Scientific research shows gaydar is real.

There are a lot of problems with the study, which someone raised on another forum I frequent:

Essentially, there was a glaring flaw in the methodology which could easily account for the 10% difference.

Neil deGrasse Tyson once gave a good rule of thumb for interpreting results as a layperson. If the results support or defeat the hypothesis only marginally, then it is probably a fluke and should not be taken as definitive. If there was anything substantive behind the hypothesis, the result would have been higher.

Of course, the only way to tell for sure is to have other repeat the experiment. I doubt that would confirm these results, though.

 

That's true, but he's also talking to people who don't understand statistics very well. If they repeat the same study a few times and keep getting the same results, then you can only have two more hypotheses: either the methodology is wrong, or there really is a 10% difference.

One thing that is interesting to note though is that indicators of minority orientation are historically and regionally contingent.

 

I think we should let Chip have his moment. :icon_bigg

 

If gaydar is real, mine is broken.

 

That's a very good mature answer, but at the end of the day we all know you are a devout believer, lol.

 

No closet is safe.

 

10% also struck me as low, so ya. I'd've expected 20% at least.

 

One thing to consider about the difference from chance being low, is that not everyone has very good gaydar. The people in the study were not all people with good gaydar; they were random(ish) people, as far as I can tell. We all know that some folks have lousy gaydar, and that will bring the number down.

Another thing to consider is that to some extent, the study's ability to measure the accuracy of gaydar relies on the accuracy of the information the study has about the people's sexuality whose faces are being judged. There is a chance that some of them are closeted and categorized incorrectly. The "correct" sexuality of the faces presented in this study is based on the person's self-disclosure on Facebook. So, it's likely that people's accuracy is somewhat higher than the study could show, because some people were lying about their sexual orientation on Facebook.

But I don't necessarily think that whatever it is people are picking up on in the pictures of people's faces correlates to sexuality 100% of the time anyway. It's more likely that it only correlates a lot of the time, but not always. The "gay face" would perhaps share a common cause with being gay, but they would not go together all the time, without fail.

(Additionally, I don't think gaydar can be said to be based on this alone; and I've never met anyone who's gaydar is perfect.)

 

Yup, mine too.

 

Mine is pretty good it seems. Today I was driving home behind some of the Rugby players. There were two in the backseat of this car. I noticed one had his shoulder open to the other guy and the other guy was leaning slightly toward the other when talking to him. I was like, that is a little unusual I think they are gay. Next thing I know the guy put his arm around the other and was gently rubbing the guys face with the back of his hand. Def gay. DEF.