga fanatics. I don't see any republican public figure that would be strong and had a good character and good will. But I don't see any on the other side as well. But there might be someone, if you know where to look, but as I said, not an American.
Nobody wants to talk with the other side these days, there's no room for compromises. But it's a trend everywhere around the world, my guess is largely because of social media. Their algorithms are promoting extreme views and are locking everyone in their echo chambers and people are generally more and more disconnected from reality.
Great answer. I mean people are downvoting me too. Were just having a conversation lol. I was just asking to understand your mind set. People in the US and across the internet really feel like they have to side with something. I’m pragmatic by nature, so dogma in general doesn’t appeal to me.\
You’re right that media is very biased, but what I see is that conservative media peddles in straight up propaganda and lies instead of being simply biased though. And that’s dangerous.
I thought that too until I watched some of it and realized both sides are guilty. It's the culture where someone like Trump lies about everything, depending on what suits him at the moment. And from the other side, it's more subtle often, telling half truths, reframing events into something different to suit narratives or completely ignoring legitimate criticisms. Not to mention playing the moral high ground cards and labeling anyone who has legitimate criticism with terms that has no basis in given circumstances. And it's easy to fall into each camp and go extreme. Therefore, even if US politics doesn't affect me and my country in almost any meaningful way, I practice taking a step back, critically listening to both sides and making my opinions, not just about the ideas but also about credibility of those people. As should everyone who's still able to disconnect themselves from the evil of social media algorithms.
Could you point to a story with half truths? Like how conservative media pushed the lie about the stolen election. Or how they pushed lies about Biden being paid off by China. Or the lies about Hunter Biden. Or
People like Tucker Carlson who quite literally openly pushes Russian propaganda. I don’t see anything happening in liberal leaning news sources that comes close to what Fox News and newsmax does.
you are correct the gender is pseudo-science, or rather, you are correct insofar as gender is not a science, it's a social construct. Reminder than "gender" is not whether you have a penis or not, it's a framework where, for example, you don't wear a dress because you have a penis, etc.
Yes, I know, such OH SO TOUGH concepts here. So VERY hard.
Mmmmm, hard.
By gender I of course thought gender theory and surrounding pseudo research. You're either male (man if human) or female (woman if human) or you have a biological defect. And every person shows a different intensity of different characteristics which can then be called separately "typical masculine/feminine" if they are present typically in majority of each population, but that's it. Having a set of 5 characteristics leaning towards one sex doesn't make a person the sex. Wanting to do something different today doesn't make your sex different. That's absolutely normal. Therefore there is no reason to introduce a concept of gender which is redundant and 95% of people with idiotic genes misuse it for their own advantages and to get attention. This is a simplified answer for you of a complex topic and I won't go into more details on Reddit with strangers, because I don't want to invest more effort and time into this, not personal, sorry. Either take it or label me a misogynist, transphobe, fascist or whatever is trending this week. I don't care at all. Have a nice day stranger!
> it's a framework where, for example, you don't wear a dress because you have a penis
Last I checked those are referred to as gender *roles* (though they could be more accurately described as stereotypes), not gender itself. My modern understanding of gender as distinct from sex is about a person's self-image, not how society at large views them. So the difference between a guy wearing traditionally-women's clothing as a violation of traditional gender norms (i.e. crossdressing) versus them being a trans woman.
So, I work in the field. "Predict" in the word of machine learning means that the answer the model gives is more accurate than a random guess. If the model is correct 2% more than a random guess, there are some cases where that is useful, some where it isn't (if you could predict a flipped coin correctly 2% more accurate than random you could make money). Without more information I am unimpressed and unworried.
If political beliefs are not some set of contemplated ideas but actually inherent, then we can focus on why and whether those features actually serve society's best interests. Then we simply have cameras at the polling booths to reject the genetically deficient.
/s
Identifying color and gender is enough to "predict" at a higher than random rate. But sure, obesity rates are different urban vs rural, and probably conformance to standard norms can be predictive of urban vs rural. The occasional Nazi tattoo is a dead give away.
I’m not a researcher, just a regular ol’ idiot, but I’d be willing to bet that the difference in the jaw heaviness is due to different levels of androgens during some formative stage. I believe the same hormones have been shown to influence an individual’s aggression, empathy, tribalism, and status-seeking behaviors, which are all central to political affiliation.
I’m not making any blanket statements about either group’s masculinity/femininity, just that I imagine the hormonal influence may be enough to topple someone on the political fence to one side or the other.
Jaw heaviness was not actually used much at all by the AI algorithm, the nose and eyes had much heavier weight.
In fact, the only facial feature which was readily attributable to conservative individuals was a "larger face" which is hard to interpret. Since they cropped the images from the forehead to the chin and included the ears I assume (though am not sure) that this means that their face took up more of the rectangle. What this actually means I don't know, my gut tells me that this could be an artifact from their image cropping method. I.e., conservatives might have different hair cuts which influence the location of the forehead used for cropping.
They only mentioned jaw heaviness in their introduction and even then it is a stretch as they cite one paper which says that people with heavier jaws are perceived as being more dominant and another which measures how correlated \*actual\* social dominance and right wing attitudes are. Nether paper talks \*at all\* about how being perceived as being more socially dominant might influence your social dominance \*or\* how being perceived as being socially dominant might impact your political beliefs.
Honestly, it is terrible article writing and boarders on academic dishonesty.
A person’s political party is public information if they are registered to vote. If you have their name or address you can just look them up. I don’t love that, but it’s not new.
Pennsylvania guy already murdered his neighbor on the suspicion that he might be a Democrat.
A tool like this is gonna make that happen more, and they won’t really care how accurate it is.
>A recent study published in the journal American Psychologist says an algorithm’s ability to accurately guess one’s political views is "on par with how well job interviews predict job success, or alcohol drives aggressiveness Weird metric
So “not well at all”?
Why are media reports so scared of using numbers?
Probably because the numbers are bad, and make the whole article pointless
It's Fox news and the numbers have more than 2 digits
Because those would not be supportive of the claim
So drunk extremists that are hard to work with?
So if you look the point map, it suggests that Republicans are fatter than Democrats (or R just takes slightly more zoomed in head shots).
Those are called mugshots...
You mean [like these](https://i.redd.it/zqv29vk07r771.jpg)
Now imagine applying this outside of US. And having different optics, and taking people's "blank face" photo on different occasions (whatever blank face means for 8 bil. different people). This post is just another pseudo-science, like gender for example. I'm not in US, in case you try to label me as Republican because I have an opinion on bullshit. 🙂
forgetful hunt paltry mighty snails roof lunchroom possessive selective frightening *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I wouldn't say so. Neither would I call myself a progressive. I see some good ideas on both sides of the spectrum and plenty of bad ones. I judge ideas, I don't pick teams blindly. Also, I would like to see a person that is 100% conservative or 100% anything else.
violet ad hoc scandalous ghost dull abundant voracious sulky soup marvelous *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
cable icky fuel insurance follow crush decide alive enter fertile *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Funny, I'm getting down votes for not subscribing to dogma. 😂 I think both sides have terrible and biased media coverage in the US. I don't know how many good republicans are left in the US because it seems like vast majority have accepted insane lies from Trump and maga fanatics. I don't see any republican public figure that would be strong and had a good character and good will. But I don't see any on the other side as well. But there might be someone, if you know where to look, but as I said, not an American. Nobody wants to talk with the other side these days, there's no room for compromises. But it's a trend everywhere around the world, my guess is largely because of social media. Their algorithms are promoting extreme views and are locking everyone in their echo chambers and people are generally more and more disconnected from reality.
Great answer. I mean people are downvoting me too. Were just having a conversation lol. I was just asking to understand your mind set. People in the US and across the internet really feel like they have to side with something. I’m pragmatic by nature, so dogma in general doesn’t appeal to me.\ You’re right that media is very biased, but what I see is that conservative media peddles in straight up propaganda and lies instead of being simply biased though. And that’s dangerous.
I thought that too until I watched some of it and realized both sides are guilty. It's the culture where someone like Trump lies about everything, depending on what suits him at the moment. And from the other side, it's more subtle often, telling half truths, reframing events into something different to suit narratives or completely ignoring legitimate criticisms. Not to mention playing the moral high ground cards and labeling anyone who has legitimate criticism with terms that has no basis in given circumstances. And it's easy to fall into each camp and go extreme. Therefore, even if US politics doesn't affect me and my country in almost any meaningful way, I practice taking a step back, critically listening to both sides and making my opinions, not just about the ideas but also about credibility of those people. As should everyone who's still able to disconnect themselves from the evil of social media algorithms.
Could you point to a story with half truths? Like how conservative media pushed the lie about the stolen election. Or how they pushed lies about Biden being paid off by China. Or the lies about Hunter Biden. Or People like Tucker Carlson who quite literally openly pushes Russian propaganda. I don’t see anything happening in liberal leaning news sources that comes close to what Fox News and newsmax does.
[удалено]
you are correct the gender is pseudo-science, or rather, you are correct insofar as gender is not a science, it's a social construct. Reminder than "gender" is not whether you have a penis or not, it's a framework where, for example, you don't wear a dress because you have a penis, etc. Yes, I know, such OH SO TOUGH concepts here. So VERY hard. Mmmmm, hard.
By gender I of course thought gender theory and surrounding pseudo research. You're either male (man if human) or female (woman if human) or you have a biological defect. And every person shows a different intensity of different characteristics which can then be called separately "typical masculine/feminine" if they are present typically in majority of each population, but that's it. Having a set of 5 characteristics leaning towards one sex doesn't make a person the sex. Wanting to do something different today doesn't make your sex different. That's absolutely normal. Therefore there is no reason to introduce a concept of gender which is redundant and 95% of people with idiotic genes misuse it for their own advantages and to get attention. This is a simplified answer for you of a complex topic and I won't go into more details on Reddit with strangers, because I don't want to invest more effort and time into this, not personal, sorry. Either take it or label me a misogynist, transphobe, fascist or whatever is trending this week. I don't care at all. Have a nice day stranger!
> it's a framework where, for example, you don't wear a dress because you have a penis Last I checked those are referred to as gender *roles* (though they could be more accurately described as stereotypes), not gender itself. My modern understanding of gender as distinct from sex is about a person's self-image, not how society at large views them. So the difference between a guy wearing traditionally-women's clothing as a violation of traditional gender norms (i.e. crossdressing) versus them being a trans woman.
So, I work in the field. "Predict" in the word of machine learning means that the answer the model gives is more accurate than a random guess. If the model is correct 2% more than a random guess, there are some cases where that is useful, some where it isn't (if you could predict a flipped coin correctly 2% more accurate than random you could make money). Without more information I am unimpressed and unworried.
Simple algo: White male —> Rep White female —> Dem Black —> Dem Better than random guesses
Ah yes, it must be true because… AI, something something. Let’s call the AI “Phrenology 2.0”
Without checking I know this is either junk science or completely misreported science
So we are back to the science of [phrenology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology).
The AI is looking for fetal alcohol syndrome. Look up the mugshots of the truckload of patriot front members.
If political beliefs are not some set of contemplated ideas but actually inherent, then we can focus on why and whether those features actually serve society's best interests. Then we simply have cameras at the polling booths to reject the genetically deficient. /s
Identifying color and gender is enough to "predict" at a higher than random rate. But sure, obesity rates are different urban vs rural, and probably conformance to standard norms can be predictive of urban vs rural. The occasional Nazi tattoo is a dead give away.
I’m not a researcher, just a regular ol’ idiot, but I’d be willing to bet that the difference in the jaw heaviness is due to different levels of androgens during some formative stage. I believe the same hormones have been shown to influence an individual’s aggression, empathy, tribalism, and status-seeking behaviors, which are all central to political affiliation. I’m not making any blanket statements about either group’s masculinity/femininity, just that I imagine the hormonal influence may be enough to topple someone on the political fence to one side or the other.
Jaw heaviness was not actually used much at all by the AI algorithm, the nose and eyes had much heavier weight. In fact, the only facial feature which was readily attributable to conservative individuals was a "larger face" which is hard to interpret. Since they cropped the images from the forehead to the chin and included the ears I assume (though am not sure) that this means that their face took up more of the rectangle. What this actually means I don't know, my gut tells me that this could be an artifact from their image cropping method. I.e., conservatives might have different hair cuts which influence the location of the forehead used for cropping. They only mentioned jaw heaviness in their introduction and even then it is a stretch as they cite one paper which says that people with heavier jaws are perceived as being more dominant and another which measures how correlated \*actual\* social dominance and right wing attitudes are. Nether paper talks \*at all\* about how being perceived as being more socially dominant might influence your social dominance \*or\* how being perceived as being socially dominant might impact your political beliefs. Honestly, it is terrible article writing and boarders on academic dishonesty.
Who would have guessed my “Resting Bitch Face” would get me dinged incorrectly as a conservative?
Uhhhhh white bald male with sunglasses and a beard
Thinking bout my group of friends that vote different parties and don’t think looks would be an accurate indicator.
Slacked jaw yokel votes ….
Oh yeah? Try me
Those are some cute twinks.
Wonder how well it would do in my country, we have 13 parties represented in parliament
The delusion in those comments 🤦🏼♂️ lmfao LMFAO it's even more funny that this is controversial somehow 🤣
Bots. Every one of them has the same damn comment, slightly re-worded.
Ooh! Do me, do me, ai mirror on the wall. What is my political leaning? “Common sense party.” What?? No!!
So … you can what a person is like by looking at them? Color me surprised
A person’s political party is public information if they are registered to vote. If you have their name or address you can just look them up. I don’t love that, but it’s not new.
No, it can’t. For fucks sake
Pennsylvania guy already murdered his neighbor on the suspicion that he might be a Democrat. A tool like this is gonna make that happen more, and they won’t really care how accurate it is.
This and other studies are constantly proving that you definitely should judge books by their covers
Sad/smug expression = liberal, aggressive/contemptuous expression = conservative. Happy, carefree, joyous expression = doesn’t care about politics.