*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[oskar]

Well that's nonsense, but your political orientation is a trait you're more likely to pass on to your children than most physical traits and you might be confusing causation and correlation.

[spoonitnow]

Well that's nonsense, but your political orientation is a trait you're more likely to pass on to your children than most physical traits and you might be confusing causation and correlation.

It's not nonsense. Here's one example:

A.I. can detect the sexual orientation of a person based on one photo, research shows

The Stanford University study found that machines had a far superior "gaydar" when compared to humans.

The machine intelligence tested in the research could correctly infer between gay and straight men 81 percent of the time, and 74 percent of the time for women.

(Source)

And I'm not confusing causation and correlation.

[oskar]

It's not nonsense. Here's one example:



(Source)

wowzers, could you possibly find a less useful source?

And I'm not confusing causation and correlation.

yes, you are.

[spoonitnow]

wowzers, could you possibly find a less useful source?

The Stanford University study, which is set to be published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and was first reported in The Economist...

No.

Losers fail

Glad we agree on something.

How about if he instead said "The world doesn't owe you a living"

Spoiler alert on the result of that:

Spoiler: Show

TRIGGERED

So, has anyone mentioned a practical use for this 'gaydar machine'?

There is some concern that it could be used to try to out people who would fall into the LGBTQ+ camp for the purposes of rounding up and throwing them into concentration camps or similar.

[MadMojoMonkey]

"While a person's "grooming style" also factored in to the computer algorithm, essentially suggesting gay women appeared more masculine and vice versa."

A) That's a cool result.
B) I wonder how well it works across cultures. I wonder how long until it can tell you 3 generations of your heritage and whether or not each of them were gay, too.

[oskar]

The machine intelligence tested in the research could correctly infer between gay and straight men 81 percent of the time, and 74 percent of the time for women.

Wild speculation, but I'm gonna say that percentage drops significantly if you use the cast of Jersey Shore as test subjects.

[oskar]

The only reference to political views I could find was this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...eliefs-IQ.html

Dr Kosinski claims computers could be used to detect political beliefs and IQ

Was that your source?

And this was your conclusion:

Hey so just in case you fucktards don't realize this, your facial features are strongly correlated to which side of the political spectrum you're drawn to, suggesting a very serious genetic component.

?

[oskar]

Here's something mildly interesting:
Any phrenologic examination based on images requires topographical analyses. Topographical analyses based on images without knowing the exact angle of light source is a shitshow even in multi-scopic analyses. If They did have a proven methodology to analyse topography based on monoscopic sources without knowing the angle(s) of the light source(s), I'd want to know everything about it because I know some people who would lose their shit if this was possible. Forget about gaydar, that's a billion dollar algorithm if it exists.

[Poopadoop]

Here's something mildly interesting:
Any phrenologic examination based on images requires topographical analyses. Topographical analyses based on images without knowing the exact angle of light source is a shitshow even in multi-scopic analyses. If They did have a proven methodology to analyse topography based on monoscopic sources without knowing the angle(s) of the light source(s), I'd want to know everything about it because I know some people who would lose their shit if this was possible. Forget about gaydar, that's a billion dollar algorithm if it exists.

I don't know about all this, but I imagine the AI is categorising certain facial features and measurements like the size of the nose and the distance between the eyes and whatnot. So I wouldn't be surprised if the AI did possess some gaydar - like abilities.

I'm also not surprised at seeing a tenuous link being drawn between this and the other tenuous link between a weak effect of political orientation and attractiveness in political candidates.

More generally, before criticising someone for inferring causation from correlation, it seems important to understand whether the correlation actually exists in fact or whether it exists mainly in the tattered logic of that person's own head.

[oskar]

I don't know about all this, but I imagine the AI is categorising certain facial features and measurements like the size of the nose and the distance between the eyes and whatnot. So I wouldn't be surprised if the AI did possess some gaydar - like abilities.

You can do eye/nose/mouth distance. But not with a high degree of certainty. Size of nose or width of chin, as stated in the article, should be near impossible. But it's not like that's close the the only problem that study has, if it's even publicly available.
I would be very surprised tho if the algorithm used for the study actually dealt with physiological features and not just levels of flamboyancy which would be a lot easier to detect.

More generally, before criticising someone for inferring causation from correlation, it seems important to understand whether the correlation actually exists in fact or whether it exists mainly in the tattered logic of that person's own head.

Yeah, my bad. lol

Like I've already pointed out. Spoons source is most likely the title of a Daily Mail article which he misread.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The facial recognition software isn't categorizing things like a human would. It's examining the color values of groups of pixels using various filters and algorithms. It's not comparing nose size and distance between the eyes, it's comparing the colors and patterns of pixels, which is a subtle difference that bears stating. It doesn't know what or whom is gay until it is fed a sample set of pictures and told which is which to begin with. Once that process is seeded, you can start to ask it which of those 2 piles it would sort a new picture into. Often it's not too good at first, so you seed it more and more until it starts to show reliable results.

There is always variability in the seeding process, which can be hard to quantify. The sample set of pictures may well need to be all taken with identical lighting and camera work in order for the program to function... at first... but the advances in AI are coming so fast that it's not clear if this will continue to be necessary... just seed it more and more pictures with different lighting and telling it which pile to sort those pictures into. Eventually, hopefully, it will be able to sort the pictures no matter what the lighting.

Who knows if this is a fluke or if it can be improved upon, though. If we told it to determine the height of a person based on a photo of their face, maybe it can and maybe it can't. I'd guess the 2 are unrelated, but that could mean the relation is beneath my threshold of sensitivity to relate them. Perhaps if I was more keenly observant of someone's pore-spacing, I'd realize that it's directly correlated to height.

[oskar]

The facial recognition software isn't categorizing things like a human would. It's examining the color values of groups of pixels using various filters and algorithms. It's not comparing nose size and distance between the eyes, it's comparing the colors and patterns of pixels, which is a subtle difference that bears stating. It doesn't know what or whom is gay until it is fed a sample set of pictures and told which is which to begin with. Once that process is seeded, you can start to ask it which of those 2 piles it would sort a new picture into. Often it's not too good at first, so you seed it more and more until it starts to show reliable results.

Not sure if I'm misreading you, but you can definitely teach it what an eye, a mouth, a nose... looks like and then let it tell you the relative distance. Smartphones and webcams can already do that. Facebook does it (or did it) to auto-tag people in pictures.
I wouldn't mind reading the paper if it's available anywhere, but unless this is verified by independent researches I'm not giving it too much credibility.

[BananaStand]

So, has anyone mentioned a practical use for this 'gaydar machine'?

[oskar]

Investor scamming would be my best guess.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's probably only a disagreement due to poorly defined terms between us.

It's a pedantic point to say that a computer doesn't recognize eyes or noses, it only recognizes that a certain pattern of pixel colors gets assigned a certain identifier.
As a human using the program, it's common to assert it recognizes eyes, because that's what you want it to do and it can reliably draw a box around eyes, given any picture with eyes in it.
However, the computer isn't identifying eyes... that's a human thing... computers just sort things according to an algorithm, but don't "recognize" anything. They merely follow instructions which gives the user a compelling illusion to support "recognizing."

A computer doesn't know the alphabet. It creates electrical signals which show me a picture which looks to me like a letter of the alphabet when I press a button on its keyboard, but the computer is just changing the color and brightness of pixels, without any recognition or cognition of how that appears to me. The only reason I can make sense of the output is because some wise computer designer or software designer thought it would be prudent to show me what I expect to be shown.

[oskar]

You weren't kidding about the "pedantic" part.

[Poopadoop]

https://osf.io/fk3xr/

tl;dr

Interesting to note the study has been withheld from publication while the APA figures out if it's ethical or not, despite the fact that Stanford U already said it was using APA guidelines. Apparently it's caused a bit of a kerfuffle among certain groups. Irony is 'lol open science' anyone can see it in its final form anyways.

Just from glancing thru it, saw this bit here. My guess from this is that the AI works by parsing out masculine and feminine facial features, and when a man is too feminine he's classified as gay and v/v.

The results show that the faces of gay men were more feminine and the faces of lesbians were more masculine
than those of their respective heterosexual counterparts.

[BananaStand]

Apparently it's caused a bit of a kerfuffle among certain groups.

I just got an idea for a machine that predicts homosexuality based on using words like "kerfuffle"

[BananaStand]

Most gay men have straight fathers. Presumably, alot of them share similar facial features. I wonder how the gaydar machine would do if it was fed a bunch of pictures from the same family.

Was that addressed in the study?

[Poopadoop]

Most gay men have straight fathers. Presumably, alot of them share similar facial features. I wonder how the gaydar machine would do if it was fed a bunch of pictures from the same family.

Was that addressed in the study?

Dunno, didn't really read it.

My understanding tho is that gay-ism is correlated with hormone levels - testosterone, estrogen being the main ones - for masculinity/femininity. When you're straight you have the appropriate levels of hormone for your sex, when you're gay you're out of balance. The hormones do all kinds of things besides causing the physical diffs between men and women (like face structure, muscle mass, fat distribution, etc.) but to personality differences as well (like making men physically aggressive and women relatively timid). So, if your dad is straight and you are gay, the differences in hormones might make you look like a gay (feminized) version of your dad, basically.

[spoonitnow]

Dunno, didn't really read it.

My understanding tho is that gay-ism is correlated with hormone levels - testosterone, estrogen being the main ones - for masculinity/femininity. When you're straight you have the appropriate levels of hormone for your sex, when you're gay you're out of balance. The hormones do all kinds of things besides causing the physical diffs between men and women (like face structure, muscle mass, fat distribution, etc.) but to personality differences as well (like making men physically aggressive and women relatively timid). So, if your dad is straight and you are gay, the differences in hormones might make you look like a gay (feminized) version of your dad, basically.

I've read it a few times, and this is correct.

Tie-ins to the drop in testosterone in men in general are interesting topics of discussion as well.

[spoonitnow]

As a member of the LGBTQ+ community, it's a legitimate concern for a lot of people to be afraid of being outed, rounded up and thrown off the side of fucking buildings in places like the Middle East where it's illegal to be anything but straight and cisgender.

Crimes intentionally targeting members of the LGBTQ+ community for being members of the LGBTQ+ community happen basically everywhere, but in situations where the law of the land encourages it, it's a completely different ballgame in terms of frequency, severity and lack of consequences to the perpetrators.

[oskar]

You went from saying you don't have a better source than an nbc article, quoting the paper hasn't been released yet, to saying you've read the paper "a few times" in the span of 90 minutes.

[spoonitnow]

You went from saying you don't have a better source than an nbc article

I said I didn't have a better source for the claim than a Stanford study. I apologize for any confusion.

quoting the paper hasn't been released yet

Whether it's been released or not has no bearing on whether you can read it.

to saying you've read the paper "a few times" in the span of 90 minutes.

Less than 50 pages isn't that much. I'm sorry if you're a slow reader. I mean shit, I write between 10 and 15 pages MLA before lunch almost daily.

[oskar]

Oh, so if that wasn't a lie, can you point me to where it says my facial features very strongly correlate to my politic orientation, suggesting a "very serious genetic component"?

[BananaStand]

Oh, so if that wasn't a lie, can you point me to where it says my facial features very strongly correlate to my politic orientation, suggesting a "very serious genetic component"?

Id also like an answer to this. Also, how is it that gay features are hormonal, but politically-telling features are genetic?

[spoonitnow]

Id also like an answer to this. Also, how is it that gay features are hormonal, but politically-telling features are genetic?

Your hormone profile is largely determined by genetics. That's why so many liberals [who have fathers] have fathers who are pussies.

[spoonitnow]

Oh, so if that wasn't a lie, can you point me to where it says my facial features very strongly correlate to my politic orientation, suggesting a "very serious genetic component"?

I never said that source said your facial features very strongly correlate to your political orientation, nor did I say that source suggested a very serious genetic component to same.

I did say that the source was an example of how the concept of AI being able to detect similar characteristics when you said "that's nonsense" in order to spark a wider range of discussion than a non-stop political circlejerk.

Feel free to send further questions directly to Michal Kosinski.

[oskar]

You mean the source that Poop linked?
Where is your source that facial features are strongly correlated to political orientation?

[spoonitnow]

You mean the source that Poop linked?
Where is your source that facial features are strongly correlated to political orientation?

Feel free to send further questions directly to Michal Kosinski.

This may have been lost in the edits since I had to step away for a few moments.

[oskar]

Well thanks for spelling that out for me.
I feel like I'm having a particularly slow day today.

[oskar]

Did you learn about this by talking directly to Michael Kosinski, the author of the paper?

[spoonitnow]

So you learned this fact by talking directly to Michael Kosinski, co-author of the paper, and there is no public source for this?

Yeah we run trains on fat chicks on the weekends behind Taco Bell.

[wufwugy]

I am not a fan of Trump's new chairman for the Federal Reserve. This could be Trump's biggest mistake. I don't think it will be because the chairperson of the Fed doesn't set policy; instead the consensus of academic economists does. But on the surface the new Fed chairman doesn't seem to understand that shifts in aggregate demand are essentially controlled by monetary policy. This is one big reason I wanted Cruz instead of Trump. Cruz was the only politician I heard make public statements that actually got monetary policy within the realm of correct.

[wufwugy]

My sanguine view is that Trump has put this person in the Fed for the purpose of making positive movement on the financial regulation side of the Fed's duties instead of influencing monetary policy. That would be fine.

[CoccoBill]

My sanguine view is that the confirmation bias can be overcome.

[wufwugy]

My sanguine view is that the confirmation bias can be overcome.

What are you thinking of?

[BananaStand]

So the Democrats agreed to re-open the government in exchange for flimsy promises from Republicans. McConnell agreed to consider DACA legislation in the Senate, at the same time Ryan is saying "the house has made no such promise".

I thought it would be a really shitty move if the Repubs went and pulled the rug out after they got what they wanted. That would give the Dems alot of firepower to cast blame and ramp up the rhetoric for 2018 midterm elections.

Dems promised a wall in exchange for DACA legislation. All they had to do was wait for the repubs to welch. Then I wake up this morning and see that Schumer decided to welch first. "Thanks for re-opening the government. We're gonna hold you to your promise on DACA. Oh, and by the way, we were just kidding about the wall"

What the fuckety fuck????

[spoonitnow]

So the Democrats agreed to re-open the government in exchange for flimsy promises from Republicans. McConnell agreed to consider DACA legislation in the Senate, at the same time Ryan is saying "the house has made no such promise".

I thought it would be a really shitty move if the Repubs went and pulled the rug out after they got what they wanted. That would give the Dems alot of firepower to cast blame and ramp up the rhetoric for 2018 midterm elections.

Dems promised a wall in exchange for DACA legislation. All they had to do was wait for the repubs to welch. Then I wake up this morning and see that Schumer decided to welch first. "Thanks for re-opening the government. We're gonna hold you to your promise on DACA. Oh, and by the way, we were just kidding about the wall"

What the fuckety fuck????

Dreamers lol

Sounds more like somebody needs to wake the fuck up.

[wufwugy]

Only 90s kids will remember this one

[spoonitnow]

Only 90s kids will remember this one

She was so adorable.

They really did everything they could to lose that election.

[spoonitnow]

North Korea calls for reunification with South Korea

https://news.sky.com/story/north-kor...korea-11221519


LOL IS THERE NOTHING THIS MAN CANNOT FUCKING DO, GODDAMN

[wufwugy]

peaceful and beloved kim wants to unify with south korea because he's afraid blumpf will accidentally confuse the red nuclear button with ivanka's shithole.

[spoonitnow]

And we're only one year in. What the fuck will he do in the next seven? Jesus Christ.

He's so good it's scary, but here's the really scary part: The professional politicians that have been voted in for decades have rarely been anywhere near this effective.

[BananaStand]

I really only ever hear two arguments for open borders. It's either...

1) I have a Nicaraguan pool boy and he's the hardest working dude I know!

or

2) My great-great grand pappy came over on a boat from [some european shithole] in 1917 and everything was great!

The first I can dismiss as a sample size fail. The latter, I really need explained to me. Do people really think that's the same as what's happening today? Do they really not see the difference??

I really hope this woman has her car stolen by an immigrant.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/24/us/im...rnd/index.html

[wufwugy]

Maybe my favorite gif



Because it looks like he's a total jerk who just pushes his way to the front. But a deeper analysis shows that is the opposite of what happens. But even when you know the details why it still looks like he just knocking the fool aside. Hilarious.

[spoonitnow]

I remember that whole KERFLUFFLE. That shit was hilarious on every level.

[BananaStand]

I remember that whole KERFLUFFLE.

Was it hard to keep that one holstered for this long?

[OngBonga]

People who want open borders are just naive and think that all the horror stories about immigrants is fake news spread by racists.

It's a default position for anti-racists who don't want to actually think things through for themselves.

[BananaStand]

People who want open borders are just naive and think that all the horror stories about immigrants is fake news spread by racists.

It's a default position for anti-racists who don't want to actually think things through for themselves.

Careful man. If the US ever succumbs to this socialist nonsense, you probably won't be able to afford to live in the UK anymore. Then you'll be knocking at the border of some shithole telling them "don't believe all the horror stories about immigrants"

[BananaStand]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...egal-team.html

Why is this a story??

[Poopadoop]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...egal-team.html

Why is this a story??

I know why it's a story, but I'm more interested in hearing your theory for why it's a story.

Oh wait, scratch that. Actually, I'm not.


Edit: Ok, lemme try to explain. First, see if you can spot the parallels between then and now.

https://timeline.com/saturday-night-...n-1f7c2565c0d8

[BananaStand]

I know why it's a story,

You THINK you know why it's a story because you can't distinguish between facts and spin.

[OngBonga]

You THINK you know why it's a story because you can't distinguish between facts and spin.

This isn't an insult, this is an astute observation.

[Poopadoop]

This isn't an insult, this is an astute observation.

And yet if the same argument is made the other way, it's "zomgbias".

MMM got it right, none of us know what's really going on; we all filter it through our own prior beliefs.

[BananaStand]

The idea of firing Meuller wasn't just conjured up organically in the mind of a madman.

That's what the story is suggesting. If you go to CNN's webpage, they've pretty much dispensed with reporting on the facts, and their headlines on this subject all say "Analysis". Which is a fancy journalism term for "spin"

The idea of firing Meuller was batted about by alot of people. The conflicts have been highlighted by all sorts of pundits. It was a major talking point in national political discourse and still is.

So why is it so unfathomable that Trump considered it, and talked about it with his advisers?

And ultimately, he acted measured and reasonable. So what's the problem?

[Poopadoop]

The idea of firing Meuller wasn't just conjured up organically in the mind of a madman.

That's what the story is suggesting. If you go to CNN's webpage, they've pretty much dispensed with reporting on the facts, and their headlines on this subject all say "Analysis". Which is a fancy journalism term for "spin"

The idea of firing Meuller was batted about by alot of people. The conflicts have been highlighted by all sorts of pundits. It was a major talking point in national political discourse and still is.

So why is it so unfathomable that Trump considered it, and talked about it with his advisers?

And ultimately, he acted measured and reasonable. So what's the problem?

Firing Mueller was an idea for people who wanted an excuse to hinder the investigation without it looking like Nixon all over again. After about 2 milliseconds, when they figured out that wasn't possible because of optics alone (all except the very stable genius), the idea went out the window. The fact that the very stable genius was even considering it after those 2 milliseconds expired is either another example of 3D chess or another example of him being an idiot, depending on how you see things.

[BananaStand]

The fact that the very stable genius was even considering it after those 2 milliseconds expired is either another example of 3D chess or another example of him being an idiot, depending on how you see things.

You're using the word "fact" to describe anonymous third-hand accounts of closed-door meetings.

[BananaStand]

The only thing that's actually "known", is that Trump thoroughly evaluated all options and chose the best option after considering all available information and advice. End of story.

You really have ZERO credible information as to why Trump explored that option, what his actual intentions were, or whether or not his mind actually had to be "changed". For all we know, he's just super-thorough, and wanted to look at every possible angle. Maybe he's not a leader who accepts scoffs as answers. Maybe he just likes to challenge advice that gets blurted out within 2 milliseconds. Maybe he had no intention of firing Meuller, he just wanted to challenge his advisers to justify the decision with facts and logic rather than "optics", especially when he knows that those optics are dictated by a media who hates him. Those all sounds like habits of someone who has enjoyed monumental business success.

You can infer a lack of judgement, or a Nixonian retaliation if you like, but there is nothing supporting that except third hand accounts filtered through the NY Times.

I'm not playing this game with you Poop where everything Fox Reports is bullshit, but everything the NY Times says is gospel. If that's how your brain works, there's really no point in debating you because you're incapable of independent thought.

[MadMojoMonkey]

People are all biased. As such all news is biased.

Asserting that any single news source is relaying unbiased information is fully 'tarded.

[wufwugy]

Trump is such a role model. Just get people to think you're retarded (while gaining influence) and then they will adopt any ol' retarded position they can to go against you. It's amazing.

[Poopadoop]

Trump is such a role model. Just get people to think you're retarded (while gaining influence) and then they will adopt any ol' retarded position they can to go against you. It's amazing.

And if you are retarded, you've already won half the battle.

[wufwugy]

And if you are retarded, you've already won half the battle.

So a retarded person obliterated the competition.

[Poopadoop]

I'm not playing this game with you Poop where everything Fox Reports is bullshit, but everything the NY Times says is gospel.

And yet that's the very game you try to play, only in reverse.

[BananaStand]

And yet that's the very game you try to play, only in reverse.

Incorrect. If you recall, my original post on this topic was critical of a Fox News piece.

[wufwugy]

I use my cheat codes to evaluate this. From the original story:

President Trump ordered the firing last June of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation, according to four people told of the matter

This tells us that the "story" is more likely false than not.

[wufwugy]

Filtering it through prediction accuracy is good too.

[Poopadoop]

Filtering it through prediction accuracy is good too.

Reasonably sure that has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. Care to elaborate?

[wufwugy]

Reasonably sure that has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. Care to elaborate?

Bias is harder to stick to when reality is evaluated through something concrete.

[Poopadoop]

Bias is harder to stick to when reality is evaluated through something concrete.

Oh ok. Sorry I thought for a minute you were referring to the accuracy paradox and not something you had just made up.

[Poopadoop]

Oh ok. Sorry I thought for a minute you were referring to the accuracy paradox and not something you had just made up.

Which isn't to say what you said was incorrect; just that it seems a non-sequitur since no-one ITT is referring to anything concrete.

[wufwugy]

Maybe the two best things Trump did to aid his win were cutting down the Crooked vote by probably several million, and by focusing on the Midwest.

Nobody else could have gotten Crooked such a low turnout, but maybe Cruz would have known to focus on the Midwest. He certainly would have focused heavily on Pennsylvania, but Trump getting Michigan to flip is a real feat. Indeed it might be the single biggest feat in an election in a long time.

[wufwugy]

Trump on twitter. Cracks me up.

DACA has been made increasingly difficult by the fact that Cryin’ Chuck Schumer took such a beating over the shutdown that he is unable to act on immigration!

Not only the commander in chief but the commander of burns

[Poopadoop]

Not only the commander in chief but the commander of burns

It entirely depends on your frame of reference. I agree it's comical, but the butt of the joke is different depending on the person doing the laughing.

[spoonitnow]

Trump on twitter. Cracks me up.



Not only the commander in chief but the commander of burns

loooooooooooooooooooooooooooool