Gaydar

Contents:

• THE TTH ABOUT ‘GAYDAR’
• THIS PSYCHOLOGIST’S “GAYDAR” REARCH MAK UNFORTABLE. THAT’S THE POT.
• GAYDAR: DO YOU HAVE IT?
• THE END OF GAYDAR
• HOW’S YOUR GAYDAR?
• THE SCIENCE OF “GAYDAR”: HOW WELL CAN WE DETECT OTHER PEOPLE’S SEXUAL ORIENTATN?
• GAYDAR: A SOCIAL-GNIVE ANALYSIS
• GAYDAR—SENDG MIXED SIGNALS
• IS ‘GAYDAR’ REALLY A THG?
• GAYDAR
• TT YOUR GAYDAR
• THE GAYDAR - HOW GAY ARE YOU?

THE TTH ABOUT ‘GAYDAR’

Stereotyp often fluence the imprsns, whether ’s that a black man is dangero, a woman won’t be a good lear or a fashnable man is gay. Stereotyp related to gay men and lbians often operate unr the guise of “gaydar” rather than stereotypg. “Gaydar” (a portmante of “gay” and “radar”) is a term that first appeared the 1980s and refers to a “sixth sense” for intifyg who is gay.

THIS PSYCHOLOGIST’S “GAYDAR” REARCH MAK UNFORTABLE. THAT’S THE POT.

While many people believe stereotypg is wrong, llg “gaydar” merely provis a ver for g stereotypil tras – like someone’s fashn sense, profsn or hairstyle – to jump to nclns about someone beg gay. Nohels, some rearchers have published studi that, at first glance, appear to show that people have accurate gaydar.

In some recent work, my lleagu and I have been able to monstrate how the perpetuatn of the gaydar myth has untend negative nsequenc.

My lleagu and I spected that even people who would normally try to rea om stereotypg might be more likely to e gay stereotyp if they are led to believe they have gaydar. We told some participants that scientific evince says gaydar was a real abily, led others to believe that gaydar is jt another term for stereotypg and said nothg about gaydar to a third group (the ntrol). Participants then judged whether men were gay or straight based on rmatn ostensibly taken om social media profil.

GAYDAR: DO YOU HAVE IT?

Some of the men had terts (or “lik”) that related to gay stereotyp, like fashn, shoppg or theater. This sign allowed to asss how often people jumped to the ncln that men were gay based on stereotypilly gay terts. Those who were told gaydar is real stereotyped much more than the ntrol group, and participants stereotyped much ls when they had been told that gaydar is jt another term for stereotypg.

THE END OF GAYDAR

The patterns provid strong support for the ia that belief gaydar enurag stereotypg by simply disguisg unr a different label. In some ways, the ia of gaydar – even if ’s jt stereotypg – seems eful at bt and harmls at worst.

HOW’S YOUR GAYDAR?

Usg gaydar as a way to talk nocuoly or jokgly about stereotypg – “Oh, that guy sets off my gaydar” – trivializ stereotypg and mak seem like no big al. Participants learned only one thg about this other person, eher that he was gay or simply liked shoppg (people tend to assume men who like shoppg are gay).

In one ndn, therefore, the participants knew that the man was gay and the other they might have privately ferred that he was gay though wasn’t nfirmed, but that wasn’t known to anyone else (who might have acced them of beg prejudiced). As we predicted, the vertly prejudiced people tend to rea om shockg the man who was nfirmed as gay, but livered extremely high levels of shocks to the man who liked shoppg. If they had shocked the first man, people uld acce them of prejudice (“You shocked him bee he was gay!

THE SCIENCE OF “GAYDAR”: HOW WELL CAN WE DETECT OTHER PEOPLE’S SEXUAL ORIENTATN?

But if others acced participants of prejudice the send ndn, uld be plsibly nied (“I didn’t thk he was gay! Enuragg stereotypg unr the guise of gaydar ntribut – directly or directly – to stereotypg’s downstream nsequenc. Some rearchers say that stereotyp about gay people posss a gra of tth, which uld lend crence to the ia of havg accurate gaydar.

GAYDAR: A SOCIAL-GNIVE ANALYSIS

In the studi, rearchers prented pictur, sound clips and vios of real gay and straight people to the participants, who then tegorized them as gay or straight. Half of the people the pictur, clips and vios were gay and half were straight, which meant that the participants would monstrate an accurate gaydar if their accuracy rate were signifintly higher than 50 percent.

GAYDAR—SENDG MIXED SIGNALS

Ined, participants tend to have about 60 percent accuracy, and the rearchers nclud that people really do posss an accurate gaydar. Many studi have replited the rults, wh their thors – and the media – toutg them as evince that gaydar exists.

IS ‘GAYDAR’ REALLY A THG?

But as we’ve been able to show two recent papers, all of the prev studi fall prey to a mathematil error that, when rrected, actually leads to the oppose ncln: Most of the time, gaydar will be highly accurate.

GAYDAR

There’s a problem the basic premise of the studi: Namely, havg a pool of people which 50 percent of the targets are gay. In a world where 95 percent of people are straight, 60 percent accuracy means that for every 100 people, there will be 38 straight people rrectly assumed to be gay, but only three gay people rrectly tegorized.

TT YOUR GAYDAR

Therefore, the 60 percent accuracy the lab studi translat to 93 percent accuracy for intifyg who is gay the real world (38 / [38 + 3] = 92.

Even when people seem gay – and set off all the alarms on your gaydar – ’s far more likely that they’re straight.

THE GAYDAR - HOW GAY ARE YOU?

If you’re disappoted to learn that your gaydar might not operate as well as you thk do, there’s a quick fix: Rather than g to a snap judgment about people based on what they wear or how they talk, you’re probably better off jt askg them. People talk about ‘gaydar’ as the abily to terme whether someone is gay based on their tun about the person.