A study investigated people's ability to identify homosexual men from pictures of their faces alone. Researchers Nicholas Rule and Nalini Ambady from Tufts University looked through online dating sites and carefully selected 45 straight male faces and 45 gay male faces.
All of these photos were matched for orientation (only faces shown looking forward were used) and facial alterations. To control for context, the faces were also cut and pasted onto a white background for the study. These 90 faces were then shown to 90 participants in random order, who were asked simply to judge the target's "probable sexual orientation" (gay or straight) by pressing a button.
Surprisingly, all participants scored above chance on this gaydar task, correctly identifying the gay faces. Even more surprisingly, accuracy rate was just as good when the images were exposed at a rapid rate of only 50 milliseconds, which offered participants no opportunity to consciously process the photo. To rule out any erroneous data based on a certain physical style homosexuals and heterosexuals wore, they did a second test.
In this second study, the authors used images from the social networking site Facebook rather than online dating Web sites. This way, the targets hadn't so obviously selected photos of themselves meant to attract prospective sexual partners.
They photoshopped off the mens' hair so the face was truly the only thing to see. Again, people were able to detect who was gay and who was not at a rate higher than chance would allow. So, you really can "look gay".
There are three tests (two gay men, one lesbian). I scored perfect on the shorter gay male test and missed three on the longer one. I got less than half right on the lesbian test. There were two threads created on DL for these tests several months back.
Theier face are more relax and and they smile more than the straight guys.
Gay men's faces frequently look less masculine.
R7 you should take a high school science class before you say someone dose not under science.
The sample rate is way too low for anything to be accurate. 90 people who went to the same institution? Live is the same gay community? All White or Black? All young? All college educated?
See where I am going? Most research is done in the thousands or millions of samples not dozens. The study is not just flawed, it's not even in the bounds of regular protocol.
I could find 200 of my gay friend to take a study on which heterosexual males are likely to cheat on their spouse and probably get the same result. Can tell by their face.
Science in no opinion, its FACT.
Scientifically, this is about as rigorous as proving the yeti exists.
I get all my science news from omg-facts.com.
Clearly from your post, R14, you were a dropout.
You'd be extremely lucky to get a sample size of a thousand and a million is ludicrous. But I agree 90 just don't cut it. 800-1000 would have been more than sufficient.
R18, you clearly did not take Probability and Statistics in high school or college. 90 is a fair sized sample space for this type of question.
Let me ask you this one: Guess how many people you have to have in one room to have a 50/50 shot of two people in that room having the same birthday? The answer will astound you and I will print it here later.
This is a ridiculous study. More men that are out as gay are ones that are least able to hide it physically by way of more feminized features expressions voice etc. Therefore those that are on a gay dating site willing to put their pictures up are not a random crossection of the faces of gay men, it is merely a random sampling of men who are out as gay and put their faces on a gay website.
R20 I did indeed take stat., and I was adressing R14.
And you are both incorrect.
And your little question is silly.
The problem with things like this is that they are only using "gay" persons who identify as such. As we all know, many such people have gender identity issues and are not actual homosexuals. Probably around 95% of gay guys are not out.
If you want to know who the people are who are being identified in these photos and who are skewing the results, just read the comments of those here at DL who are upset about the "gaybros" concept. They are the ones people are pointing out as "gay." The media has conditioned people to equate "gay" with this type of person.
Were the people told there were equal numbers of gays and straights?
r23 is correct, although it is very hard to do a study with large numbers of men who are attracted to men but do not identify as gay. There are lots of such men in society, but they are very likely uncooperative with anything associated with homosexuality or gay labels.
[quote]These 90 faces were then shown to 90 participants in random order, who were asked simply to judge the target's "probable sexual orientation" (gay or straight) by pressing a button.
Did the researchers pipe in the scent of freshly baked cookies?
It's a small sample size, but would provide evidence that gays are biologically different from striaghts and that it's not a choice.
[quote]This from a university that started as a religious one.
A religious one, what?
The answer is 17.
Mmm, fresh baked cookies!
Will they do a Big Dick Face study next? Inquiring minds want to know.
R29 Nah, it wouldn't. The sample size is indeed too small and the biggest flaw is that they took pictures from a dating website without accounting for the fact that it is a certain type of person who would be out and put their image on a dating site in the first place. You can't just take images from just one type of person or millieu and take that as a representation of gay men.
How did this even pass the peer-review process of Scientific American? Oh wait, Scientific American doesn't have a peer-review process! Well, that explains everything. XD
I get the feeling a lot of people will not accept any proof. I guess the thinking is that they'll cling to religious scripture, than accept a child of theirs if he or she is gay. Because in their minds, god couldn't/wouldn't offend them, by creating gays. Yet, scientists are getting closer to the gay gene. Funny, I have no problem in identifying gays and lesbians. If you know what to look for. Men who have been converted (?) away from being gay, still walk, talk, speak, and carry themselves as gay. Strange how, Christians, etc, don't notice. Not only that, but, gays and lesbians who have had amnesia, still act, etc as gay or lesbian. Genes do that. That's not choice.
R21 and r23 are on the money. People who openly identify as gay on a dating website are much more likely to have obvious gay faces, i.e. feminine features and gestures. If they showed a whole bunch of mug shots of guys caught sucking dick in mall bathrooms and public parks, the results would most likely be very different. It's the reason why oppressive countries truly believe they don't have gay people. Obvious nellies who are readily identifiable have to seek asylum elsewhere or risk persecution, and what's left are those who would pass as straight (and make these tests completely false).
Also they made the very unreliable assumption that people who pose for Facebook are less likely doing so to attract sexual mates. Again, this may not be true of out men posting on FB and probably deserves its own study. From personal experience I can say that most of my gay FB friends can't help themselves and put hot, shirtless, or somehow alluring pics of themselves on FB, the pigs...:)
Hell, ditto for straight single girls...