Slashdot Mirror
Political Affiliation Can Be Differentiated By Appearance
quaith writes "It's not the way they dress, but the appearance of their face. A study published in PLoS One by Nicholas O. Rule and Nalini Ambady of Tufts University used closely cropped greyscale photos of people's faces, standardized for size. Undergrads were asked to categorize each person as either a Democrat or Republican. In the first study, students were able to differentiate Republican from Democrat senate candidates. In the second, students were able to differentiate the political affiliation of other college students. Accuracy in both studies was about 60% — not perfect, but way better than chance."
Factor 1 (46% of variance explained) consisted of high loadings on likeability (.94) and trustworthiness (.97) and low loadings on dominance (.11) and facial maturity (.14). Factor 2 (42% of variance explained) consisted of high loadings on dominance (.92) and facial maturity
My grandmother used to tell me something along the lines of what is often misattributed to Churchill:
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
And I would also like to point out for the college students that society (especially high school) often pigeonholes people and defines who they are on how they look. The individual sometimes has no choice and sometimes just accepts it and goes with it in order to belong. If you look older when you're young and people might instinctively treat you like a cold Republican. Always looked young and innocent? Then a warm Democrat.
Would be an explanation that agrees with the correlation the research drew to define the deviation from random guessing but nothing conclusive.
My work here is dung.
What a dumb study. Of course you can pick a party affiliation by appearance. First off, if you always say a black guy is a Democrat, you'd be right 90% of the time, based on voting records. That would give you 60% overall correct, even if everything else was 50,50, assuming a sample set that roughly mirrors the population.
This is my sig.
When I work the polls each year I try to pass the time by guessing the party affiliations of my voters.
"Hmm, large SUV and business suit. Republican."
"Large breasted college age chick. Democrat."
"Subaru Outback and peacenik bumper stickers. Green Party."
"Pick-up truck and AR-15. Libertarian."
It's amazing how bored you get working a 15 hour day when you only get 40 voters.... ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Lets play a game someone's driving a clunker and they have 80 bumper stickers on it, which way to they lean?
60% versus 50%? How is that WAY better?
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
There are two things Liberals hate!!!!!
1) Red-necks, and
2) Stereotyping
Politicians are all the same, regardless of their affiliated party.
More CHOICE than ever before!
http://tinyurl.com/democratface
http://tinyurl.com/republicanface
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Are you kidding? This isn't ten coin flips with a 4:6 result... this was 118, and ALL the results point to an increase in probability of a successful guess. If it were up to chance, none of those samples would point in the right direction, however they all *do*.
Obvious? What party do these folks belong to?
http://tinyurl.com/partymember
Can I join?
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
The Churchill quote only demonstrates how clever rhetoric does not an argument make.
I am often amazed at how powerful a beautiful but specious assertion can be. Sometimes it is a compelling analogy that has no actual bearing on the topic at hand. Other times (as in this Churchill case) it is a clever dichotomy that begs the question. This particular quote is a wonderful example of begging the question. It is no more possible to support conservatism with it than it is possible to literally pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
That was an analogy, wasn't it? I hope you didn't find it too beguiling.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
And I have invented a method for telling if someone is a criminal by taking various measurements of their head! I think I will call this "phrenology".
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Sure, the Republican candidate is usually the one with a blue suit jacket with American Flag pin, white shirt and tie. Often they have the jacket slung over their shoulder and their sleeves rolled up.
The Democratic candidate, of course, is the one with a blue suit jacket with American Flag pin, white shirt and tie. Look for them carrying their jacket slung over their shoulder with their sleeves rolled up.
Then there's hair. Republicans either have naturally good hair, or they overcompensate so much that their hair looks like a mutated doughboy helmet. They never have beards. The Democrats on the other hand either have obviously elaborate and expensive haircuts, although many of them just have naturally good hair. Key point: they're always clean shaven.
Now as to actual policies -- don't get me started on that.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Oh the sweet irony of that quote with the current popularity of Fox "News" :-)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The old saw: "If you're not a liberal when you're young, you have no heart; if you're not a conservative when you're older, you have no brain." (Variants have been attributed to Winston Churchill, though there is no indication that he ever said this)
Age may not be such a bad indicator after all.
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
Please note that Churchill was English. Liberal and conservative are totally different over there. Liberal means anti-government intervention, conservative means the opposite. For example Margaret Thatcher called Ronald Reagan "the greatest liberal of our time". So yeah, that makes sense- if you're naive you think that markets and good faith will make everything work out ok. When you get older and wise enough to know better, you want society to step in and fix shit.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Next time, click both links before you post.
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
I'm not going to state my party affiliation. I'll just say that when I saw that this pointless study was funded by OUR TAX DOLLARS via an NSF grant, I thought, "God help us!"
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
Nobody voted for McCain. They voted for Palin. And yes, they were urbanally challenged.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
So if you want to stay young, stay liberal? Works for me.
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
Give me a real conservative to vote for, someone who stays out of both my pocket book and my bedroom, someone who restores free markets, someone who slashes corporate subsidies, and someone who restores the principle of personal responsibility in areas such as drugs and medical care and I will vote for him.
Sadly, the closest to a conservative in US politics are Democrats; while far from perfect conservatives, they do better in terms of liberties and fiscal responsibility. Republicans, on the other hand, restrict liberties, want a nanny state, are fiscally irresponsible, and waste even more money than the Democrats on their corporate buddies; Republicans, sadly, are even less conservative than Democrats.
Liberal and conservative are totally different over there. Liberal means anti-government intervention, conservative means the opposite.
This more or less tracks with America. Democrats want to tax me more, Republicans want to take control of my body and tell me who I can and can't marry. I support Democrats because I oppose intrusive government.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
No, sorry that is a liberal.
Liberals and Libertarians do share many annoying traits, but you should not confuse them. An easy way to tell them apart is to access the level of empathy they can feel.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Critics of President Obama have called his goals socialist
Those critics are idiots since they dont know what socialist means.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Agreed. Liberals pretend they care about the poor while walking past beggars on the street without even making eye contact and consider themselves compassionate when they later complain that someone in a higher tax bracket should take care of him
That's a really insightful observation. A friend of mine is a die hard big city politically correct liberal. Amazingly enough she can't stand to make eye contact with the homeless and is afraid to venture out of her predominately white neighborhood if it means she has to cross into the dark part of town.
The last one was actually the subject of an amusing exchange between of the two of us. Earlier in the day I had noticed an African-American individual walking across the middle of a busy street against the light and nowhere near a crosswalk. I made a comment along the lines of "There goes a negative stereotype" and she jumped on me for being a "racist". Later in the evening when we were driving home I got cut off by someone and honked at them. No big deal, just my natural reaction when confronted with stupidity on the roadway. Of course she flips out and starts worrying that we are going to get shot because (and I quote) "We are white in the wrong part of town!"
So I asked her, who is the racist? The person who makes an off color joke or the person who is afraid to venture into the parts of town that don't conform with their own skin color? Needless to say, she didn't much care for that observation......
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Aren't stereotypes fun?
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
I think they are. I'm more than willing to make them at the expense of my own people. Heaven knows that most of us WASPs only got through college and landed good jobs because of Dad's golf buddies ;) Heck, some of the best stereotypes are the white trash ones.....
I honestly don't think repeating a few off color jokes and/or stereotypes make one into a racist. But then I never was a big fan of political correctness.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I don't know where you read it either, but if I were you I'd find it and throw it away. I know many people who were very conservative when they were younger, but got progressively more liberal during the Bush era. People tend to change based up their experiences, and wisdom tends to come with age. The way you are telling it conservatives are wise and liberals are foolish. We recently had 8 years of solid proof that this simply isn't a valid conclusion. (which is not to say it is the other way around either; I hereby declare no political affiliation or preference for the purpose of this post)
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
My Dad is a classic big city East Coast liberal. In the 1960's he participated in civil rights marches, and in the 1980's I heard him constantly bitching about Reagan's economic policies. For the last forty years, he has given tons to homeless people on the street, with one caveat. Instead of throwing them a buck or two, he offers to buy them whatever they want at a nearby fast food joint. Many don't accept (for obvious reasons), but they do, he goes in with them, buys them whatever they want and eats with them.
He's also been self-employed for his entire life.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Someone once said (on a forum - AFAIK, it's not a famous quote) something to the effect of, "Almost all stereotypes are wrong, and hilariously accurate."
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
A cursory look at TFA indicates that both types of misclassification rates in this study are found to be in the range 40%-50% (approximately in each study). That is piss-poor. For comparison, a typical Bayesian spam filter has both misclassification rates in the 1% range, and people still complain about that.
The correct conclusion should really be that looking only at peoples' faces is a really bad way to gauge political affiliation. Slow news day, eh?
There's two types of conservative, fiscal and social. Fiscal conservatives want to control the budget through less spending or more tax. Social conservatives want to control your body and bedroom.
Fiscal liberals say things like "deficits don't matter" (Rummy), social liberals say things like "I have a dream".
Out of the possible combinations my personal preference is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Yeah, that usually means more taxes but nobody ever claimed civilization was cheap.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I suspected this kind of thing when I started noticing those election-day photos of the rally headquarters for the various candidates. "All of the chicks in the Republican audience are always smokin' hot babes", I'd think to myself.
And then it dawned on me. If there is a correlation between appearance and political leanings, how would any causal relationship work? I think the causation of politics determining appearance is the easier one to spot. Most conservatives I know seem to place more of an emphasis on appearance, while the liberals I know place more of an emphasis on ideas; feeling that ideas will stand or fall on their own merit, regardless of the appearance of the messenger. So, liberals don't see as much need for dressing up before trying to pitch their ideas.
Now, the causation from appearance to politics is a little more subtle. My suspicion is that the people who are "less beautiful" are the ones who spend more of their time on the outside of popularity. They're they people who never made the ballot for prom queen, didn't get asked to the school dance, didn't have as many romantic opportunities. They got more of a taste of what it's like to be a "have not" or to be outside of the majority. This experience, I believe, can cause them to have the increased empathy and tendency to "look out for others" that seems to characterize liberal thought.
On the other hand, the people are very attractive or physically gifted had an easier time of things. Athletic success came easier to the "natural born athletes", and the pretty or charismatic people had an easier time getting others to back their ideas or plans. Things just went a little easier for them. Because we can only experience the world through our own eyes, I can see how the "beautiful people" could believe that (as it was for them) one only needs to apply themselves to a goal and it'll work out. This could give rise to the "anybody willing to work hard will find success" mindset that we tend to see in conservatives.
Apparently you don't know what fascist or communist means. Really, you should get your education from somewhere other than Fox News.
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
Actually, I try to watch a broad spectrum of all the news outlets...from the two extremes (Fox vs MSNBC) to everything in between.
I dunno...let's see, under the Obama administration, the federal govt has pretty much taken ownership of multiple banks, and private businesses, and is looking to instill even more laws telling said businesses what they can and can't do..and what they can and cannot pay.
That certainly doesn't sound much like Capitalism to me...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The quote refers to the old Liberal party, not the Lib Dems. The Liberals were the traditionally party of business interests (and so favoured the Commons) and the urban/suburban middle class. They supported free trade, and had the support of several protestant churches.
For comparison, the Conservatives were the party of old money (and so favoured the Lords), the rural middle and upper class, the aristocracy, and those associated with them. They were protectionist, imperialist, and were closer to the High Church. Labour were the party of the industrial working class, and were generally socialist
1) Banks are taken over by the government every year since the inception of the FDIC. The FDIC promptly sells them off (to some other bank). The ownership by the FDIC is for an extremely short period of time and the sale is usually worked out before they even take control of the failing bank.
2) What are all these other private businesses he's taking over?
3) Capitalism is merely ownership of private property (look it up if you don't believe me). Nothing more. Free markets and everything else is shit that's added on to the concept. You may be thinking of " laissez-faire" capitalism but that's not required to be a "capitalist" nation. In any event, there have never ever been truly free markets. It's not possible to have in the real world, only on paper. I can explain why but think it through and I'm sure you can figure it out.
4) The government telling businesses what they can and can't do has occurred since the inception of the country. It has always been and always will be and has occurred in every country that has existed in all of human history. This will never change. The only difference is to the degree that it occurs. Now, you may think that him telling companies like Goldman Sachs that they are in for new regulations is inappropriate but I don't. They fucked over the country and they are being rewarded for doing it. In other words, they are asking for it.
All the regulations that exist on the books exist for one of two reasons: 1) A lobbying group successfully managed buy enough senators/congressmen to get their way, or 2) a business or particular industry fucked over enough people that congress had to do something about it to keep their jobs.
Finally, neither party gives a flying shit about capitalism, they only care about getting re-elected. The Republicans talk a good game but did you think it was a free market, capitalist idea for Bush to require Medicare by law to NOT negotiate and to pay for drugs at the maximum price while simultaneously massively increasing national debt? Bush also had no problem with oil subsidies. Parties are playing a game and that game is to keep you so confused, you don't know which way is up and they are good at it. In the end, they are in it for themselves. And trust me, they need each other. Neither party could survive a year without the other to blame for everything.
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?