Jesse Bering
Image:
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
Although I've always wanted this particular superhuman power, I've never been very good at detecting other men's sexual orientation. Findings from a recent study published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, however, suggest I may be underestimating my gaydar abilities.
The January 2008 study investigated people's ability to identify homosexual men from pictures of their faces alone. In an initial experiment, researchers Nicholas Rule and Nalini Ambady from Tufts University perused 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 (none of the images contained jewelry, glasses or facial hair). 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 (both men and women) 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.
A parsimonious explanation for these findings would be that the countenance of these photos—an online dating site—means that they're likely stereotypical in some way. In other words, perhaps it's not the target's face per se that signals his sexual orientation, but the way he expresses himself facially when trying to attract a member of the same or the opposite gender. Or maybe hairstyles are suggestive of sexual orientation. Wary of these possible criticisms, Rule and Ambady conducted a second experiment that controlled for such extraneous variables as self-presentation and hairstyle.
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. In fact, the authors had a rather elaborate selection procedure for choosing the target photos in this follow-up study. They first searched for men who'd indicated in their Facebook profile an interest in other men. Then, they did a second search to find other Facebook users who had posted photos of these gay men in their own profile. They followed the identical criteria for straight targets. "Thus," the authors wrote, "by using photos of gay and straight individuals that they themselves did not post, we were able to remove the influence of self-presentation and much of the potential selection bias that may be present in photos from personal advertisements."
Again, the authors superimposed these male faces (this time 80 gay and 80 straight) onto a white background. They then photoshopped off the participants' hairstyles, this time truly leaving only the faces as a source of information about sexual orientation. And even with these more stringent controls, the participants were able to identify the gay faces at levels greater than chance—again even on those trials where the faces were flickered on the screen for a mere 50 milliseconds.
Furthermore, in an even more rigorously controlled series of experiments published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Rule and his colleagues replicated their discovery that people are able to accurately guess male sexual orientation. This time, the researchers demonstrated that perceivers were able to do this even when they were shown only individual features of the target's face. For example, when shown only the eye region ("without brows and cropped to the outer canthi so that not even "crow's-feet" were visible"), perceivers were amazingly still able to accurately identify a man as being gay. The same happened when shown the mouth region alone. Curiously, most of the participants underestimated their ability to identify gay faces from these features alone. That is to say, people seem to have honed and calibrated their gaydar without knowing they've done so.
Frankly, these findings are a little puzzling to me. Rule and his co-authors mention a few lackluster evolutionary reasons why it would be biologically adaptive for women to know which men aren't worth the trouble and for men to know who's not really a sexual competitor. But they also acknowledge that it's impossible to know from these findings what exactly it is about these facial features that give gays away. "Future studies," the authors wrote, "may wish to examine what aspects of these features lead to accurate judgments, what their origins might be, and how we acquire the ability to detect them."
See what we're tweeting about
59 Comments
Add CommentIt seems there is mounting evidence that there is structural differences in the brain possibly due to intrauterine influences, between the straight and gay men. If so, the only choice is to be or not to be, one's self.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnow i can use the phrase i have been wanting to use for a long time to spite the religous nuts......................GOD DID IT.................. i feel better
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDude. There have been studies that show that women can judge the level of testosterone of a guy just by looking at their face. It's the whole Cad/Dad thing. Maybe gay men are just a subset of dads?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGrrrrrrr. I really can't stand people who try to force their religion down my throat. Go play on the religious sites. I am not gay. I am not an alcoholic. I am not a criminal. Go away.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat logic is behind eating pork, and drinking alcohol make a person gay? Those comments were ridiculous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have just one question for the author: Just what exactly is meant by "at levels greater than chance"? 51:49? 60:40? 67:33? 75:25? Each of these could be considered "greater than chance" depending on how loosely you define the phrase. Personally, I'd define it as 67:33. If they're not twice as likely to respond correctly it sounds much too close to "chance" to make a definite conclusion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems most articles now in SCIAM are drawing out the religious fanatics. These message boards seem to be loosing their purpose. Instead of stirring intellectual debate they are giving a soap-box to any religious nut capable of typing. Ironic that they use the freedom of speech offered by the internet to curse liberal societies and use the computer, a product of quantum mechanics to protest science and reductionism. Well, I guess if their belief system is inconsistent, hypocritical and illogical, then they come by it honestly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPork Meat and Alcohol make one gay? Try telling that to the crowd at the next football tailgate. Ha.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAllah is not the only god, you're forgetting Yahweh, Xenu, Zeus and the rest.
All equally improbable and ridiculous.
I think what these studies show is that people who advertise on computers can be typed. Or how the images were "carefully selected." by those creating the studies. I don't know what they show about any general demographic. I would speculate that people who use modern dating methods are more sensitive to contemporary cultural markers both passive and active (if I dare use these terms). And that they don't necessarily represent any population as a whole, only the subset who uses these dating and networking services.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for gay men, looking like some archetypal gay men, I don't think so except for certain groups who might best be described as the fashion victims in gay urban ghettos. But the old studies I once cited, Bell, et. al, cites that 25% of people perceived to be gay were not.
Yes, people can conscientiously "look gay"---ask the media and the movies. And one can "look Jewish" or "look Armenian" or "look redneck" as well. Yet I have a whole subset of gay wrestlers and other athletes among my friends and they are just the same, sloppy bums as their colleagues: dirty laundry, cars and piazza & beer. A gay powerlifter is just a powerlifter from my experience. He may have a bigger world from his heterosexual buds in some cultural aspects since his view of gender may be more inclusive, but his sense of self is that of an obsessed athlete. (Powerlifters are crazy. All of them.)
What I have found out from my informal public education work with sexual minorities: men, woman and transsexuals, is that yes, there are differences, often profound as with transsexuals (different from gays), but that in most settings sexual affiliation is less important than cultural aspirations and bonds. And that appearances follow normative cultural patterns: doctors look like doctors, lawyers like lawyers, etc.
I do see genetic causes for sexual options, however, and but I don't see a gay-straight bifurcation which is not, incidentally, supported by the historical evidence.
And on a personal note: I can't usually tell the difference and I am gay and have been sexually active for almost four decades. And being an anthropologist, I have had friends of every sexual background. There obviously need to be much more work in this field but I am suspicious about how the sampling was chosen. Better a random selection and a far, far larger sample.
its a subtle thing, but a certain look in the eye, or how ones lips may be ever so slightly pursed (like the guy in the story ) signal an inner attitude. Its not about genetics, its learned.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm afraid that the discussion regarding Christian churches fundamentally exhibits an ignorance of official Roman Catholic Church teaching which, by the Catechism of the Catholic Church states in Paragraph 2358:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."
Please speak for yourself instead of on behalf of all Christendom. Thank you.
Ok.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with jh443: I would like numbers here. Why do so many of these types of articles not include numbers? This is supposed to be a science site, not the local newspaper. If the "better than random" numbers are only slightly better than random, then it would be reasonable to think that there may be some sort of experimental design/error creeping in. But the larger the factor above 50/50, the better the chance that there is something real going on. Why can't you tell us and let us decide for ourselves? I think it would be helpful for the scientifically-minded readers and will not make any difference in the responses from the religious types.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi,This is very Good Article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligion is God with politics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe difference between Religion and true Spirituality is that Religion is trying to bend God's will to your own.... Spirituality is bending your will to God's.
I sincerely hope we are beyond it, but do studies like this strike anyone else as something that could be used by ignorant people as a justification for bringing back eugenics?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBased on the personal experience of being a Protestant growing up amongst an enclave of Catholics kids I've always believed Catholics have a certain way of holding what I call their facial micro musculature, something that's been confirmed to me by a number of adult Catholics who explain it as being the result of a lifetime of being bombarded with the idea of their having innately guilty natures!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've also felt US citizens have a unique way of holding their facial micro musculature, again, based on encountering and briefly making friends with some Mormon kids when I was 7.
However, a few years ago, on encountering an adult I was convinced had the distinctive look of an American, I was shocked to hear him speak with a pronounced Scottish accent, only to have him, on hearing my 'mistake', explain he'd spent his teenage years living in the US as a result of his father working there.
One thing I can scientifically confirm, though, is that 'dickheads' don't really have a 'dick' growing out the top of their heads, even if their brains behave as if they do!
luciferpriestgmk said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"human being has seen that son can do whatever a father can even more son is more often more intelligent and more observing then the father right?"
I certainly hope your son is more intelligent than you. In fact, why don't you pray to your god for your son to see the light (of physical reality)?
Hello alanborky...While travelling Europe with my Aussie wife, I was constantly and correctly accused of being an American, despite my practiced Aussie accent. They can spot us a mile away. I do think that these stereotypes are learned. I have my own impressions of what a typical Russian, Swede or Ethiopian looks like, but I don't think I can tell the difference between the Chinese and Japanese, and I'm sure that I couldn't tell a gay Chinese from a straight Japanese simply from a picture. Maybe I need treatment to enhance my gaydar.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLUCIFERPRIESTGMK...Since we are intelligent, we know not to read your comments. Your illiterate ass is wasting its time. My dogs are way smarter than you. You have significantly limited intellectual capacity (slic). You are slic, I am notslic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article indicates that participants scored "above chance" in guesstimating the sexuality, but does not say how much better than chance they guesstimated. Isn't that relevant?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with the possible marjority, but I have seen some fairly rough looking guys out there who are gay. Some fairly handsome, what about Rock Hudson. Was he that good of an actor he was able to change his facial apperance? The Gay Lifestyle is a choice as is any lifestyle. Judgement based on religion is a false judgement, as is terrorism, and predjudices. All organized religions have created more hate than peace and harmony. I'm from the Baby Boomer Generation, I thought by now our Generation would have eliminated all this petty B.S.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's get a vote on whether you think Jesse Bering looks gay. I say yes. The cute stripey shirt, the well trimmed sparse facial hair and the "I know something you don't know" look on his face add up to a positive reading on my gaydar. It's ok dude! I like your column and I like your personality!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen will "official science" turn its attention to the question of whether this phenomenon called "sexual identity" or "orientation" actually exists. From the Greeks to Freud, all human literature (including Tim Taylor's 'Prehistory of Sex') indicates that human beings are, individually, polysexual. Sexuality has nothing to do with reproduction; we seem to suffering from fundamental semantic and logical errors in science itself and its bizarre categories (homo, hetero, bi as 'identitiies'). Has science simply become "survey says"? Here's a thought: if culture is ultimately based on biology, then human society is composed of two human cultures, male and female. And sexuality is an expression of our bodies and its needs. A phobia or fear of anyone based on gender/sex seems rather neurotic to me. One thing I do know: you can't blame unwanted children, accidental pregnancies, abortion, child poverty and so many other problems—not least overpopulation—on homosexuals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd I thought Life was supposed to be sacred. Is an "accident" sacred? Or is it really an argument of quantities of baby-souls and body-parts over quality of life for the living. Seems as if the anti-gay crowd are really showing their genocidal racism. After all, it's always really about their numbers, isn't it? Desmond Tutu is right.
Seriously, can you actually prove the existence of a "gay gene"? The danger of all this language is its eugenical implications. Terms like "anti-social DNA" are spewing from the mouths of political and religious leaders just as it grew among the Europeans and Americans of the 1930's. And today the pope still connects homosexual love with child abuse. So desperate is their so-called argument, it calls into serious question the real desires of those who project onto others heinous intentions. They reveal themselves for what they are.
Click on 'Nicholas Rule' and you can read the Tuft press hand out. It claims 70% guessed right. I guessed Bering is gay and from his pic guessed Rules is also gay. Rules says he is. Gay friends and I agrees guess the present and last Pope are and were. I also guess that the Ayatollah Komenia was not but that for all his wives ben Laden is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell.... I grew up in the American midwest and spent a couple years in Utah. Mormons (there anyway) definitely have their own unique "aura" that can be spotted a mile away. This aura is quite different than the "average American."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suspect it has to do with testosterone levels. Low testosterone levels makes for less masculine men. The less masculine we are, the more like women we are. But then again, there are plenty of masculine homosexuals. Personally, I tend to think that labeling of sexual preference is inaccurate. Sexual preference is just that, a preference. I like women for the same reason I like spicy food, I enjoy them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, for those who want to make this into a religious fight. If you believe that it is a sin or otherwise evil to be gay, then don't be gay. When it comes right down to it, if you're not having sex with the person(s) in question, then their sexual preference has no bearing on your life.
I do not claim to know the will of any deity. It may say in one book or another that such deities have certain beliefs, morals, and laws that we should adhere to, and even tell us the consequences for breaking with these commandments. However, for a mortal to claim to KNOW a god IS BLASPHEMY! Our finite minds cannot understand an infinitely powerful being and to even suggest that we can is not only insane but does your god a great injustice. It is insulting to your god to believe that you know their will. When faced with this, you can only align your own life with what you believe their will to be. If you end up being wrong, you harmed none. If you seek to force what you believe gods will to be on another, and you turn out to be wrong, you have committed many great evils. You were proud and assumed to know a god, and you harmed your fellow man in god's name.
Religion is personal. It is about one's individual journey and relationship with divinity. To make it anything more than that is evil.
Sorry for the religious tirade there... extremists bug me.
Nathaniel, I like women too...but doesn't the thought of gay men having sex kind of gross you out? (for lack of a better term). I accept homosexuality as reality, and I truly feel no bad feelings toward gays, but it does gross me out! And even more strange, lesbians DON'T gross me out, but make me think "what a waste!". So I think that we DO need to determine the basis of these thoughts/feelings and therefore labeling is necessary, despite what Lycurgusduh says. Actually, the difference between "normal" heterosexuality and pedophilia (or even rape/murder) is simply a matter of degree. How far are you willing to extend from the norm? These issues are very important to understanding our species, if we plan to actually survive for a few more millennia.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have lived around and socialized with gay men and women for years. From my experience, this theory is too simplistic. First, they only say the choosers were better than chance. How much better? Significantly better? How significant? Sure, a lot of gay men and women are quite obviously gay, a lot of them are not though. We've all known those so manly men who ended up being flaming gay, and those lipstick lesbians too. Sexuality and/or gender is a spectrum, not an either - or condition. Sexuality has three aspects. How you look and act physically. How you feel about yourself. And who you pick for a life/love partner. Any of these three aspects can exist anywhere on the spectrum of male-female, so of course there is quite a bit of variation. I also know that gay folk spend an inordinate amount of social time speculating about who is and who isn't gay. If they had gaydar, why bother speculating? So for the most, I think this article is BS, plain and simple. Back to the lab.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy does this site have science in its title?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do you people always have to divert scientific discussions to religion? Religion has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is one of a series about gays that seem to be based on 'pop science' and lack credibility. Their on line publication stains the good name of Scientific American and suggests that homophobia is alive and well in the management of the magazine. Please enforce the same standards on line as you do for the print version: and that includes the ravings of religious fools!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOk Lucifer, enough with the Islam preaching. If I wanted to know what the Quran says about everything, I would've asked you but I didn't. The statements about pork and alcohol are totally false. I've eaten pork and there's a bottle of alcohol where I live with my name on it and I'm not going to hell. Also for record, I'm not gay. Besides, your comments would also enrage any homosexual, male or female. Also do your friggin research before you bash another person's religion. Jesus Christ was both man and God being part of the Holy Trinity. What's sad is you're just another person who is intolerant of the beliefs of people around you. If and when you decide to get a larger view of the world, MAYBE somebody will listen to what you have to say.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt just seems like Bering is using this blog as an attempt to justify his own lifestyle choices/views. Not that I really care what choices he makes, but it seems like each article he writes involves either exploring homosexuality or debunking religion? I mean, is there really nothing else in the scientific world that interests this guy? Really? And does he get paid for this?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut since we are on the topic. Take a look at Bering's picture, for instance. If you focus on his eyes and mouth alone, both suggest "effeminate" qualities which would lead one to (correctly) assume he is homosexual. With these same innate observational abilities one can determine whether another is "happy" or "angry" based on said facial features. Elementary.
(1) looks like the next phase of experimentation could involve randomised identikit mosaics of facial features.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(2) in the first series of experiments, what were the success rates? It is only mentioned that they were greater than chance. How much greater?
(3) I don't think the play of words on "Queer" is good form. My observation is that it is used acceptably by gay rather than straight people. Simplest to not appear glib.
There's nothing wrong with a writer wanting to specialize in particular subjects. But this article is very poorly written, universalizing with data that doesn't support it, such as "perceivers were amazingly still able to accurately identify a man as being gay." Even at 70% accuracy (and there is no excuse for Bering not to include the actual figures) the phrase is falsely sweeping, it should have read "SOME perceivers were amazingly still able to accurately identify SOME men as being gay." There may be tendencies, but it is simply impossible for ALL gay men to exhibit any one particular feature; even the whorl pattern of the hair is only a tendency.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe answer to being "grossed out" when thinking about sex between people you "don't want to" is easy: treat it exactly like we ALL do when sex between our parents occurs to us - we STOP ourselves thinking about it! ;-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a pretty crappy article filled with mainstream assumptions and stereotypes. There are countless macho and rugged gay men, and the media and mainstream focus on effeminacy (which is really about misogyny and sensationalism) gives a false impression: the rather large majority of gay men are not effeminate. For every gay man I know who has 1 or more effeminate traits, I know 10 who do not.
dcg, you've got your knickers in a bunch over nothing. ever heard of the concept of "statistical significance" in science? the author never says ALL gay men have the same traits. and if you want more detail about the data and analyses, read the studies yourself! this is a pop science column that summarizes interesting research. the links lead to the actual studies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think I am suffering from gay face. http://is.gd/l1Fy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Also, gay men are more emotionally expressive, leading to a general 'tightness' and muscular activation throughout the entire face." I'm not convinced that this generalization holds true for all gay men. I know plenty of withholding, low-affect gay men who under this rubric would "look" heterosexual. How does the study account for these cases?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave the authors considered that the gay men in the study may be showing signs of stress from living in a horrifically homophobic society? One only needs to read some of the comments above to gauge the level.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is astonishing article to read in Scientific American -- more reminiscent of Francis Galton than modern science. Will we be treated in future to a feature on "Negro iris" or "Muslim lip"?
I like to hold the opinion that the most active gay bashers are in fact the gayest of all of us (what was that one guy, Ted Haggert or something?).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell you can deffinently tell hatcher is gay
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow did this article become a comment on religion? Oh, well. A good researcher will stay away from bias even religion. I am not a social scientist, but I people need to get away from the question: is sexual preference inborn and is it social disease?. I understand both sides of the argument, but both sides still alienate/seperate humankind. This only creates animosity. It is time to accept people as they are and they are wonderful no matter what sexual persuasion they have. In other countries, homosexuality and bisexuality is a understood as a normal occurrence. There are enfeminant and masculine gays in both sexes. I believe that maybe the reasoning of the researchers findings. The urban dictionary seems to allow uneducated, disgusting commentary. I may have misunderstood the function of their website, but it irks me all the same. I must make this note to christians/jews: by not accepting and making people uncomfortable because of their sexuality in your church/synagogue separates them from God's people. Before you throw up the sin card in their face, be careful to understand your sins. God says to come as you are. If you truely believe in God you would accept and love God's people as they are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA surprisingly useless, non-scientific article for a tome like Scientific American. It went into great detail about the experimental setup, but the only data on the result is "above chance"? what does that mean? Did people guess right 51% of the time, when it would be 50% by chance alone? What a poorly written article! Based on the omission of data, I suspect there may not be a real story here at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOMG that is MY definition that I wrote into urban dictionary!! HA.. well, to the last poster, FYI - testosterone levels are identical in gays and straights... so it's not that. My hypothesis was that gays activate different muscles in the vace, just like they do in the larynx and soft pallette when they talk in the "gay voice" that we all know so well. And, when they walk - there is a swish...where does that come from? Emulation of females (subconsciously) in adolescence? Perhaps... I don't know. There's a series of things that go together with most gay men (not all - so chill) and the face is one of them. Whether these are learned or there is some innate gender bending is hard to say... btw, I am a homo myself - so i dont know why i am saying "they" but ... anywway, it' s just easier. BTW, I botox out my forehead so I don't get the gay face up in the eyes as as much, I *think* - not sure. I'm always squinting since my eyebrows wont move and were lowered with botox... seems more straight than my old pics where I had the big crazy gay eye smile. I can still purse my lips with the best of them. Hell, at least in my urban dictionary post I didn't say that gay men got the pursed lips from certain bedroom activities... haha. I tried to keep it scientific.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've been using the eyebrows for years and I have a consistent high score (90%) on ok cupid's gaydar test. Problem with that test though is sometimes the eyes are covered. I do think the facial features are not just "grown in" from frequent facial expressions because I can detect at very young ages. Even homophobic sounding young boys are outable with their eyebrows.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisperhaps, what we detect about the face has nothing to do with what are eyes are perceiving.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"a tome like Scientific American"? you have got to be kidding. SCIAM is a child's science mag and this author's subjects are always pop culture. don't think your braniac because you read Scientific American.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe photo accompanying this article totally screams "GAY FACE".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi don't know about "shaper irises" but i've always said that the key to 'gaydar' is in the eyes. str8 men have a dead, beaten-down gaze while gay men have a clear, lively sparkle... unless, of course, you're a gay man with dead eyes or a lively str8 man. most of this stuff is pretty silly, but then gay men have always been able to quickly recognize each other, so SOMEthing is going on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Mr. Bering:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat your article proves is that throughout history science, in its worse sense has been used to support
positions/arguments that are held against some individuals or groups.
Although eventually other scientist disprove the
use of science towards diminishing others. They,
scientist always have.
When scientists felt that Afro-Americans and Blacks were descendants of apes, science felt otherwise, that we were all descendants of apes.
When Jews were singled out by scientists in Nazi
Germany, science ultimately showed the ignorance of
their science.
When scientist felt the mentally ill were possessed,
criminal science eventually corrected their view.
Mr. Bering, those of use that see the ignorance in
your article must simply wait for science to correct
you. I have no doubt they will.
Science is a tool. When used intelligently it produces
the most remarkable understandings. When used by
those less skilled, science becomes a weapon we all
must fear. I feel Albert would agree with me.
Don't you? I thought not.
Sincerely yours
JB
I thing either that, like a female dog can simulate the sexual act of a male dog, rubbing themselves on the male dog,our male cat by rubbing the lower bag they get in the female reproduction position, we actually have, in different levels, the "modus operanti" of the male and female in our brain structure. The environment is responsible of activate this structures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisa. can't help noticing there's no mention of the extent by which the participants exceeded chance performance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisb. also didn't see any mention of, let alone control for, the selection bias introduced by only using images of men who self-identified as homosexuals in an extremely public forum.
given these concerns, it's entirely possible that a particular subset of homosexuals is likely to both self-report in an online venue, and provide cues, consciously or unconsciously, to their sexual preferences. i'm fairly certain the issue is more complicated than it's being presented here.
Hmmm...I dunno, I kinda suck at being able to tell if guys are straight or gay. What's weird is I can usually tell if women are straight (and I guess then by deduction, gay), I'm not sure how to describe it, without it sounding ridiculously simplistic, other than some straight women...I get some sort of sexual "vibe" that I don't from lesbian (or even bi, most of the time) women...LOL (and to clarify, I'm straight and male.) So I was wondering, when I read, "why it would be biologically adaptive for women to know which men aren't worth the trouble and for men to know who's not really a sexual competitor..", whether the opposite may be true as well (i.e. is it adaptive for men to know which women "aren't worth the trouble")? I dunno, people usually look at me funny when I tell them this, regardless of gender, so maybe I'm just an anomaly. :P
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for there to be space between the eyes... I have a greater than average interpupillary distance (I forget the other term for this right now). I have to adjust binocular apparatus...I also have a slightly larger head circumference. That said, the way it was pointed out was really uncalled for but there's probably a little truth to that. My good gaydar scores depend on that tidbit too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmmmm... I wonder:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswould this also work on black and Asian people???
(and, please stop calling BS like this `SCIENTIFIC´'