Voters Swayed By Candidates Who Share Their Looks

iandoh writes "Stanford researchers have found that voters are subconsciously swayed by candidates who share their facial features. In three experiments, researchers at the Virtual Human Interaction Lab worked with cheap, easy-to-use computer software to morph pictures of about 600 test subjects with photos of politicians. And they kept coming up with the same results: For the would-be voters who weren't very familiar with the candidates or in perfect lockstep with their positions or political parties, the facial similarity was enough to clinch their votes."

Comments

I can confirm from my work.

[Anonymous Coward]

  I work for a company, that is run mostly by women, but the thing is that all the women that work there, they ALL Look like clones. Or they get hired because they look like the owners, as to give them the comfort in what "looks familiar" or to the fact the women, mimic the looks ...no, they all just look so similar makes me thinks it is more common than we think.

Re:I can confirm from my work.

[SL Baur]

Anybody who has a real job(or anybody who has read Cosmopolitan magazine) knows that every corporation has implicit and explicit dress codes. "Dress like your boss does" is a common saying for a reason.

Yeah, probably good advice in a lot of cases.

I am very selective about jobs I take. I do not wear suits and ties and I do not do Microsoft Windows. That limits, somewhat, the kind of jobs I find myself in, but I've never had a problem with dress codes[1].

It possibly also depends upon experience. Earlier in my career I made the promise that I would start wearing a tie to work if I was promoted and did so after the promotion for a long time. For whatever reason, my advancement after that was very fast.

It also depends upon the company. I was contracting for McDonnell Douglas in a division that got swallowed up by EDS in the early 1990s. The dress code (applied to manager types in our group only at first) was truly draconian. It not only specified things like the permissable range of shades of blue skirts that women were allowed to wear, it specified the distance that said skirts were allowed to stray away from the knee and tie colors/styles and a lot of other crap like that.

It was kind of summed up by a remark I heard from one of the EDS technical guys who had come in to assimilate us - "The customers say, hey, that guy may be a total idiot, but he sure is a sharp dresser!"

Take that for what you will.

[1] I've seen stricter enforcement of dress codes in weekend amateur tournament bowling clubs than I have experienced at work.

Re:I can confirm from my work.

[DeadDecoy]

I think that really depends on your level of customer interaction for a given job. If you have a high level of customer interaction, then it probably pays to be safe and make them feel comfortable that they are dealing with a professional. If you're working for a few (intelligent) customers at a time, particularly for contracting work, they may be more forgiving if they product or services you're selling are good; i.e. they can look past your appearances and you're not interacting with their customers. I think their are a couple gradients to this though:

1) Low level manual labor - whatever's comfortable.
2) Customer representative - Shirt and tie, or whatever uniform is specified.
3) Technical - Comfortable, nice looking clothes, probably collared shirt and khakis.
4) Project/People managers - Shirt and tie (not like a uniform) and probably a suite as your salary goes up.

These observations are only for men's dress codes though.
If you have to work under someone and deal with customers, you probably will have to be assimilated, because that's just better for business. Otherwise, you only dress nice because it's comfortable and helps you fit in. : /

Re:I can confirm from my work.

[SL Baur]

3) Technical - Comfortable, nice looking clothes, probably collared shirt and khakis.

I prefer t-shirts, but whatever.

I will note for the record that I saw my boss**3 (3 management levels above me and I work for a huge company) wearing clothes about on those lines when he was visiting the area this week.

If you have to work under someone and deal with customers, you probably will have to be assimilated, because that's just better for business.

I would agree with that. Maybe that's why I prefer email as a primary contact point.

Otherwise, you only dress nice because it's comfortable and helps you fit in. : /

No. You dress nicely if you are single to impress the attractive [insert-your-preferred-gender]s around you in the workplace. As a male, a starched collar and a nice tie does go a long ways in that area ...

Re:I can confirm from my work.

[Hucko]

Gah... why does everyone try to lower the standard for communication or culture. You take the cussing, spitting broads, I'll take the considerate (calculating?) well-mannered women. I like being around people who try to improve their manner, speech and character.

Re:I can confirm from my work.

[dimeglio]

You work for Elite Model Management and all the women look like Adriana Lima, you lucky sob.

Re:I can confirm from my work.

[sorak]

They don't all happen to be related, do they?

Re:I can confirm from my work.

[that IT girl]

I don't fix IT problems with a wrench. (Screwdrivers sometimes.) I cuss plenty. And I do it all in whatever I feel like wearing that day--if that's a skirt, why is that a problem? Most of Slashdot wouldn't mind, anyway. ;) Lighten up, man. Unless you have an objection to seeing capable women... does it threaten your masculinity if I can do what you do, and do it well (in a skirt)?

Re:I can confirm from my work.

[Dun Malg]

1) Low level manual labor - whatever's comfortable. 3) Technical - Comfortable, nice looking clothes, probably collared shirt and khakis.

I work for a school district as a locksmith (which falls somewhere between 1 and 3), and our dress code is ridiculously lax. It's basically little more than 1) above, "work boots, long pants, no offensive writing/images on your shirt". I think we could do with a tighter code. The way some of my fellow employees dress, I swear that the reason they make us wear ID badges is so the schools don't think a homeless crackhead wandered on to campus.

Re:I can confirm from my work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Capable womean don't threaten men, but raging bitches turn them right off.

Re:I can confirm from my work.

[that IT girl]

I made no reference to raging bitches :) though they turn US off as well, I work with a few of those myself unfortunately. Luckily I can avoid them most of the time.

Re:I can confirm from my work.

[sunking2]

I can do what you do, and do it well (in a skirt)?

Wow, whatever she's on, I'd like some too.

Re:I can confirm from my work.

[VeNoM0619]

if I can do what you do, and do it well (in a skirt)?

I think the GP was saying something about cat ears... I have yet to see a girl work with cat ears on... I have found his ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to his newsletter. Oh and that IT girl's newsletter because I find her intriguing.

Re:I can confirm from my work.

[Archangel Michael]

You can't do everything I do.

I can hold a whole 4U rack mount server, in place, in a rack, all by myself, while one of the other guys bolts it into the rack.

You don't have the upper body strength to do it, and I don't know many people who do. (I really am 6'5" and a solid 130+kg).

On the other hand, you probably wouldn't have struggled as much as I did, crawling around to get cat 6 cable pulled through the crawl space under the building.

On the other hand, I'd love to see you laying down under a desk trying to fix something while wearing a skirt.

Re:I can confirm from my work.

[wfstanle]

I has a few friends who worked for EDS. Under Ross Perot, they said that their dress code was so strict that even people that worked in the computer room and never were seen by any customer had to wear a suit and tie. It is now far more relaxed now that he no longer controls EDS.

Re:I can confirm from my work.

[that IT girl]

Haha, I might work with cat ears on at Halloween. Then I can see if any of you slashdotters work in my office--Ha!

Re:I can confirm from my work.

[that IT girl]

Way to choose one isolated, extreme example just for the sake of argument, and miss my point entirely.. ;)

(And I don't wear skirts if I'm going to be doing field work, just to go ahead and get that out of the way.)

Re:I can confirm from my work.

[Anonymous Coward]

I... I'm in love with you...

Re:I can confirm from my work.

[Archangel Michael]

Darn. Because if you were a skirt while climbing under desks, I'd get to wear my kilt doing the same thing.

And I didn't miss your point. It isn't an isolated or extreme example. I do it all the time. In fact, I think that is almost 1/2 the reason they keep me around. ;)

Re:I can confirm from my work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking for myself, if I see a woman wearing a skirt, I think the same thing if I see a man doing the same: "Why is he/she wearing such an impractical garment?".

(This is the only non-sexist position.)

Re:I can confirm from my work.

[cayenne8]

"No. You dress nicely if you are single to impress the attractive [insert-your-preferred-gender]s around you in the workplace. As a male, a starched collar and a nice tie does go a long ways in that area ..."

And, as I understand it...at least if your trying to impress women, apparently shoes are very important.

I didn't realize this for a LONG time till someone told me...and after I learned that, I did notice that they do for some reason, notice and put a high value on the type and quality shoes you as a man wear....strange, eh?

Re:I can confirm from my work.

[that IT girl]

You... uh... you have a kilt? (I merely ask because of my huge weakness for a Scottish accent..)

Re:I can confirm from my work.

[that IT girl]

It's not any less practical than pants for some work, such as desk work, which I do sometimes. And in summer it's much cooler :)

Re:I can confirm from my work.

[Archangel Michael]

Aye Lassie, I've got a kilt.

I'm also married, so .... you can only look. ;)

Re:I can confirm from my work.

[that IT girl]

Really? Wow. I was with a guy for 3 years, married to him for one of those, and I can't remember a single pair of shoes he wore.

I don't really care about things like that. I do like glasses, though, for some reason. And if a man dresses well. I don't mean expensive, I don't mean fashionable, I just mean well. As with women (though we obviously have a lot more choices and concern with this), dressing to complement your body type and coloring, knowing what styles look best on you goes a lot farther than labels.

I don't really think it's superficial, either... if you take time to present yourself well, chances are you view yourself as successful (in whatever you do) and have a good self-image. In a word, you're confident.

This has been another segment of "Advice From Your Friendly Neighborhood Female".

Re:I can confirm from my work.

[that IT girl]

Damn. Ah well, I'll just admire from afar for a bit and then move on. :)

Re:I can confirm from my work.

[Anonymous Coward]

the problem is because you are not wearing a skirt, the one who do are always treated differently.

  Case in point, women dress sexy, to get all the benefits of mens attention, yet not giving up the sex that is so thinly guised. The women will like fall out of the cloth just to get a free drink, but call you a sexist pig if you hit on them after that - they want their cake and eat it too.

  So yes, women DO get an advantage, and they DO dress SEXY just to get it, but NOT to give it up.
If that is not a false advertisement, then I dont know what it is.

  And yes, if you dress like a whore, you are whore, dont act all surprised at that.

  Women will always get treated better than men because most of them can not do all the physical lifting, moving, and hardship of hard work that men do, relying on the "feminity" to enjoy the same pay in the same time.

  Next time someone needs to put the water bottle on, or move some heavy boxes, it is NEVER a women, though she was hired under the same conditions as a men, and how interesting they never complain about discrimination that BENEFITS THEM!

 

Re:I can confirm from my work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to make it sound demeaning, but a woman on Slashdot isn't exactly the average woman. Your average "independent" female manager may have high standards and may be a little more pristine and conscious about appearance.

Re:I can confirm from my work.

[that IT girl]

Wearing a skirt does not have to be provocative. I didn't say it was a mini-skirt. Most of mine are around or just above knee length, and I have several that go all the way to the floor. It's just feminine.

As for the moving heavy boxes thing, it's no secret that women are the physically weaker sex, by and large. Feminists would be angry with me for saying that, but it's true. Men are built differently and have more muscle mass. If something heavy needs to be moved, you probably wouldn't choose the skinniest, weakest guy in the room either. You'd pick whoever was more physically capable of moving it, and if it happened to be some Big Bertha type, she could do it. But this is usually not the case. This is compounded by most males' natural inclination to prove his manliness by performing tasks like that, both to impress his fellow males AND prove his prowess to whatever females are around.

(FWIW, moving objects any larger than a decent-sized server is not in my job description anyway, nor that of any of the males who work alongside me.) The ones that do are either required/asked to in their own job description, or volunteer to based on the inclinations expressed in the previous paragraph. I do what I was hired to do quite well.

Re:I can confirm from my work.

[that IT girl]

No, you're right. It's not demeaning, I'm rather glad to not be that way :)

Re:I can confirm from my work.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that by grouping people by their "collective", looks we are fostering racial differentiation. I would desire that the choice Americans do of who is to be our next president is arrived at by balancing values, policies, and future desires.

I am a new American citizen that came from Colombia (South America). Because I am a citizen I may vote........some may group me with the "mexicans or hispanics" that compose the U.S.A. tapestry. Does that make a difference, well it does. I am more sensitive to how the political process affect South America. My vote is to be molded by how the proposed candidates policies affect the local (American) and international (Colombia's) context.

With less than two weeks for the presidential elections, a choice must be made........... But what to look at? I want to be above negative campaigning or discourse. What is important is (for me) "World Economy".

58 percent of Americans and 65 percent of the global citizens consider that the economy will influence the presidential election results. According to national CNN and The Washington Post polls, 53 percent of Americans think that Obama is better equipped to manage the American crisis compared to 39 percent that state that McCain is.

But what about managing the world economy?

The financial crisis is affecting all world markets. Do I choose change, and go with a candidate like Obama? Or do I choose a candidate is experience and considered a maverick?

Without a doubt, the world economy is going to be the decision factor for my vote. McCain has been wise in using Obama's last comment about redistribution of wealth, and tying this with the emotional and almost negative concept Americans have of Socialism. Especially in the American context were capitalism is seeing as a fundamental right and value. But, McCain is seen, not only here but in Colombia as a Bush clone. Maybe none of these interpretations are factual or realistic, but are what the media has validated as true.

I have less than two weeks to cast my vote. It is my right to vote, but I cast an informed vote.

Mark this article

[Kagura]

Mark this article "correlation IS causation" -- simply because it's so ludicrous. ;)

Re:Mark this article

[Idiomatick]

Where does the correlation come from then? Unless you suggest that people who look the same ACTUALLY have the same political views.

Re:Mark this article

[yali]

To all the people tagging this "correlation is not causation," do you even know what you're talking about? This was a randomized experiment.

I'm not saying this is a perfect study -- there might be plenty of other things wrong with it. But the phrase "correlation is not causation" has an actual meaning. It is not just a synonym for "I had a kneejerk reaction to dislike this study but I can't say why."

Re:Mark this article

[Anonymous Coward]

It drives me nuts that Slashdotters always bring up "correlation does not imply causation" any time any sort of experiment is mentioned even if no one is even trying to assert a causative relationship.

"Correlation does not imply causation" seems to be one of those ideas that a lot of people seem to somehow be proud of knowing and as such try to apply even when they aren't needed. Other examples of these sorts of ideas on Slashdot are the term "prior art" and car analogies.

Re:Mark this article

[thetan]

Mark this article "correlation IS causation" -- simply because it's so ludicrous. ;)

Yes, of course "correlation is causation". If you look at the data, the two are so tightly correlated, than causation can be inferred.

Re:Mark this article

[The tECHIDNA]

That may be happening because the headline's misleading (as usual); it should be

Undecided Voters Swayed by Candidates Who Share Their Looks

But then, /. wouldn't get as many "Um, wha??" clicks, and the more cynical of us would tag the story "noshitsherlock" ;-)
Hey -- There's your idea for a social experiment!

Re:Mark this article

[Terminal Saint]

"correlation is not causation" is one of the most overused mantras of slashdot users who want to be more skeptical than thou. Yes it's true that correlation does not always equal causation, but causation does tend to result in correlation.

It's been shown that people are more attracted to people with similar facial features when choosing mates, it makes some sense that people would feel better about choosing a leader with similar facial features for the same biological reasons.

Now I'm not saying that this hypothesis is clearly true, just that we don't have to jump all over it.

Re:Mark this article

[Fractal Dice]

correlation is not caucasian?

Re:Mark this article

[shawb]

The usage of the original phrase really bothers me.

While correlation does not prove causation, it sure does imply causation. It's probably about as close to the definition of imply that I can come up with. The only way I can see the phrase making sense is to use the logic definition of suggest as a logically necessary consequence. Then the original usage may have held a meaning of While causation implies correlation, correlation does not imply causation, basically saying if there is causation, then correlation will follow. So finding correlations is extremely useful, but picking out the root cause of the correlation can be quite difficult, especially when there are multiple factors in play all feeding back on each other.

Re:Mark this article

[flyingsquid]

So if you were trying to select a candidate to appeal to the Slashdot demographic, who would you pick?

Come to think of it, that might explain why there's always a "CowboyNeal" option in the polls...

Re:Mark this article

[thetan]

While correlation does not prove causation, it sure does imply causation.

More simply, causation causes correlation. If you don't have correlation, then you can't claim causation.

More to the point, causation is highly correlated with correlation (rho=0.977).

Problems arise when people claim that correlation causes causation. Since causation is a boolean variable while correlation is real-valued, with suitable rounding, then yes, it's true.

It's all very simple really.

Re:Mark this article

[Ascoo]

Yes it's true that correlation does not always equal causation, but causation does tend to result in correlation.

err. it's a bit more than "tend to result in"

If causation, then correlation.
or equivalently...
If no correlation, than no causation.

Re:Mark this article

[Aix]

I totally agree. Every single scientific article reporting "A linked with B" gets this ridiculous tag. Almost no scientist every says "A causes B" because they obviously already understand that correlation does not imply correlation. However, correlation also does not imply "not causation." Any reputable scientist and journal will report results of the form "Here is the data. A appears to be statistically linked with B. Here are several hypotheses as to why, however these are speculative and require further study."

Furthermore, causality is something that a lot of very smart statisticians do spend a lot of time studying. It's not inconceivable that in the future people will be able to make concrete statistical statements about causality with confidence intervals and the works. What will the mantra be then?

Anyway, correlation's not *that* good of a measure of (interesting and nonlinear) dependence between (non-Gaussian) variables anyway. Mutual information is the ticket.

Ok, done with my rant.

Re:Mark this article

[Anonymous Coward]

It originated as a warning against jumping to the conclusion that if A is correlated to B then A causes B. A correlation could also result from B causing A or C causing both A and B.

Some people on Slashdot seem to take it as a warning against trying to derive any meaning from a correlation of variables.

Re:Mark this article

[Kandenshi]

People tend to like people who are similar to themselves. The old saw "birds of a feather" bit actually rings true a fair amount of the time.
Of course, there's no guarantee that the person who looks vaguely similar to me actually DOES share my views, but if I have no other information to go with, then it's probably a better indicator of who to go with than a coin toss.

Genetics and life experience work together to shape our looks, and those two things also shape our attitudes and actions.

The best explanation is though that despite the great efforts we go through to try and train it out of people, all other things being equal they still prefer in-groups to out-groups. The root of this likely comes from things such as kin selection and the generally tribal nature of early man.

Re:Mark this article

[Anonymous Coward]

To all the people tagging this "correlation is not causation," do you even know what you're talking about? This was a randomized experiment.

I'm not saying this is a perfect study -- there might be plenty of other things wrong with it. But the phrase "correlation is not causation" has an actual meaning. It is not just a synonym for "I had a kneejerk reaction to dislike this study but I can't say why."

No, no. You didn't read the study. You see, what happened was they picked the candidate, and then morphed the photo...

Re:Mark this article

[Ascoo]

>More to the point, causation is highly correlated with correlation (rho=0.977).

Interesting study, but I find it odd that the end result defies logic. Their relationship claims it's possible to have 0.05% causation with 0.00% correlation?! (note the offset in their y-intercept). Am I missing something?

And what the hell is that journal?

"Forthcoming in the International Journal of Observeration, Knowledge and Evidence, Vol. 27 (December, 2007)."

Basic searching came up with nothing. Does it even exist?

anyhoo...

Re:Mark this article

[HTTP Error 403 403.9]

I wonder which candidate a blind person votes for?

Re:Mark this article

[timmarhy]

people jump on it because they think if somethings printed on the internets it must be true.

Re:Mark this article

[evilviper]

Yes it's true that correlation does not always equal causation, but causation does tend to result in correlation.

It does, but there are innumerable junk studies out there that do nothing but grab some handy statistics and pull bullshit conclusions out of the air. The news media is only too happy to uncritically report on them as well, exposing an unsuspecting public to ridiculously conclusions that may harm rather than help them. Skepticism is fully warranted.

I would go so far as to suggest a change of labeling, so such "studies" won't be so easily confused with actual controlled experiments, and phenomenon that are have known causal relationships that are well understood...

No, I don't believe drinking a glass of red wine every day is going to add 20 years to your life.

Re:Mark this article

[Anonymous Coward]

The black guy.

Re:Mark this article

[rdnetto]

The one that sounds like them.

Re:Mark this article

[foobsr]

It's not inconceivable that in the future people will be able to make concrete statistical statements about causality

For a starter: Path Analysis (as of 1918)

link

CC.

Re:Mark this article

[foobsr]

While correlation does not prove causation, it sure does imply causation.

Yes, like having to cope with spectacles causes you to be more intelligent.

CC.

Re:Mark this article

[codeButcher]

It's like when they claim that applying the brakes of a car make it go slower or stop. However, this can not be taken to mean that any car that goes slower has its brakes applied. Some cars also slow down or stop because they ran out of fuel, the engine cut out, they ran into a tree, or a multitude of other reasons. (However, it is still true for the vast majority of cases where the car slows down or stops, the brakes where used by the driver.)

And I surely hope that this has not been thought of by someone previously, because as true as hell I just sucked it out of my thumb this minute.

Re:Mark this article

[houghi]

It's been shown that people are more attracted to people with similar facial features when choosing mates

It has also been shown this this is not true. The way it was proven wrong was by people first predicting who one person would find more attractive and then looking if it was actually the case. It wasn't.
The reason that people think this is true is because humans are pretty good in recognizing faces and are also good in remembering things that stand out.
So if they see two people who are a couple and look alike, they will remember this better then people who did not look alike.

The same goes for e.g. Friday the 13th. If you break your leg on that day, you will most likely remember the day for a very long time. If it happened on Thursday the 12th, you won't remember the date.

Obviously I have not read the article, but unless they said first who somebody would vote for and then look if they were right, it is completely bogus. So yes, we should jump over it and show why it is not true.

Otherwise you will get people who say about reading tea: "Now I'm not saying that this hypothesis is clearly true, just that we don't have to jump all over it." just because once in a while they get it right.

Re:Mark this article

[Anonymous Coward]

inconceivable, you keep using that words, etc etc (today i'm more lazy than usual)

Re:Mark this article

[asdir]

I basically agree: The tag is used way to often and probably by people who do not have a better idea why correlation exists other than writing it up to coincidence.

However, your argument is flawed by a common logical fallacy. It is true that causation tends to result in correlation (actually more than "tends to"), but you cannot deduct from this that correlation is a sign for causation, especially if there is more than one possible chain of causation leading to the same correlation.

It is true: The street is wet when it rains. However, if the street is wet, it does not have rain.

Re:Mark this article

[bloodninja]

That may be happening because the headline's misleading (as usual)

YAIMSH

Re:Mark this article

[stranger_to_himself]

Where does the correlation come from then? Unless you suggest that people who look the same ACTUALLY have the same political views.

The correlationisnotcausation tag really winds me up because correlation DOES imply causation. If A and B are correlated then either A causes B, B causes A, or C causes both A and B (or it's a chance finding but that's what p-values are for). So once you have a correlation its just a case of working out which causal relationship is true. I'll leave this specific case as an exercise for the reader.

Re:Mark this article

[whisking]

Isn't _every_ voter undecided before he/she actually decides who to vote for?

Apart from the those who vote the party, not the candidate, of course.

Re:Mark this article

[Daimanta]

Because it is very simplistic.

C -> D
D -> F
D -> E
E -> G
G -> A
F -> B

In this relationship C -> A and C -> B
But in order to pinpoint C, you have to work back from A and B via E,F and D. Verifying a C is relatively easy. Finding C can be very nasty. And if there are loops involved it can be a lot nastier.

Sure, correlation implies causation. But which one?

Re:Mark this article

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Every single scientific article reporting "A linked with B" gets this ridiculous tag.

And rightly so.

Most science stories posted to Slashdot are junk science studies which use the law of large numbers and fuzzy statistics to promote the most dubious of arguments under the pretence of scientific inquiry. Many studies take correlation coefficients of 0.5 to be "significant". What a joke. How long is the scientific community going to continue to call this rigour?

Any reputable scientist and journal will report results of the form "Here is the data. A appears to be statistically linked with B. Here are several hypotheses as to why, however these are speculative and require further study."

Rubbish! Is that what the world construes from their results? Is that what they wish the world to construe from them? No. The vast majority of these studies are putting forward their correlation as proof of causation. That is what they want people to construe from the study. Look at any half baked studies on race, gender, abortion or any topic that sells newspapers. Why do you think people are performing such studies? Because they believe further inquiry is merited? No. It's because they have an opinion, and want to justify it. So they turn to science to legitimise their position. This constant and ongoing abuse of science is sickening.

Slashdotters are right to point out the Correlation is not, and never will be causation. Never, never, never, never, never. If you want to show causation, then you must have a model and you must subject it to experiment. Experiment! Not statistical mumbo-jumbo.

Listen to Zombie Feynman's wisdom. "Ideas are tested by experiment. Everything else is bookkeeping". This is bookkeeping, not science. Correlation is not causation, and this story deserves that tag. I don't know how many times I'm going to end up linking to this page, but here it is again. This study is Cargo Cult Science. The form is perfect, but it is only an empty imitation of real scientific inquiry. Stop giving it more credit and credence that it deserves.

Re:Mark this article

[stranger_to_himself]

But in order to pinpoint C, you have to work back from A and B via E,F and D. Verifying a C is relatively easy. Finding C can be very nasty. And if there are loops involved it can be a lot nastier.

Sure, correlation implies causation. But which one?

You're right of course, but you don't have to understand the complete chain to discover C. It helps to think it through obviously, but you can easily try adjusting for things (in this case like demographic factors, genetics, etc) until you hit one that accounts for the association, and then work forwards to try to work out why, although understanding why (ie knowing D,E,F) is not often necessary, (for example if C is genetic).

Re:Mark this article

[MrHanky]

The people that use that tag almost never know what they're talking about. (And no, dipshits, the fact that there's a strong correlation between not knowing what you're talking about and using that tag does not imply using the tag is caused by it, and neither is it in any way "insightful" to point that out.)

Re:Mark this article

[stranger_to_himself]

Slashdotters are right to point out the Correlation is not, and never will be causation. Never, never, never, never, never. If you want to show causation, then you must have a model and you must subject it to experiment. Experiment! Not statistical mumbo-jumbo.

I think you are wrong. Epidemiology and observational science have given up a lot without the need for experimentation (we know smoking causes lung cancer, though this has never been directly established through an experiment, since it would be massively unethical). Correlation does imply causation, as I've pointed out in an earlier comment, the hard part is working out what the causal relationships are (ie A->B, B->A or C->A and C->B, these are the ONLY explanations for statistically significant correlation).

The reverse possibility B->A here is nonsense, because voting patterns cannot affect your looks, and the way this study was conducted (you can read the details) pretty well rules out the confounding factor 'C', leaving us with A->B as the only plausible explanation.

I'd like to see you try to refute this (without resorting to insults or rhetoric), particularly if you can think of a way for variables to be correlated without some form of causal relationship as I've described.

Re:Mark this article

[Yoozer]

Correlation may be Caucasian, instead of causation.

Re:Mark this article

[PopeRatzo]

Isn't _every_ voter undecided before he/she actually decides who to vote for?

No. There are people who will vote for their party, even if they put a horse's ass up for election. No "decision" is made.

I can give you an example, but George Bush probably feels bad enough about now, what with the country practically a flaming ruin as he prepares to leave office. But, I suppose there are some that look at the results of his presidency and say "Mission Accomplished".

Re:Mark this article

[Goaway]

"Correlation is not causation" is the new "FUD" - it's something people can yell when they dislike something but can't figure out how to refute it, without ever really understanding that the term has an actual, specific meaning.

Re:Mark this article

[Goaway]

Actually, some people on Slashdot seem to take it as a handy way to refute results they don't like, and also to appear smart.

Re:Mark this article

[aproposofwhat]

But does that mean that there are sufficient "pit bull with lipstick" soccer moms to sway the vote for the Repugnicans?

Re:Mark this article

[Fractal Dice]

However, correlation also does not imply "not causation." I agree. I have a plan to fight global warming by putting polar bears in the tropics. Study after study has proven there is a high correlation between polar bears and colder temperatures yet people keep whining "correlation is not causation" and try to block my funding.

Re:Mark this article

[Eskarel]

Causation implies correlation, but not necessarily the other way around, unless you have a complete(infinite) data set.

It is statistically possible to take an arbitrarily large group of people and have them flip a coint an arbitrarily large number of times and come up with a result where every man flips all heads and every woman flips all tails.

It's incredibly unlikely, but not impossible.

Assuming you don't already know that the odds of any given flip of the coin are 50/50, you could draw a correlation between gender and the result of a coin flip, however, as we know from basic probability there is absolutely no causation in this result, merely very large improbability.

So, as you can see, causation implies correlation, and for a sufficiently large data set correlation nearly always but not always implies some sort of underlying causation.

Re:Mark this article

[that IT girl]

Haha, don't feel too bad about it. Slashdot will take any opportunity to throw out a meme :)

Re:Mark this article

[mkiwi]

I'm going to write-in CowboyNeal in November. Take that establishment!

Re:Mark this article

[Shotgun]

Even more so, you'll never understand the chain without implying that C->A. The implication is what indicates that there is a thread to investigate.

implicate->indicate->investigate

Re:Mark this article

[tehcyder]

"Correlation does not imply causation" seems to be one of those ideas that a lot of people seem to somehow be proud of knowing and as such try to apply even when they aren't needed. Other examples of these sorts of ideas on Slashdot are the term "prior art" and car analogies.

Exactly, it's like trying to go drag racing in a Lada.

Re:Mark this article

[anilg]

And a blind and deaf one..?

"The one who smells like him"

And the blind and deaf and olfactory-impaired? ..

Re:Mark this article

[turtledawn]

I wrote in CowboyNeal as my choice for school board member year before last. He had to be better than the idiots who were running.

Re:Mark this article

[WCguru42]

Just like there are people who post without reading the parent. Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing.

Re:Mark this article

[mdarksbane]

Correlation does not imply causation in a scientific sense, although it could in an English language sense.

The best way to put it would be that correlation is necessary but not sufficient for causation, which is what is implied (haha) by the tag.

Re:Mark this article

[yali]

If you want to show causation, then you must have a model and you must subject it to experiment.

As pointed out earlier in this thread, the linked article is about a randomized experiment.

Many studies take correlation coefficients of 0.5 to be "significant". What a joke.

Imagine that you have been diagnosed with a potentially fatal disease. The research shows that if you go untreated, you have a 75% chance of dying within a year. Your doctor offers you a treatment that, in well-run clinical trials, has been shown to reduce the chance of death to 25%. Do you take it, or dismiss it as "a joke"? Because those probabilities express a correlation of r=.5 between taking the drug (vs. not) and living (vs. dying).

Medical and behavioral science study phenomena that are inherently complex, noisy, and non-deterministic. Your standards for what constitutes a meaningful effect size have to be adjusted accordingly.

Re:Mark this article

[Anonymous Coward]

Racist!

Re:Mark this article

[BOFHelsinki]

The correlationisnotcausation tag really winds me up because correlation DOES imply causation.

But this greatly depends on what you actually mean by correlation! In the article's case, "correlation" simply means co-existence; I don't see any other relation stated. So I'd say nobody brought any causation into play.

Now, if there was some more complex relation -- actually a relation *between* A and B, originating from their own qualities -- then that kind of correlation could indeed imply a causation process also there. (With A or B or a C as the "causer".) But mere coexistence doesn't imply anything -- you just have apple A and orange X in the same space of observation.

So off the cuff I'd just reply "Nopers." to you. :-)

Re:Mark this article

[BOFHelsinki]

It drives me nuts that Slashdotters always bring up "correlation does not imply causation" any time any sort of experiment is mentioned even if no one is even trying to assert a causative relationship.

I guess most of those are like me -- they see countless examples of correlation blindly equaled to causation every day in their real life, and it irks them no end, because they are logical thinkers and irked by such violations of the unwritten rules of thinking and understanding. So they are trigger-happy to shoot that tag at everything that even remotely resembles a suitable target, even when it's clearly overboard.

If you asked me, why yes, I am proud for knowing that and spotting where-ever a false causation is being sold to me. Colour me a geek or something. :-)

But I'm 100% with you about car analogies. They are like...

Re:Mark this article

[TerranFury]

If you want to show causation, then you must have a model and you must subject it to experiment

In the case of this study, this appears to be what was done. It was a randomized study with a control group and an experimental group. They kept everything else the same, and changed one variable. What is "wrong" with what they have done?

Now, I agree that there is a lot of junk science out there, and a large part of this is the result of confirmation bias (and more generally, a bias towards positive rather than negative results; it's better for one's career).

But from the little I can tell about this study from the pop article, I'm not sure what there is to complain about here.

Re:Mark this article

[BOFHelsinki]

Just wanted to add how I love Slashdot. Only here can you take a Cosmopolitan grade scientific study and end up with a good thorough discussion on correlation and causation. Three cheers! :-)

Re:Mark this article

[TerranFury]

It is true: The street is wet when it rains. However, if the street is wet, it does not have rain.

True. But I think the point is that the probability that it rained given that the street is wet is greater than the unconditional probability of rain. It's just Bayes' rule.

Re:Mark this article

[rk]

But, I suppose there are some that look at the results of his presidency and say "Mission Accomplished".

Osama bin Laden, I would guess.

Re:Mark this article

[stranger_to_himself]

It doesn't mean existence in the context of this article, it means the probability of one event (voting) is higher given the occurrence of another (similar face). So a traditional Pearson correlation wouldn't be applicable, but a tetrachoric correlation can be calculated quite adequately. There is plenty of room for causal relationships to be implied.

Re:Mark this article

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure are Dumbocrat

Re:Mark this article

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

what you're talking about is prediction, not correlation. So, correlation is a good starting point for determining causation. But it does not indicate the direction of causation, so you cannot interpret the relationship between those two variables with any sort of validity.

Hence, correlation!=causation, because the link between the two has not been established in any way, shape or form - only the fact that there is a link (which is the correlation).

A new career beckons!

[Drishmung]

I shall stand on the 'butt-ugly' platform. I'm a certain winner based on this research.

Re:A new career beckons!

[Idiomatick]

Bush won because he can supposedly relate to joe sixpack. This seems pretty similar.

Re:A new career beckons!

[oodaloop]

With apologies to Tolstoy, beautiful people are all alike; every butt-ugly person is butt-ugly in their own way. You'd only appeal to those butt-ugly people that look like you.

Re:A new career beckons!

[zippthorne]

Are we suggesting that Joe spends a couple hours at the track every day, rain or shine, or are we saying that he just drinks a lot?

Re:A new career beckons!

[Idiomatick]

Nah I meant generally ignorant of the world he lives in, pretty stupid, probably can't stay awake during a meeting on the economy or science, and is no where near qualified to run a country.

Re:A new career beckons!

[Hoi Polloi]

How does this explain why a white guy with ears that don't stick out (e.g. me) would vote for Obama?

Re:A new career beckons!

[Rayban]

Because you aren't undecided and anyone with more than a single braincell to rub together knows who the better candidate is.

And now you know...

[Anonymous Coward]

...why Cowboy Neal gets all the votes in the slashdot polls.

how demoralizing...

[Digitus1337]

I voted for Kucinich!

On a more serious note, is this surprising to anyone?

Re:how demoralizing...

[ToasterThief]

Anyone who's blind and deaf and never watched politics in America, ever.

Re:how demoralizing...

[srobert]

Before you get demoralized, have you seen Mrs. Kucinich?

Re:how demoralizing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy crap. http://blog.cleveland.com/earlyedition/2007/05/artslife_clothes_shopping_with.html

Who else

[DJLuc1d]

Was kinda freaked out by that picture in TFA ? HES MULTIPLYING!

Sad

[electrosoccertux]

I've heard statistics from some sources as high as 97% of black voters will be voting for Obama, just google for some of it it's out there. Even if they're off and lets say it's only 85%, still.

If 85% of white people voted for McCain, it would be considered racist.

Just saying.

Re:Sad

[Digitus1337]

Look at how many black voters voted for Kerry in 2004. Obama's skin color is not the reason for this.

Re:Sad

[behnnie]

It's true that many black voters voted for Kerry (and Bush) in '04, but seeing as how there wasn't a black candidate in the final two options I don't see that this *particular* argument necessarily proves anything.

Re:Sad

[Kandenshi]

I believe the parents was attempting to draw attention to the traditional affiliation of black voters and the democrat party.
Yes, I'd expect that a very substantial number of black people will vote for Obama. But a very substantial number of black people voted for Kerry(because he's a Democrat and that party's supposed policies appeal to the broad demographic of "black voters").

tl;dr The fact that many black voters are saying they're going to vote for the democrat candidate shouldn't be all that shocking.

Re:Sad

[MrZaius]

>If 85% of white people voted for McCain, it would be considered racist.

And it would shock the authors of this study, as presumably far less than 85% of the population consists of Raisinettes. Me, I'm writing in Cthulhu, per the orders of a certain T-shirt I saw once.

/Don't have 8 arms
//Or 7

Re:Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

But a very substantial number of black people voted for Kerry(because he's a Democrat and that party's supposed policies appeal to the broad demographic of "black voters").

So political party becomes a proxy for race, ergo, blacks are racist because they only care about "black" issues. Regardless, there is higher black support for Obama than there was for Kerry.

Re:Sad

[Kandenshi]

Are you suggesting that black people face exactly the same problems with the same toolset as whites or asians or east indians or, or...?

There's plenty of variation within each race(eg: from Bill Gates to some white-trash hick), but looking at aggregate demographics, whites and blacks are still different in numerous ways. Of course those differences will influence their political views.

I like to think that I care about the needs of people aside from me and those like me, but in moments of honest reflection I'd say that those concerns are secondary to my concerns about what I and my own family will face. I want things to go well for everyone, but not if small gains to them will cause hardship to those I actually know and love.

As for Obama getting a higher % of black voters than Kerry, I'm not too shocked. Kerry was certainly high in the ranks of the least black people I've ever seen on TV. As such, I would expect difficulty identifying with him as compared with identifying with Obama. The more you can identify with someone the easier is is to make that person's wants and needs and fights your own. As I posted it elsewhere in this discussion, I think that kin selection and whatnot are still active in the human race. I'd be surprised if black people couldn't identify more with Obama than they could Kerry.

My point(and the earlier poster's point I believe) was that black support for democrats is to be expected. There will be some black people voting for the republican guy, and some particularly affluent white people voting for the democrat, but they're not an accurate reflection of the behaviour of their respective groups.

Re:Sad

[mcvos]

I've heard statistics from some sources as high as 97% of black voters will be voting for Obama, just google for some of it it's out there. Even if they're off and lets say it's only 85%, still.

If 85% of white people voted for McCain, it would be considered racist.

It would only be racist if they vote for him only because he's white. So why is black people voting for Obama different? Exactly because there's never been a black president yet. So far, the presidency has always been reserved for a white elite. People want to believe that skin colour has nothing to do with your ability to become president, and having a president with a different skin colour would be the ultimate proof of that.

Had I been allowed to vote, this would definitely be a factor for me (although I'm as white, blond haired and blue eyed as you can get), although it's a lot easier to say this about someone who is smart, collected and rational. I wouldn't have been as eager to vote for Jesse Jackson, for example.

(Obama isn't even all that black; he's half white, raised by white mother and grandparents, and even his father doesn't have Afro-American roots. Even so, I have little doubt his presidency would open a lot of doors.)

Re:Sad

[mcvos]

So political party becomes a proxy for race,

It's more a proxy for economic situation. Poor people tend to vote for people who want to improve their situation, rich people tend to vote for people who want to improve their situation. It's just that the majority of blacks are relatively poor (or their parents were) and see more benefit from Democrats, whereas white people tend to dominate the demographics that benefit from Republican policies.

Re:Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not black at all because he has money.

Re:Sad

[orzetto]

If 85% of white people voted for McCain, it would be considered racist.

Guess what, someone in another thread is complaining about the overuse of "correlation is not causation", and here you go with a fine example of correlation having nothing to do with causation. The black vote has always been for the democrats in the last decades, and this time the democrat candidate happens to be black (halfway at least).

Since 90% of the blacks are voting for the presidential ticket with no women, are you inferring that blacks don't like boobs?

Re:Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Well .. they are an oppressed minority. It's natural they pick someone black.

White people are not a minority.

Re:Sad

[asynchronous13]

If 85% of white people voted for McCain, it would be considered racist.

Just saying.

There are 36 black delegates in the GOP. Out of 2,380. That's 98.5% white people.

What is that you were saying again?

Re:Sad

[alfs boner]

Nice try, but your not shaming anyone out of voting for Obama by posting on slashdot(you come across as kind of a bigot, btw)

Face facts- we are going to win in November, and you are going to lose your guns and have to pay new taxes. And there's nothing you can do about it. ^_^

Re:Sad

[Archangel Michael]

What is that you were saying again?

Right, because WHITE (R) people don't like any BLACK people.

Could it be that more blacks aren't (R) because of the hatred spewed against those few black people who are (R)? The vile vitriol spewed against people like Clarance Thomas and Michael Steele is simply amazing.

Also, look at who the NAACP supports, and in cases where it is a white (D) vs a black (R), they go with the white (D) everytime. I guess it color only counts if you're a (D), huh?

Re:Sad

[afabbro]

I wouldn't have been as eager to vote for Jesse Jackson, for example.

97%+ of blacks voted for Jackson in the primaries.

It appears that Satan could run and if he was black, 97%+ of blacks would vote for him.

Yeah, blacks are voting for Obama because they agree with his views. That's it. Certainly couldn't be a situation where if you told black voters that Obama was advocating McCain's policies they'd still vote for him enthusiastically.

Re:Sad

[CarlDenny]

Bah!

This idea of proxy racism is asinine. Believing in policies that help the poor (or rich) isn't racist just because there are more people of Foo race who are poor (or rich.) In particular, agreeing with policies that help *your* social/economic class isn't racist, it's just human nature.

Digging for reasons to point a finger and call people racist has never added to any political conversation, ever. Go jump off a bridge.

Re:Sad

[MacDork]

I've heard statistics from some sources as high as 97% of black voters will be voting for Obama

You've heard? Don't you think it is entirely possible that what you heard was a lie? You know, lies, damned lies, and statistics. The fact that you find such an absurd statistic to be plausible says a lot about you.

Re:Sad

[epistemiclife]

I've heard statistics from some sources as high as 97% of black voters will be voting for Obama, just google for some of it it's out there. Even if they're off and lets say it's only 85%, still.

If 85% of white people voted for McCain, it would be considered racist.

Just saying.

Check your statistics (and your assumptions). Democratic presidential candidates always get ~90% of the black vote; so, it's just unreasonable to suggest that this is because Obama is black. Kerry got ~88% of the black vote in 2004, while Gore got ~90%. Current estimates suggest that OBama has ~91% of the black vote, which is essentially unchanged. In the Democratic primaries, Senator Clinton was doing very well among black voters in polls, until certain incidents in South Carolina.

Re:Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

"we are going to win in November, and you are going to lose your guns and have to pay new taxes."

Well, I wasn't going to vote for McCain because I figured the Second Amendment issue and higher taxes was just fear mongering from the right. Thanks, I guess, for confirming the agenda. I hate both parties but not more than I hate taxes and value my Second Amendment rights. I suppose I will have to hold my nose and vote Republican. Bummer.

Re:Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

BINGO. Haven't you heard? Only WHITE people are racist. Take a single GUESS at what would happen if an "NWACP" was established. Take a single GUESS at what would happen if a WET cable network was established (White Entertainment Television). The double standards and hypocrisy abounds in this day and age my friend.

I'm sick and tired of "my people" playing the victims. I'm a proud strong black republican, and I will be voting for John McCain.

Peace
A Black(R)

Re:Sad

[Danny Rathjens]

My counter to that tag was "correlationisnotcaucasian". ;)

Re:Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

I like Obama, it is his supporters I can't stand. http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/23/mccain-supporter-maimed-for-her-politics-by-robber/#comments

Re:Sad

[that IT girl]

MOD. PARENT. UP.

I wish even a tiny fraction of the people who claim to support equal rights and non-biased causes actually meant it and would honestly take color out of the equation altogether. You, sir or madam, are awesome.

Re:Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

So political party becomes a proxy for race, ergo, blacks are racist because they only care about "black" issues.

Not quite the way you mean it, but it's sort of the case. You see, "black" issues are the ones embraced by the black community as the legacy of the civil rights movement. When the Democrats turned their back on the racist South and embraced populist solutions for the poor, they bought for themselves a whole generation raised with adoring gratitude for Democratic Party policies.

Given the instrumental nature of churches in the Civil Rights movement, if the Republicans had made the same move instead of courting the Southern racists and stayed "the Party of Lincoln," they could've possibly reaped the rewards themselves.

But they didn't.

Not that there wasn't already considerable commonalities between Democrats and black people. The Democrats of the 60s cared more about the poor, and black people were overwhelmingly poor. The growing anti-war movement had good support in the black community because poor minorities were disproportionately represented in the military. Etc. But to this day, there are major social issues in which blacks are more conservative than the Democratic Party -- like on abortion and gay rights. Those weren't major issues in the 60s & 70s, but Republicans missed the chance to tap black social conservatism while Democrats tapped black fiscal liberalism.

Their loss. Too bad the party of privilege was too interested in picking up Southern whites to do the right thing.

Don't blame me

[Smartcowboy]

I voted for Kodos.

So would Tina Fey vote for Sarah Palin?

[dominique_cimafranca]

Frankly, I kind of doubt it. But you never know...

Re:So would Tina Fey vote for Sarah Palin?

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly, I kind of doubt it. But you never know...

It'd keep her in business though...

Re:So would Tina Fey vote for Sarah Palin?

[argStyopa]

She has no choice. Sure, she's got a decent gig in her various projects, but if Palin's elected, Fey has a LOCK on employment for the next 4, probably 8, and even the possibility of 12-16 years.

That's nothing to sneeze at.

On the point of the original article: well duh.
"People prefer people that look like themselves" - news at 11. I'd thought that was obviously the root cause of everything from racism to the fact that most married people look like each other.

Re:So would Tina Fey vote for Sarah Palin?

[Loko Draucarn]

Actually, Fey's stated that she'll leave the planet if Palin's elected.

4-16 years of being typecast due to your appearance? That is a fate too horrible to contemplate.

Re:So would Tina Fey vote for Sarah Palin?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course she would. Guaranteed employment for at least 4 years.

Re:So would Tina Fey vote for Sarah Palin?

[that IT girl]

4-16 years of being typecast due to your appearance? That is a fate too horrible to contemplate.

Seriously? Have you seen what people will do for money?

Junk science!

[Alsee]

This research is totally bogus. I just like to vote for the ugly candidate.

-

Re:Junk science!

[Alsee]

Yeah! And I just like to vote for whoever looks stupider!

-

Re:Junk science!

[Alsee]

Pffft! That's nothing. *I* like to vote for whichever candidate looks like he might have some sort of multiple personality disorder. Makes things more interesting that way!

-

Re:Junk science!

[supernova_hq]

You may as well just tick a random box...

Re:Junk science!

[mcvos]

Yeah! And I just like to vote for whoever looks stupider!

And I know from personal experience that handsome people are smarter.

Re:Junk science!

[Anonymous Coward]

And what if there is no CowboyNeal option?

Re:Junk science!

[Theolojin]

This research is totally bogus. I just like to vote for the ugly candidate.

-

Thanks for your vote, but I'd rather not be a candidate.

Awesome news!

[SpaceLifeForm]

My candidate, that I heard is on the ballot everywhere,
will have a chance then.

Go Mickey Mouse!

I seem to remember an experiment from a while back

[Centurix]

Where they placed a set of eyes on those candy/donation boxes that companies have at reception and found that people were less likely to take candy without paying than if the box didn't have the eyes.

Maybe if I placed a picture of angry eyes on my cubicle everyone would keep away...

Politicans

[ozbird]

No wonder politicans are two-faced - they're trying to double their votes.

Obama

[guyminuslife]

I've wondered for a while if part of what makes white voters more likely to accept Obama as the first black president is the fact that, despite his dark skin color, he has very European facial features. Andrew Sullivan has recently been posting pictures of Obama's (white) grandfather, to whom the presidential candidate bears a striking resemblance.

Obviously, it's impossible to give a truly satisfying answer to such a counterfactual, but I can't help but suspect that if Obama had more stereotypically African features---you know what I mean---that he would not be in the position he is in now.

Re:Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

"I've wondered for a while if part of what makes white voters more likely to accept Obama as the first black president is the fact that, despite his dark skin color, he has very European facial features"

more likely it's because he's attractive and well spoken. features that are attractive are generally independent of race.

bill clinton is also not bad looking, and very charismatic

the article this is based on is measuring the effect of homophily, general attractiveness is stronger than similarity because the latter doesn't necessarily increase attractiveness

assuming other causes don't crowd out attractiveness halo it's a very robust effect

Re:Obama

[SL Baur]

I can't help but suspect that if Obama had more stereotypically African features---you know what I mean---that he would not be in the position he is in now.

Actually, I suspect the answer to his popularity lies somewhere in this paper http://www.pennypresslv.com/Obama's_Use_of_Hidden_Hypnosis_techniques_in_His_Speeches.pdf

I do not buy all of that, as I am not convinced Obama is his own man, but certainly he gives much different speech in impromptu sessions (all the "uh" hesitations, his own admission that he is not effective in 1-on-1 communications) versus prepared speeches and his own VP candidate has gone on record (twice!) as saying that once he gets into office his poll numbers will go down and we will not like what he does ... at first. Between a teleprompter and careful coaching, I think he may be achieving the hypnotic effect described in that paper.

Re:Obama

[Jedi Alec]

Sorry, but as potentially interesting as that document may be, both its source and the sensational presentation kill its credibility right on the first page.

Besides, many techniques described in there are part of giving a good presentation. If I'm doing a Powerpoint for some hotshots in the company I'll employ similar techniques with regards to hand gestures and pacing to accentuate the message, nothing special about it.

Re:Obama

[chrb]

Kind of like how racially ambiguous videogame characters probably appeal to a wider range of players? Remember Jade is black? and Do You Care About Race in Games?

Re:Obama

[Shotgun]

As someone who finds Obama dangerously inexperienced and a socialist joke for a candidate for the Presidency of the United States, I must say this paper is worthless.

The giveaway is the opening fifteen pages where the author finds it necessary to defend his claims and to say how dangerous and illegal the claimed "techniques" are. A serious position paper or study will first present a position, then present supporting evidence, and then possibly present a defense against possible attacks. The effect that the author seems to be shooting for is to create hysteria about the danger and illegality of the "technique", so that any amount of flimsy evidence will be accepted as proof that Obama is dangerous and felonious for using the "technique".

Now, look,...uh...Obama gives speeches following the cadence and structure that has been employed by fundamentalist southern Baptist preachers for many years....uh...It isn't anything special. It's just a ...uh... practiced techNIQUE. It isn't even particularly eloquent, except to those 'openminded' folk who've never bothered to visit a tent meeting.

Re:Obama

[guyminuslife]

Just a socialist, or a socialist Muslim terrorist?

Real socialists are offended by the comparison.

That's scary because...

[Tablizer]

...most slashdotters look kinda like Cheney.

Re:That's scary because...

[guyminuslife]

I'll be writing in Ted Kaczynski.

Obama Is White

[Doc Ruby]

Barack Obama looks exactly like his grandfather, Stanley Dunham, except Barack's skin is darker and his hair curlier.

Obama is half "Black" and half "White". He's been called "Black" so many times, it's only fair to call him "White". Especially because he looks just like his White family.

Re:Obama Is White

[poetmatt]

Exactly? No. Somewhat? Of course. He is biologically related. That's like saying that russian women tend to look russian. Of course they will. He is Mulatto, which is not white or black technically. However, double standards mean that people care more about the black side than regard both equally. Sad thing is the amount of racism in certain areas in the south may come out big time if Obama becomes president.

Re:Obama Is White

[Doc Ruby]

Of course not "exactly". No two people, even identical twins at 10 minutes old, look "exactly" alike.

The point is that Obama and his grandfather resemble each other so much more closely than they differ, other than Obama's skin color, that they are very clearly more closely related than most any two White people. Yet Obama is designated as "other" by White people.

Yes, that one characteristic of his appearance has quite a lot of disproportionate power in people's affiliation with him, as the research this story discusses documents. In fact, there is no real "Black" or "White" or "Mulatto" category truly distinct from one another in America, except among a very small minority who have no ancestors who weren't descended from only subsaharan Africans, or whose African ancestors are many hundreds or thousands of generations distant. In fact, nearly everyone in America is a "Mulatto", and especially among "Black" Americans. And most especially among people in the South, who act most completely opposite that fuzzy status. Which I suppose is "human nature", the nature of people whose power over each other is based on "Us" vs "Them", even if it's completely contrived, and perhaps especially when the boundaries are contrived, and the crossing of them is encouraged by their merely nominal, though forceful, enforcement.

Re:Obama Is White

[oodaloop]

He seems to be black enough for most blacks. Gallup has been showing between 89 and 93% of America's blacks supporting Obama for months, compared to 48-55% whites supporting McCain. For some reason, this hasn't been the slightest bit newsworthy in the mainstream media.

Re:Obama Is White

[EvolutionsPeak]

I believe he's said something along the lines of, when he walks down the street, people think of him and treat him as a black man. So, he thinks of himself as a black man.

Re:Obama Is White

[Repossessed]

Isn't the black vote usually heavily democrat anyway? It was far more interesting to see the demographic split in the primaries, when he was running against a nearly identical white woman*. More telling was the way the split happened. At first there was only a little bt of a split, 60/40, but when the campaigns moved into the south, the demographic split ran 80/20 in at least one state (Mississippi I think).

*As opposed to the nearly identical white man with a different brand name.

Re:Obama Is White

[justinlee37]

I think of myself as white, even though I have olive skin and black hair. However, Obama seems more "like me" than McCain does. McCain is the whitest. He's whiter than white. Most white people are probably more closely related to Obama than McCain in terms of hereditary diversity.

Re:Obama Is White

[Anonymous Coward]

that they are very clearly more closely related than most any two White people. Yet Obama is designated as "other" by White people.

Nice attempt to confuse. The average white person would be more closely related to Stanley Dunham than he would be to Barack Obama. That explains perfectly why Obama would still be regarded as "other".

Re:Obama Is White

[poetmatt]

Well no, I would say Obama is just as much like his grandfather as any white person is like any other completely random white person, sans heredity.

You're really making a comparison out of something I wouldn't really say is apples to apples.

Some African Americans are Mulatto to some degree. I'd say there's a point where people choose to identify the one way or the other because they need something to identify with. I would say it's far stretch to even say everyone is mulatto. Remember, the US is a melting pot, not a mutt. Think of it like ingredients floating in a soup, not necessarily soluble. Lots of people who live in the US (especially in big cities) are from specific countries of origin. If you're trying to claim the whole evolutionary "all people started in africa" thing, then that's another story altogether. If you're not, you have neglected 80% of the world that indeed has ancestors strictly from places other than africa, and also places that are not black but dark skinned, such as korea/brazil. Once again, you'd be so far from apples to apples that it's pretty much off topic.

I do agree that a lot of the south chooses to call themselves whites or rednecks out of ignorance to their ancestry, or that don't want to admit that "we didn't just grow up in the US" or will try to play it as politically sensitive and just say "we're Americans".

The closest thing in your original type of example to me is: we're all monkeys, and if you squint hard enough any monkey, in the right like, etc, because of tons of random things, someone can look like another monkey, aka the "I've seen you somewhere before!" and the whole small world expression.

Re:Obama Is White

[Anonymous Coward]

in my response, replace like at the end with light. Typo.

Re:Obama Is White

[sorak]

Barack Obama looks exactly like his grandfather, Stanley Dunham, except Barack's skin is darker and his hair curlier.

Are you sure that isn't Jason Biggs?

Obama is half "Black" and half "White". He's been called "Black" so many times, it's only fair to call him "White". Especially because he looks just like his White family.

I like to apply the redneck daughter test. If he were to date a redneck's daughter, that redneck would call him black, so, therefore, he's black.

Re:Obama Is White

[RulerOf]

Yet Obama is designated as "other" by White people.

Ever hear of the One Drop Rule?

I have to admit, for the most part, it's actually true. Growing up, I had never really seen a person of white/black mix as necessarily black. On the other hand though, those people tend to see themselves as black... rather enforcing the one drop rule all on their own.

In my not so humble opinion, race isn't classified by skin so much as culture... and the racial (or cultural) stereotypes are what play into that more than skin color ever could.

Ever seen a "wigger?"

Re:Obama Is White

[Doc Ruby]

Nonsense. That "average White person"'s relation to Stanley Dunham would be only 2 generations closer than their relation to Barack Obama. "Average White person" #2's relation to #1 is almost certainly not as close as is Dunham's to Obama's. Therefore, #1's relation to Obama is practically the same as #2's relation to Obama. Just as #1 and #2 are probably related exactly as closely to Obama as to Dunham's grandfather, who is another "average White person".

Those are the simple statistical facts. Your inability to realize that because of Obama's skin color, and your typical reaction to denial of projecting accusations of "attempt to confuse" onto me, instead of you, the confuser, are excellent demonstrations of just how cloudy some people's minds get when they see different skin color, though they are also shown the facts.

Re:Obama Is White

[Doc Ruby]

No, the story we're discussing points out that a strong basis for association with a candidate is their "looks" in common. This "Mulatto" idea you have is a fake category that is a contiuum. There are really only two distinct races out of the "Black", "White" and "Mulatto" categories, which are the very few "Black" Americans with only subsaharan African ancestors, and the somewhat larger "White" category of Americans with only European ancestors. By far the largest group is what you're calling "Mulatto", which also includes the vast majority of supposedly "Black" Americans, and also the very major majority of supposedly "White" Americans. The two distinct groups are so small, and so different from the categories people are put into, that those categories are not categories at all, but gross inaccuracies.

The species divide is real: humans and monkeys can't produce mixed offspring. That is so far from the case in practice among Americans that using that reduction extreme is absurd. Much more accurate than "we're all monkeys" (apes, really), though true in a very general sense, is the much more precisely true statement that "we're all Americans".

Re:Obama Is White

[svnt]

I can totally see what you mean from that 100x68 pixel image.

They could be twins!

Or maybe that's Frank Sinatra instead!

Re:Obama Is White

[poetmatt]

No, out of the (insert an infinte number of categories) is an infinite number of categories of people. It doesn't fit as "American". Thus, american is not as accurate as the more general "we're all monkeys (or apes if you prefer)".

Simply because, we are not Americans. We are residents of America that immigrated from elsewhere, unless you're a native American. Thus the title "Native American". The rest of us, are not "native americans". This includes by default, almost all white and black people.

Re:Obama Is White

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense. That "average White person"'s relation to Stanley Dunham would be only 2 generations closer than their relation to Barack Obama.

One cannot say with certainty how closely related Obama is to Stanley Dunham, only that there is a minimum degree of relatedness (due to Dunham's %25 contribution). To say that "#1 and #2 are probably related exactly as closely to Obama as to Dunham's grandfather" is meaningless because it does not take into account the contribution of Obama's African ancestors, who were separated from Dunham's ancestors for about 70,000 years.

Those are the simple statistical facts. Your inability to realize that because of Obama's skin color,and your typical reaction to denial of projecting accusations of "attempt to confuse" onto me, instead of you, the confuser, are excellent demonstrations of just how cloudy some people's minds get when they see different skin color, though they are also shown the facts.

Whether you intended to confuse or were merely confused yourself is not important to me. I said that to emphasize my disagreement with your comment.

Re:Obama Is White

[Doc Ruby]

Therefore, you're a redneck.

Re:Obama Is White

[Doc Ruby]

They haven't seen him walking down the street with his grandfather at his own age.

There are a lot of facial characteristics that differ between races. Other than Obama's dark skin and curly hair, the rest of his features look enough like his grandfather's (two generations removed) that they'd look just alike if his grandfather were as dark as he is.

Skin color is a very weak way of accurately associating genetic racial identity. The demonstration is that genetically Obama is exactly as African as he is European.

Voters Swayed By Canadians Who Share Their Looks

[Anonymous Coward]

I read this as Voters Swayed By Canadians Who Share Their Looks.

I was imagining a Canadian double of me at the polling place screaming "Vote for McCain, eh?"

But I'm not Black

[Farhood]

...and I already for him!

Re:But I'm not Black

[Anonymous Coward]

You already what for him?

Re:But I'm not Black

[Farhood]

voted.

I was thinking faster than i can type. :-/

blah

Re:But I'm not Black

[Anonymous Coward]

I accidentally the whole election.

Like, yuck

[oldhack]

And you wonder why some of us mock social sciences.

On correlation

[Anonymous Coward]

CORRELATION IS NOT CAUCASIAN.

Re:I seem to remember an experiment from a while b

[SL Baur]

Maybe if I placed a picture of angry eyes on my cubicle everyone would keep away...

I put up a printout of my level 70 Hunter toting an Ornate Khorium Rifle in my cube. Hasn't helped me. :-(

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that this has been scientifically proven, go and select your candidate.

Re:Anonymous Coward

[InfiniteLoopCounter]

I thought I'd test the accuracy of this method.

I put in Gollum and it gives the result - "McCain matching 53%".

I'm thinking that the software is just making numbers up.

Re:Anonymous Coward

[Random Destruction]

I'm thinking that the software is just making numbers up.

Not a chance

So ...

[tuxgeek]

McCain will get the votes of people that look like the Crypt Keeper?
I like it.

Even if the researchers are onto something...

[ragethehotey]

The sample sizes used are so ludicrously small compared to how many numerical possibilities exist to test for that anything you get out this would be a joke no matter the circumstances.

Makes sense

[gregbot9000]

So this explains McCain's inexplicable popularity amongst Gnomes.

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

A bunch of racists develop a study to see if racism exists. Go figure, some of their friends are racists.

Let's all date our cousins everyone, then we can look the same for generations to come!

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's all date our cousins everyone, then we can look the same for generations to come!

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=when-incest-is-best-kissi

New Zealand must be full of

[Master Moose]

ugly crooked toothed people of questionable gender to keep electing this one then. . http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://wmmbb.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/clarke-and-bush.jpg&imgrefurl=http://wmmbb.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/1406/&h=322&w=435&sz=27&hl=en&start=2&um=1&usg=__b9OhQLnbvYa2tx25Y5_gyFx73G4=&tbnid=4TKw75oEfWu3sM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=126&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dugly%2Bhelen%2Bclarke%26ndsp%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-nz%26sa%3DN

Cross-racial recognition

[dontmakemethink]

Could you pick out of a line-up a visually foreign person you've only just met? For example, I'm of Indonesian descent, 3rd generation Canadian. I'm far better at distinguishing caucasians than they are at distinguishing any asians.

I can't imagine what middle-of-the-road Americans must inperpret from seeing the two candidates. A black man with white features, or an old geezer.

My first thought would be "what, they couldn't find any normal people to run for president?"

Along that same line, I have to ask, "what, they had to go to Alaska to find a running mate for McCain?!"

Palin shooting her own voters!

[Dahamma]

Since I guess she mistook her supporters for "deer in the headlights"...

And what does this mean in the real world?

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

In order for the test to work (correct me if I'm wrong), the only factor that they would have been told is that they were voting for a politician in an experiment. When people have nothing else to make a decision on, they will generally try to pick something, no matter how superficial it may seem.

But when voting for someone in the real world, more factors come into play and this test doesn't say anything about how much of an influence this trait plays, which is just as important as the experiment itself if you want to find out what it means in real elections.

Sad: Elections decided by the marginally "stupid".

[bboxman]

It is sad that elections are decided by the marginally stupid and vain. This makes politicians cater to the lowest common denominator (which, in fact, most of them are). All this bruhahaha regarding "Joe the plumber" is a case in point.

Perhaps we need a different system? One in which those who have opinions and are "smart" are the marginal voter and make a difference? Ergo, if were to switch to an "online direct democracy" -- one in which decisions made by congress were made by a vote cast by each citizen (technologially, this is feasible after a long lull from Athens) -- pehraps, the actual voting public for most decisions would diminish to those who care about the issue.

!news

[MarkoNo5]

I'm sorry, but this has been known for ages. May I suggest "Influence, Science and Practice" from Robert Cialdini for an overview of the area of influence. It's an amazing mix of simplicity/readability and excellent science.

Paraphrasing Linus (van Pelt)

[UnixUnix]

The Freudian undertones alone are astounding.

He looks like my father....

[OutOfMyTree]

Do people favour people who look like themselves, or (more likely) favour people who look like the members of their family? Comparing the politician portraits with ones of the subjects' parents might be more to the point.

Sure you are ... "Come Out"

[PolygamousRanchKid]

I think you will feel a lot better, when you explain that you are African-American to your parents. They will be more accepting than you expect.

Especially your mother.

Your father might give her some dirty looks for a while.

Pity poor me: I favor Obama, but also think that German Chancellor Angela Merkel is doing a rather fine job. So I have to tell my mother that, not only that I am African-American, but that her son is really a daughter as well!

Obvious consequence: vote for yourself!

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Obama/Biden? McCain/Palin? Nader? H. Ron Paul?

Fuck 'em.

Vote for yourself!

Plant dippy looking campaign signs on your front lawn with your name on it.

Oh, your name is not on the ballot? My tip: ANYTHING is possible with a Diebold voting machine!

I plan on becoming the next county dog catcher, myself.

So, Tina Fey...

[malikvlc]

...is gonna vote for the McCain/Palin ticket?

Surprising!

[RichiH]

So, they don't know a person's POV & policies and prolly don't care. Neither do they have a pre-set opinion. Then, you let those people choose from a few incarnations of the same person. One of them looks like the test subject does. They like that person best. How is that news? How is this not completely obvious?

Re:Surprising!

[Shotgun]

How is this any different from the current US political process?

Thaw thaw thaw

[Ash-Fox]

For some reason this reminds me of a Star Trek: Voyager episode - 2x23 - The Thaw.

"You're different, I don't know anything about you. You're not on the system."
"I would be pleased to tell you all about myself another time at a more appropriate time. For now suffice it to say that I'm here by a miracle of technology. Now let's get down to the issues, shall we?"
"How am I supposed to negotiate if I don't know what you're thinking?"
"I have a very trustworthy face."

So become an American president...

[jopsen]

So become the next American president all you have to do is to be fat...

- Sorry, I just couldn't help it... :)

Well, McCain is screwed then

[Anonymous Coward]

Noone has those freakish jowls he has!

this may explain something else -- ?

[jsheeler]

is this the psychological basis of racism, then? when you don't have other facts to go on, you drift toward whatever is most like -- or least UNlike -- yourself?

Re:this may explain something else -- ?

[Shotgun]

Yes.

It just means blacks have got common sense

[MisterSquid]

I've heard statistics from some sources as high as 97% of black voters will be voting for Obama,

Blacks voting for Obama are mainly voting their interest, and Obama is an amazing candidate by many measures. If someone like Clarence Thomas were running for president do you think many blacks would be voting for him? Me neither.

Blacks in the US *have* to think pragmatically. They can't afford (or they act as if they can't afford, which I wish most folks would do) to elect officials who are going to play shenanigans with their sons' and daughters' bodies in a godless (you heard me) war over oil. Black folk by and large send their sons and daughters to college to get law and medical degree, and they vote for candidates who reflect their interest.

Re:It just means blacks have got common sense

[afabbro]

Blacks in the US *have* to think pragmatically. They can't afford (or they act as if they can't afford, which I wish most folks would do) to elect officials who are going to play shenanigans with their sons' and daughters' bodies in a godless (you heard me) war over oil. Black folk by and large send their sons and daughters to college to get law and medical degree, and they vote for candidates who reflect their interest.

You do realize that what you wrote makes no sense, right? You state that black parents have to worry their kids are going to go off to fight in wars, then state that blacks "by and large" send their kids to law and/or medical school.

Hate to break it to you, but the majority ("by and large") of black kids do not go to either the military or law/medical school.

Why a suit?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about a suit makes a senior person more senior? Do clothes really affect performance? If not, then why is it not just three classes:

1) Manual work: dress for safety
2) White collar work: dress smart
3) Customer reps: uniform code

The uniform code is so that first impressions cannot be made because of the attire of the rep. All suits may have a negative impression with some, but it will at least be the SAME negative impression, so companies won't have to consider psychological manipulation for their reps.

Explaining the %ages

[Anonymous Coward]

If the correlation is 0% there could still be a SMALL chance of a causation, but just swamped out for many reasons. Maybe too much noise, maybe other factors are more important and aren't correlated with this cause.

So ZERO correlation doesn't REALLY mean there's no causation, just that it is impossible to make that statement significant.

Not that weird

[aliquis]

Of course you'll trust someone which looks like they is from your family / closely related more than someone who's not.

Makes perfect sense and makes me wonder why some people decided that "correlationisnotcausation" was a valid tag for this story. Would be intresting to hear their theory about why this happens if it's not because of the similar looks ...

Re:Not that weird

[mcgrew]

I have gray hair and a long face (I'm told by various sources that this is from testosterone and woman only are attracted when they're in their fertile period), a goatee, hazel eyes (a brown/tan ring inside green, my kids say my eyes change color with my mood), large lips for a white man.

Ok, we have two (corporate-funded and media-supported) Presidential candidates. One is young and black with a long face (and euro-african features, as his mom was white and his dad was black), one is white with a round face.

So which one am I voting for?

Neither, I'm voting for Bob Barr. I've never seen his picture.

But then again I'm not usually at the top of any statistical curve anyway.

Re:Not that weird

[aliquis]

But to begin with you probably always know some stuff about those presidental candidates.

I don't know much about them but I'd vote for the black guy (I'm not american), simply because the white one looks so old, upper-class and is white..

Younger and black has to get some credit.

But this is off-topic.

Re:Not that weird

[mcgrew]

Voters Swayed By Candidates Who Share Their Looks

So how is it offtopic?

Re:Not that weird

[aliquis]

I meant that what I would vote for, how I'm not american and what everyone else on Slashdot would vote for is off topic.

Also I guess I didn't remembered the article was about political people which people knew a little about. I would belive that as soon as you start to learn to know them looks matters less.

Re:Not that weird

[cayenne8]

"I don't know much about them but I'd vote for the black guy (I'm not american), simply because the white one looks so old, upper-class and is white..

Younger and black has to get some credit."

Unfortunately, I think a significant number of US citizens ARE going to vote based on what you described. Yes...rather than look at record, or issues, etc....it will be by who looks the best on TV, or is young and black (just for a change).

Yep, let's vote for the leader of our nation based on giving 'credit' rather than voting on the issues at hand.

[rolls eyes]

Man...I don't really care who you vote for, but at least have a fucking intelligent reason for doing so.

Re:Not that weird

[aliquis]

But Obama is the democrat isn't he? So he's like 5% less rightish?

I would say "poorer" or more middleclass or whatever to but someone earlier said that he was a lawyer.

Though that doesn't have to mean that he's super-rich, have been silver spoon feed or don't care about others. I don't see well educated as an issue =P

Would be somewhat intresting to know more about then but well, not my country, not my vote, and their opinions may differ a lot compared to how Sweden is ran anyway.

Re:Not that weird

[that IT girl]

If I had mod points, you'd be getting one now. Just thought you should know that.

Bummer

[jitterman]

Sadly, if this is true, I'll probably end up find myself inexorably drawn to vote for this guy.

That explains my attitude

[Cro Magnon]

I'm not black, and I'm not ancient, and if you want to include VPs, I'm not female. None of them look like me, so they all suck!

Yep. I had a boss...

[Trai]

Yep. I had a boss who had long hair and who had hired me for a customer service position back in the 90s when I had long hair. Every other woman she hired also had long hair. I thought the hair length was incidental until she got a short hair cut and started pressuring all of her employees to cut their hair. I transferred departments to get away from her nuisances.

Dress codes don't have much of a real impact on performance as long as employees don't take advantage and wear clothing that is not appropriate and clean.

However, as long as no one expects me to wear the Evil that is also known as panty-hose, I can deal.

Re:Yep. I had a boss...

[jggimi]

Years ago, I had a boss who asked me to remove my facial hair. He said, "I don't like beards or mustaches." My reply, "But boss, *you* have a mustache!" He said, "So? I just don't like 'em on other people."

Re:Yep. I had a boss...

[fprintf]

Mass confusion here! Doing the usual reading of comments under the assumption of a male writer (this is Slashdot, afterall) I wondered what female boss would hire a guy specifically for his long hair... it wasn't until I got to the comment about panty hose that I figured out you were a bank robber and not a computer scientist!

Re:Yep. I had a boss...

[Anonymous Coward]

You worked for Walt Disney? Cool!

Re:Yep. I had a boss...

[chrisjwray]

Some women just dont look good with a 'tache

Re:Yep. I had a boss...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually in the 90s I grew my hair long to get out of a corporate job and into a technical one. One interviewer said "you look too much like a suit". Still have the long hair today. As my pay grade increased, my dress code relaxed.

Re:Sad: Elections decided by the marginally "stupi

[TerranFury]

the actual voting public for most decisions would diminish to those who care about the issue.

This might be a good idea, but it is not foolproof, because this is pretty much how lobbying works today: Organizations that care deeply about an issue -- whether it be corn ethanol, bridges in Alaska, representation of a particular ethnic group, or something else -- are the ones who dedicate resources (in the case of online voting, this would be time) to making sure that they get their way. The general public does not. The basic issue is the problem of diffuse costs and concentrated benefits. That said, it is possible that online voting could help this situation, by decreasing the cost of involvement.

A different line of argument might question your assertion that web users are smarter. Perhaps you think this because you read the comments on Slashdot instead of on Youtube? ;-)

!pantyhose

[The Queen]

Our company had a very strict pantyhose rule when I first started here; one lady in accounting was actually sent home for wearing shoes with no hose - with a PANT SUIT. Not even a skirt. Just showing a bit of ankle. We only recently have been allowed to wear open-toed shoes in summer.

If you want happy workers, let them dress comfortably. Sheesh.

Re:!pantyhose

[Trai]

I would have quit the job instantly. If I am riding horses in jeans that are too loose, I will put on panty hose to prevent blistering. But those things have no place in the workforce otherwise. They cause overheating and infections. Absolutely ridiculous that people would be required to wear something that is not only uncomfortable but a health hazard just to look good. They need to go the way of corsets.

Sounds like racism to me

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look like a member of the master race, you will politically support others who look like they are the master race. One tribe wiping out another, what have you. Next thing someone will publish a study looking at support of others of the same religion.

correlationwithapredeterminedvariableiscausation

[spazdor]

Who the hell tagged this story "correlationisnotcausation"? Do you just spit that out every time you see any study data whatsoever?

What relationship could facial features and political credulity possibly have, other than a causative one?

So the gist of the article...

[Anonymous Coward]

The gist of the article then is that if Obama loses, it's because of racism?

Whoops! Slysdexic, I am!

[FishAdmin]

I read the Title as "Voters Swayed By Canadians Who Share Their Looks", and I was thinking wha?!

Not a fan of my look-alike pol

[superflippy]

I've been told I look like Sarah Palin, but I am not particularly fond of her. Sure as heck wouldn't vote for her. I'm going to be very careful when I buy new glasses not to get ones that enhance the resemblance.

Re:Not a fan of my look-alike pol

[rcastro0]

>I've been told I look like Sarah Palin...

After a comment like that I just had to see for myself...

(sorry for the slight invasion of privacy, but it was just two or three clicks to get there)

Nope. McCain will get the votes...

[Anonymous Coward]

...of most all the older voters (over 40 yrs old).

And, there's slightly more of those age group than there are of under-40 voters when you measure strictly by age.

This election is going to be a lot tighter than most folks think.

Be worried.

Wrinkly versus non-wrinkly

[thepacketmaster]

Will this simply be a matter of the younger voters going for Obama then?

Re:Wrinkly versus non-wrinkly

[avandesande]

Historically the younger voters don't show up at the voting booth.

The Subconscious Knows. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

You dropped the word 'voted' from your sentence the same way GOP agents aim to lose/drop/ignore/prevent millions of Democratic votes in November. The election is already stolen. Why the hell isn't the television media all over this? Hands are dripped red.

--The only mention is the utterly benign ACORN nonsense the Republicans are hollering about, which as it happens, is simply a case of the psychopath blaming the victim for its own crimes.

12-year old mentality pouting bullies whose arguing tactics involve repeating lies loudly, ignoring facts, and disobeying social rules until they are physically restrained. . , these are the people who are determining the future of our world.

I know an old, crusty, mean old German bitch of a woman who is a total misery to be near and who seems to derive her only satisfaction in life from ruining people's days. I just learned this week that she was a card-carrying member of the Hitler Youth when she was a kid. Golly. But that's not the frustrating part. These evil bastards who never had any intention of playing fair in a real, genuine democratic society are the last ones to be punished when dictatorial fascism takes over. Their comfort zone exists within the muted gray-scale of harshness and general misery in all social benchmarks. The average racist inbred moron will probably not be shot or starved by the results of their actions. And if they are starved and mistreated, they will handily blame it on the liberals.

When can we brush aside the nonsense and recognize that some 'adults' are really just learning-disabled assholes, and give them only the limited rights we give to children? Why on earth are we allowing them ANY kind of decision making powers? They have plunged us into idiotic wars and they have plundered the economy and worst of all, they refuse to acknowledge that any of it was their fault. Forehead Tattoos for Retarded Assholes.

-FL

Oblig. Pryor

[Anonymous Coward]

YOU MEAN I'M NOT WHITE!?!?!?

Re:correlationwithapredeterminedvariableiscausatio

[philspear]

I agree, it's more of a slashdot meme than insightful. It's kind of like tagging every biology article "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" even when the answer is "no more than could go wrong from any other human activity, like folding laundry."

Typically it's called up when no one is attempting to say causation. They're basically warning people of overinterpreting data when they have clearly not overinterpreted data.

McCain wins Florida!!

[101010_or_0x2A]

Its no contest down there as to who looks like the average population..

Voting based on looks.....really?

[Courtie722]

The idea that Americans can be so persuaded by looks is daunting; especially as it pertains to choosing the leaders of our nation. What does this say about the citizens of our nation? That we are a vein and uneducated. At first I thought this study was ridiculous for the fact that it didn't state any background information about the test subjects. However, if the study did only test subjects who did claim to be independent and were not associated with any political party, the study holds more validity. Still, I find this article to be insulting. Every citizen who votes should educate themselves on the potential candidates and vote in a professional and dignified way. Not simple because of looks. We should hold ourselves to a higher responsibility when it comes to electing our nation's leader.

Re:Voting based on looks.....really?

[forceman130]

The fact that Americans took the test is kind of irrelevant - the issue is that people tend to vote what is familiar, not Americans. Also, it was pretty clear that the test only applied to people who had no other preference for a candidate, not that people voted purely on looks.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It could be about your *parental* features...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your features are a healthy, slightly-mutated mix of your parents' features. A politician who looks somewhat like you will also look somewhat like one or both of your parents. Is it really surprising that you'd feel some subconscious trust for someone who reminds you of Dad? I don't see it as narcissistic at all.

I don't think it will affect this election

[Benfea]

While there might be a rash of undecided midwestern voters going for Obama because of his big ears, I think overall this particular election is unusual enough that effects like this won't really make a difference one way or another.

Saturn and S&P Correlated

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

(ie A->B, B->A or C->A and C->B, these are the ONLY explanations for statistically significant correlation). ....

I'd like to see you try to refute this (without resorting to insults or rhetoric), particularly if you can think of a way for variables to be correlated without some form of causal relationship as I've described.

I have decided to respond to your post with the refutation you seek. In short, the Right Ascension of the planet Saturn in the night sky is correllated with the S & P 500 stock market index. The correlation coefficient is 0.88.

True, my example is somewhat facetious, but just how far removed is it from the junk studies posted on Slashdot nearly every day? Why is this (apparently quite strong) correlation to be rejected, yet even weaker one accepted in other fields. What is the essential difference here? Do we only accept correlations between variables that our "common sense" tells us should be related? Is that science?

No. You cannot infer or imply causation from correlation. It is a false premise from the outset. Only an experiment, a real experiment can establish causation. Anything else is second or third rate material which cannot and should not be accepted by anyone without further proof.

Correlation is not causation. It does not imply causation. It is a statistical technique that has been consistently abused and misapplied by charlatans for decades and proves exactly nothing. In the hands of many, if not most, who use it correlation is isomorphic to numerology, and should be soundly rejected by any serious scientist.

Therefore, our mantras are just fine, and I see no reason to alter them.

Re:Saturn and S&P Correlated

[stranger_to_himself]

OK first thanks for taking me seriously. I am actually quite flattered that there is now a webpage dedicated to describing how much of an idiot I am.

I also hope you have the good grace to post my rebuttal to both your arguments, first that science cannot be conducted without experiments, and second that correlation does not equal causation. You have my permission to publish this so long as you do so in its entirity.

I'm going to give you a short CV, just so you know (not sure it's relevant but anyway). I have a degree in mathematics, a masters degree in mathematical statistics, a PhD in evolutionary biology (my thesis topic was along the lines of 'what can we infer from comparisons of gene orders of extant species') and I've worked for four years as an epidemiologist on a observational study of health and cognition. It's fair to say that over the past ten years I've thought about the ideas of correlation, causation, and inference for a living. If I had any doubt that what I was doing was fundementally flawed from a scientific point of view I wouldn't do it.

Regarding your Saturn example, well you've managed to find two things that increase with time, but are quite clearly unrelated in every other regard. You have calculated their correlation as 0.88, suggested that I would draw the conclusion that one causes the other, which is plainly absurd, therefore my argument that correlation implies causation is incorrect.

There are two ways I will respond.

The most obvious is that you did not read my argument. I claimed A->B, OR B->A, OR C->A and C->B. Clearly here we have a correlation, so one of these must be true. A->B and B ->A are both obviously silly, so we are left with C->A and C->B. Well what could 'C' be? Here it helps that you've not plotted A vs B as would be traditional to illustrate a correlation, but you've helpfully plotted A and B against a third factor, 'time'. In this case C=time, the passing of time has caused the stock market to increase and has caused Saturn to do whatever it did (I'm not an astronomer). If you do a regression of A vs B adjusting for time I'd be pretty sure you'll see the correlation would be gone.

Second, (and this is a more minor subtle complaint) there is the issue of statistical significance. I don't know but I'd bet the correlation you showed does not hold much outside of the small window you've showed it, and that you've selected this particular example to illustrate your point. If you give me any two time series I could probably find a small window in which they are both increasing, so that correlation is statistically meaningless because of multiple testing issues (note I qualified my initial claim with the words 'statistically significant')

Next, I absolutely agree with you that experimentation is the gold standard of scientific research. I cannot accept however that it is the only way to draw conclusions. Much of science cannot be tested experimentally because it would be impractical, unethical (as with most of the work I do) or just plain silly. My earlier example 'lung cancer is caused by smoking' is a good example of a purely observation finding that was totally unexpected at the time and was found simply on the basis of observing the smoking patterns of people in lung cancer wards compared with others. The big prospective studies came much later, and experiments will never be done, yet I'm sure you would accept this finding as true.

I also agree with you that most science posted on Slashdot is rubbish, for a variety of reasons, mostly because science progresses in very small increments, and so on its own no paper is ever really newsworthy, and has to have its significance bloated out of all proportion to get into the news (ie they fail the 'so what' test). However faulty causation is not often the culprit, because most scientists are very good at adjusting for potential confounders in their relationships (and journals are very go

Re:Saturn and S&P Correlated

[Free the Cowards]

You didn't refute anything. Both Saturn and the S&P 500 share a common cause: time. In other words, the situation is the last one described, that of C->A and C->B, where C is "time passing". They're both cyclical and happen to have similar periods, so they correlate well.

Re:Obvious liar versus non

[Penguinoflight]

I'd guess that trolls would have the hardest time deciding between Obama and McCain, they're both such a perfect match.

I do it well in a skirt too...

[TravisO]

and I'm not even a woman! (Just don't tell my wife, ok?)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Well if that's true

[Anonymous Coward]

Then Mr. Minority definitely will lose the upcoming election. Guess we'll find out how much water TFA holds on November 4 huh?

What a bunch of horseshit.

Re:Obvious liar versus non

[that IT girl]

ba-dum cchhhhhinnggg...

It's only newsworthy to racists.

[Valdrax]

He seems to be black enough for most blacks. Gallup has been showing between 89 and 93% of America's blacks supporting Obama for months, compared to 48-55% whites supporting McCain. For some reason, this hasn't been the slightest bit newsworthy in the mainstream media.

It isn't newsworthy to anyone who has more than a 4 year memory of politics.

According to CNN exit polls, Kerry got 88% of the black vote in 2004. Other polls will show that Gore got 90% in 2000, Clinton got 84% in '96 and 83% in '92 (a historic low), Dukakis got 90% in '88, and Mondale got 90% in 84.

Meanwhile, in 2004, Al Sharpton couldn't crack 20% of the black vote in the South Carolina Democratic primary (32% of SC blacks voted for Kerry and 36% for Edwards).

Was this because all of these white candidates were "black enough," or are you going to just admit that you're a bit wrong (/racist) in accusing black voters of voting based on skin color instead of on issues?

Now, you may bristle at me accusing you of racism for pointing this out, but you are judging black people on a different standard from white people based on their skin color. Instead of looking at whether historically they as a group have supported certain issues (like evangelicals, union members, executives, or any other group with shared values), you accuse them of racism based on your own distorted perception of their values.

It's like how Colin Powell, a moderate Republican, endorsed Obama for a variety of reasons including being deeply troubled by the attacks on him for being Muslim (which he's not, but Powell asks, "So what if he was?") and by the pick of Sarah Palin as VP. Immediately, people like Rush Limbaugh dismissed the endorsement as being racially motivated.

What the heck? Lieberman, a white Senator who would've been the Democratic VP in 2000 but for a few votes and who would be a Democrat today if not for a vigorous primary challenge over the issue of the Iraq War endorsed the McCain-Palin ticket, and no one has accused him of doing so based on race. He did so based on some policy issues, breaking with his traditional political allies to do so, just like Colin Powell did.

So, why hasn't anyone accused him of being racist? Because he's white, and the people accusing black people of voting based on race hold black people to a different standard than they do white people. White people are assumed to vote based on substance. Black people are assumed to vote based on racial loyalty.

And that's racist. Facially racist -- judging people differently based on the color of their skin. It's disgusting, and it's a sign that the people making the accusations view the world through racially-tinged eyes of their own.

Re:It's only newsworthy to racists.

[Doc Ruby]

Nailed it!

What goes for one....

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes us foreigners wonder how ugly the American population must be after voting in Bush?