The A.I. “Gaydar” Study and the Real Dangers of Big Data | The New Yorker

Contents:

• IS ‘GAYDAR’ REALLY A THG?
• THE TTH ABOUT ‘GAYDAR’
• SCIENCE EXPLAS WHY 'GAYDAR' ISN'T REAL
• THE SCIENCE OF “GAYDAR”: HOW WELL CAN WE DETECT OTHER PEOPLE’S SEXUAL ORIENTATN?
• SCIENTIFILLY, DO GAYDAR ACTUALLY EXIST?
• GAYDAR: DO YOU HAVE IT?
• TT YOUR GAYDAR
• IS GAYDAR REAL? STUDY SAYS PEOPLE N TELL WHO'S GAY JT BY A GLANCE
• THE SCIENCE OF ‘GAYDAR’
• IS THERE ACTUALLY SUCH A THG AS A GAYDAR?
• THIS PSYCHOLOGIST’S “GAYDAR” REARCH MAK UNFORTABLE. THAT’S THE POT.
• EVERYTHG YOU THOUGHT YOU KNEW ABOUT "GAYDAR" IS WRONG
• 'GAYDAR' SENSE IS REAL, SCIENTISTS EXPLA HOW IT WORKS
• ‘GAYDAR’ IS REAL, STUDY SAYS
• GAYDAR
• THE A.I. “GAYDAR” STUDY AND THE REAL DANGERS OF BIG DATA

IS ‘GAYDAR’ REALLY A THG?

The fact that facial featur provi visual cu to sexual orientatn lends support for epigeic theori that attribute homosexualy to prenatal experienc such as exposure to hormon utero. 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.

THE TTH ABOUT ‘GAYDAR’

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.

SCIENCE EXPLAS WHY 'GAYDAR' ISN'T REAL

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).

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

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. 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.

SCIENTIFILLY, DO GAYDAR ACTUALLY EXIST?

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.

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: DO YOU HAVE IT?

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. 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.

Stereotyp related to gay men and lbians often operate unr the guise of "gaydar" rather than many people believe stereotypg is wrong, llg "gaydar" merely provis a ver for g stereotypil tras to jump to nclns about someone beg a rult, the perpetuatn of the gaydar myth has untend negative are often told that you n't judge a book by s ver. Like many purported tuns, however, gaydar often reli on 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 some recent work, my lleagu and I have been able to monstrate how the perpetuatn of the gaydar myth has untend negative nsequenc.

TT YOUR GAYDAR

Stereotypg disguiseMy 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 tt this ia, we nducted an experiment. Some of the men had terts (or "lik") that related to gay stereotyp, like fashn, shoppg, or had terts related to straight stereotyp, like sports, huntg or rs, or "ntral" terts unrelated to stereotyp, like readg or movi. This sign allowed to asss how often people jumped to the ncln that men were gay based on stereotypilly gay 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 patterns provid strong support for the ia that belief gaydar enurag stereotypg by simply disguisg unr a different label.

IS GAYDAR REAL? STUDY SAYS PEOPLE N TELL WHO'S GAY JT BY A GLANCE

But the very fact that seems harmls may actually be rponsible for s most pernic 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 we know that stereotyp have many negative nsequenc, so we shouldn't be enuragg on any, stereotypg n facilate prejudice. 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) more: I intify as bisexual — here are 5 thgs I wish people unrstoodIn 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) ndns are pecially important for a subset of people who are vertly prejudiced: They're aware that they're prejudiced and ok wh , but don't want others to know. We n intify the people wh some well-tablished qutnnaire measur, and we know that they exprs prejudice only when they're able to get away wh 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 they had shocked the first man, people uld acce them of prejudice ("You shocked him bee he was gay!

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 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%.

THE SCIENCE OF ‘GAYDAR’

Ined, participants tend to have about 60% accuracy, and the rearchers nclud that people really do posss an accurate studi have replited the rults, wh their thors — and the media — toutg them as evince that gaydar so fast…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 n this be, if people the studi are accurate at rat signifintly higher than 50%?

IS THERE ACTUALLY SUCH A THG AS A GAYDAR?

If people have 60% accuracy intifyg who is straight, means that 40% of the time, straight people are rrectly more: Ezra Miller posed for the latt issue of Playboy and people are thrilled for what means for LGBTQ reprentatnIn a world where 95% of people are straight, 60% 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.

More straight people will seem to be gay than there are actual gay people 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.

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

Also, when people are given the opportuny to gus a target’s sexualy on a spectm—a la the classic Ksey Sle—rather than makg eher/or cisns, gay and bisexual persons tend to be given pretty siar ratgs.

Bottom le: The rearch nducted to date suggts that there is somethg to the ia of gaydar that people appear able to tuively terme others’ sexualy at levels greater than chance rponse to a variety of cu. Screenp via Futurama, Fox/Matt Groeng The word "gaydar" has been e at least sce the 1990s, and has avoid a fake medil acronym along the l of ASMR, and HSP. "But while might sound almost dismissive to imply that we have vic our bras that tect some kd of wav of gayns emanatg om other people, gaydar is a well-studied phenomenon.

EVERYTHG YOU THOUGHT YOU KNEW ABOUT "GAYDAR" IS WRONG

Unfortunately, the rults of all that study jt seem to ph a unified theory of gay tectn further and further book Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why, giv what's probably the most eful fn of gaydar: "the abily to spot people who are gay whout the benef of any explic rmatn about their sexual orientatn. He says, scientifilly, gaydar is mostly tectg tras typil of another genr:Gaydar appears to volve the tectn of ordary genred tras, by and large—tras that distguish men and women and that are important to anyone's life as a social animal.

'GAYDAR' SENSE IS REAL, SCIENTISTS EXPLA HOW IT WORKS

What turns "gendar" to gaydar, for the most part, is simply the mismatch between some of the discernible genred tras and a person's physil 2012, psychologists Joshua Tabak and Vivian Zayas, performed a gaydar experiment volvg the intifitn of fac. (It's worth notg that experiments, gay people appear to have better gaydar than straight people, but those numbers are snt, and looks like an area that uld e further study.

‘GAYDAR’ IS REAL, STUDY SAYS

Scientific rults jt barely better than chance might feel wrong to anyone who claims to have a powerful gaydar, particularly those who enjoy outg celebri. After all, Arnold Schwarzenegger has been subject to gay mors sce he was a kid, and they persisted well to adulthood, but unls he's playg a very long game, Arnie is probably not acrdg to Simon LeVay, 's not jt false posiv llg gaydar's reliabily to qutn.

GAYDAR

"The studi I'm faiar wh ually fd that plenty of gay people are mis-diagnosed as straight, " he told the nuts-and-bolts level, there seem to be two basic ponents of gaydar: The physil, and the lguistic, both of which have been at least partially nfirmed by scientists. Also unfortunate: tryg to e the ditors to nudge your gaydar one way or another would often be as awkward as tryg to practice phrenology on a bld stance, you n theoretilly sometim tell a man is gay by lookg at the crown of his hair.

THE A.I. “GAYDAR” STUDY AND THE REAL DANGERS OF BIG DATA

Gay men also have also been shown to have more "feme" x and rg fger length rats, or 2D:4D "dig rat, " an attribute that's also associated wh beg a dick to women straight men. A more promisg study at Tufts Universy found that jt by lookg at static imag of fac a laboratory settg, people were able to distguish gay fac om straight on wh an accuracy level above study suggts that there's some kd of gay face shape, an ia that was proposed last year a Czech study that claimed gay men have "relatively wir and shorter fac, smaller and shorter nos, and rather massive and more round jaws, " and that this reprented a "mosaic of both feme and mascule featur. The director of that film, David Thorpe told VICE that he ma bee, "I worried that I sound too effemate for some guys to be attracted to me, " and that he "sometim felt vulnerable suatns where I thought I might not be wele as an openly gay person, but, like or not, my voice gave me away.