Facebook Knows If You're Gay, Use Drugs, Or Are a Republican

Hugh Pickens writes writes "Not that there's anything wrong with that — as the Guardian reports that Facebook users are unwittingly revealing their sexual orientation, drug use and political beliefs– using only public 'like' updates. A study of 58,000 Facebook users in the US found that sensitive personal characteristics about people can be accurately inferred from information in the public domain. Researchers were able to accurately infer a Facebook user's race, IQ, sexuality, substance use, personality or political views (PDF) using only a record of the subjects and items they had 'liked' on Facebook – even if users had chosen not to reveal that information. 'It is good that people's behavior is predictable because it means Facebook can suggest very good stories on your news feed,' says Michal Kosinski, 'But what is shocking is that you can use the same data to predict your political views or your sexual orientation. This is something most people don't realize you can do.' For example, researchers were able to predict whether men were homosexual with 88% accuracy by their likes of Facebook pages such as 'Human Rights Campaign' and 'Wicked the Musical' – even if those users had not explicitly shared their sexuality on the site. According to the study other personality traits linked to predictive likes include for High IQ — 'The Godfather,' 'Lord of the Rings,' 'The Daily Show'; for Low IQ — 'Harley Davidson,' 'I Love Being A Mom,' 'Tyler Perry'; and for male heterosexuality — 'Wu Tang Clan,' 'Shaq,' and 'Being Confused after Waking Up from Naps.' Facebook's default privacy settings mean that your 'likes' are public to anyone and Facebook's own algorithms already use these likes to dictate what stories end up in users' news feeds, while advertisers can access them to determine which are the most effective ads to show you as you browse."

Comments

Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[Anonymous Coward]

FB incorrectly presumes that I am not str8 and like MJ, when I happen to be str8 and don't use MJ.

I just like Freedom.

All your analysis of Like proves is that you don't get how people work.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[UneducatedSixpack]

One day you will "like" something wrong...

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[Kelson]

I figure over-reliance on this sort of analysis explains why Facebook will show me ads for dating services even though it knows I'm married. I like all this geeky stuff, so obviously the advertisers assume I'm single.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[CanHasDIY]

Which is why I hit the "like" button for EVERYTHING!!!!!

FYI, I wouldn't recommend drinking from that well, considering how much I piss in it.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[Kjella]

I figure over-reliance on this sort of analysis explains why Facebook will show me ads for dating services even though it knows I'm married. I like all this geeky stuff, so obviously the advertisers assume I'm single.

That is of course one possible explanation... try again.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[Anonymous Coward]

All your analysis of Like proves is that you don't get how people work.

Excellent. I've identified another strong signal for low IQ - upvoting your post.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[ClioCJS]

Your analysis of their analysis proves that you can't analyze analyses. Being right 88% of the time means being wrong 12% of the time. It's not special that they aren't right for you.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[Beardo the Bearded]

You and me both, I've convinced Google that I'm a gay male yoga instructor.

Also, I've been shaving since 2004.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[K. S. Kyosuke]

How does gay male yoga differ from normal yoga?

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[sonnejw0]

This actually raises interesting questions about stereotypes and whether or not they are true, which I think would be a bane in the opinion of most minority groups. Stereotypes, after all, are just statistical observations. This study would seem to provide significant evidence to support stereotypes, and I think that's even more impactful on society than any privacy concerns you may have about how your public actions (in this case, 'Liking' on Facebook) portray your personal beliefs.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[crakbone]

20 to 40 percent of men on dating sites are married. http://sofalabs.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/sad-stat-20-40-percent-of-men-on-dating-sites-are-married/

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[Jafafa Hots]

I'm a non-smoker with five different "most-often-purchased" brands of cigarette.

(freebies)

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[xstonedogx]

How does gay male yoga differ from normal yoga?

In male yoga we "center our beings" by being in the back row and not doing a whole lot of actual yoga.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[ShanghaiBill]

Your analysis of their analysis proves that you can't analyze analyses. Being right 88% of the time means being wrong 12% of the time. It's not special that they aren't right for you.

Also, being "right" 88% of the time is meaningless unless you break out false positives and false negatives. It is estimated that 5-10% of the population is gay. So I could just predict that everyone is straight, and I would be "right" more than 90% of the time.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[Idbar]

This is an interesting take.

Recently a friend updated his status to something like:
I had an accident, I'm already at the hospital

I didn't know if I should laugh at the amount of people clicking on "like". Is facebook thinking all the likes meant sadist behaviors?

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[Beardo the Bearded]

That's Broga.

When men do yoga the poses are usually ones that require more strength.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[jafac]

exactly.

The more they mine data, the more they are polishing my turds.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[Fuzzums]

There must be a category for "likes everything" too, you naughty anarchist!

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[DigiShaman]

What? That the spouse is labeled as "single"? Hmmm, interesting...

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[Fuzzums]

Would be a bit scary if FB, that also knows the likes of the partner, is trying to tell you "something" by showing that kind of ads.
Or suddenly you get ads for baby stuff.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[s.petry]

Why not just never hit a like button? Sure, it's possible for Google to figure things out based on my URLs, but dang at least they have to work for that one.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[AK Marc]

Given the number of dating sites I see where they specialize in "cheating" I don't think they consider "married" and 'dating' to be exclusive.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[Sique]

Stereotypes, after all, are just statistical observations.

No. Sometimes, they are statistical observation. Sometimes they are just confirmation bias.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[fatphil]

^^^
Most informative post on the story so far. I was just about to post something similar myself, but you saved me the effort.

The middle link, to the PDF, does wave some statistical terminology in my face, but alas I don't have the stats nous to work out how interesting their claim is from is. Apparently, they give the probability of correctly working out which is which when given two people from opposite sides of a fence. Just knowing that you've got both sides of a dichotomy gives you a pretty useful dollop of information. When I've seen tests like that in the past, namely can you distinguish X from non-X, the subjects were given pairs that were X+X, X+nonX, and nonX+nonX. (See the Mythbusters episode that covered "smell of fear", IIRC, for such tests.)

It would be appreciated if someone with better stats smarts could chip in.

I'd like to get my hands on the raw data set and see if a heuristic algoritm can do better than their arithmetical one. (i.e. "obvious", as the story's tags suggest.)

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[History's Coming To]

Thanks to somebody signing up using the wrong email address (mine) internet advertising seems convinced that I'm looking for a long term relationship with a woman between 50 and 65 in the English midlands. Suits me, it saves a whole lot of suspicious looks from my 30ish girlfriend in the Scottish Highlands. I never even hit the confirm registration button. Honestly.

I also regularly search for terms on terms in Qu'ranic Islam (I'm an atheist but find it interesting) and nuclear technology (I'm a physics geek and that's one of my "things".)

The solution as far as I can see is to have really wide ranging interests.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[Runaway1956]

Ditto. Of course, I don't use Facebook for much of anything. Check on what the kids are doing from time to time, post an activist link or something - then I'm gone. Despite that, Facebook seems to have little idea who I am, or what I'm all about. The crap they think I might be interested in is so way off, it's just pathetic.

Google? I manage to trick them for the most part, but even so they manage to offer relevant stuff.

The most relevant advertisements that I see, are from Amazon, with Ebay following a close second. Of course, neither of those sites needs to track me, or infer much from the purchases that I have actually made.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[hedwards]

And how many women on these sites are really single?

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[lightknight]

Ah, the power of gossip. When everyone 'knows' what you are thinking, except it's the wrong thing, but your attempts to correct it lead to two unhappy outcomes: a lack of privacy or no change at all (the more you attempt to convince people otherwise, the more it confirms it in their eyes). Were it not for the passive aggressive nature of mankind, it might even be entertaining; but sadly, this is some people's lives...

I've noticed an interesting defense mechanism is to talk about someone else that a group can agree is deplorable, if only because it prevents active gossiping about any of the immediate members. Human beings are such ugly creatures....

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[CheetoNards]

Yea, that's not fair.

I'm sure there were many people that liked and used Michael Jackson way before Facebook. Nobody ever questioned their sexuality...

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[Kjella]

No. Sometimes, they are statistical observation. Sometimes they are just confirmation bias.

Most of the time they're just a small group that distinguish themselves so clearly. For example if you asked me to mime an American, I'd probably go for a gun-toting Texan even though I'm perfectly aware that they're hardly representative of a country of 300 million. But those other people are a lot like other people found other places, so if you're going for the uniquely American they rise to the top of the pile. Same with almost every other stereotype I can think of, they're more like a mascot or caricature than reflecting reality.

At least those based on things like country, now people of the same profession on the other hand can actually be disturbingly like their stereotype. It's something to do with the personality of people attracted to the same line of work and the cultural conformity, like a friend of mine once said after speaking at a conference for county auditors. "I went to the conference thinking it would dispel the stereotypes I had, instead I found they were all true." People have an incredible way of adjusting to what they perceive as normal and that becomes the stereotype.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[pclminion]

The more they mine data, the more they are polishing my turds.

You're just an outlier in the data. Easily identified, easily filtered out...

Coming up with a profile that is completely incorrect and undetectably so is far more difficult than just being random and contradictory.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[bornagainpenguin]

It is estimated that 5-10% of the population is gay.

Errr...actually it's less. A lot less. As a matter of fact would you believe the real number stands at slightly less than 2%?

Don't worry, almost no one in America gets this one right...

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[Jawnn]

And how many women on these sites are really single?

Meh. I want to know how many of them are really, you know... women.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[ron_ivi]

Which is why I hit the "like" button for EVERYTHING!!!!!

I wrote a browser plugin to randomly search google and randomly click on things when my computer's idle.

Gives both plausible deniability, as well as burying actual behaviour in the noise.

If there's interest, I should probably clean it up and publish it.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[MaskedSlacker]

I also regularly search for terms on terms in Qu'ranic Islam (I'm an atheist but find it interesting) and nuclear technology (I'm a physics geek and that's one of my "things".)

I hear the weather in Gitmo is great this time of year.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[YttriumOxide]

How many women on these sites are real?

Thankfully it only takes one... I met my wife on a dating site. We just celebrated our second wedding anniversary and are preparing for our daughter's birthday.

Dating sites aren't always as horrid and retched as they seem to be - they're a great way for a shy guy and a shy girl who may otherwise never have crossed paths to get together.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[thesandtiger]

Yep.

Any well designed social psych/sociology research project will have tons of ways to check for validity and consistency of data, and the more clever ones will even have ways of identifying the particular ways people will fuck with data and developing a partial profile there, too.

The vast majority of the data will be a fairly accurate representation - the user base is so large that a few "clever" people trying to piss in the well won't have any effect - they aren't even a blip - while the rest of the userbase doesn't see much point in liking random things or going against the established function of the systems.

As to the study itself - I think it will be interesting to see how the profile for any given demographic shifts over time as various things become more or less mainstream and more or less strongly associated with various demographic buckets.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[thesandtiger]

Or they know something about your marriage that you don't... Does your spouse use Facebook also?

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[MurukeshM]

Irrespective of whether you hit the like button, they know when you have visited that site. That is enough (it does show you hae in interest in the subject of the article in question).

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[Anne Thwacks]

I want this as a firefox add-on. Ideally could be persuaded to "like" all the ads blocked by ad-block, thus ensuriuing that ads continue to be easily blocked.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[TheRaven64]

Maybe they use the same recommendation algorithm as Amazon, which specialises in telling me I want to buy things in the same category as something I've just bought?

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[Neil Boekend]

It might simply be detecting unhappiness about the current situation.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[tehcyder]

I also regularly search for terms on terms in Qu'ranic Islam (I'm an atheist but find it interesting) and nuclear technology (I'm a physics geek and that's one of my "things".)

I hear the weather in Gitmo is great this time of year.

Here in the UK it's not yet illegal to be a Muslim, although no doubt after the next election when UKIP/EDL are in coalition that will change.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[tehcyder]

The vast majority of the data will be a fairly accurate representation - the user base is so large that a few "clever" people trying to piss in the well won't have any effect

Yes, but so what? If it turns out that, on average, 95% of people who watch Top Gear are heterosexual and 95% of people who watch Glee are homosexual, if I like both it proves absolutely nothing about me.

And averages of society as a whole are just interesting sociological information, not the basis for individual persecution.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[tehcyder]

What happens when it says you "like" a page about signing up to train in an Al Qaeda camp in the Yemen, or a page that promotes the compulsory rape of six year olds?

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[tehcyder]

Maybe they use the same recommendation algorithm as Amazon, which specialises in telling me I want to buy things in the same category as something I've just bought?

That would make sense if OP spent a lot of time on facebook searching for mail order brides, otherwise, not so much.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[tehcyder]

At least those based on things like country, now people of the same profession on the other hand can actually be disturbingly like their stereotype. It's something to do with the personality of people attracted to the same line of work and the cultural conformity, like a friend of mine once said after speaking at a conference for county auditors. "I went to the conference thinking it would dispel the stereotypes I had, instead I found they were all true." People have an incredible way of adjusting to what they perceive as normal and that becomes the stereotype.

Just because you act like a county auditor at conferences and at work, does not mean that's how you are at home or relaxing at the weekend with friends.

If you're in a profession like surgeon, teacher or lawyer, you have to act sober and serious when you're working. It doesn't mean you're not an individual human being who gets drunk and goes snowboarding on holiday.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[tehcyder]

Why not just never hit a like button?

Well, why not just never use facebook then?

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[History's Coming To]

Exactly. That's the point. I'm not. Algorithms can believe whatever they want, but they're still based on naive, broad-ranging stereotypes. It gets worse - to take an example from the article, I'm also a fan of musical theatre, but somehow not gay....wonder how that works?

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[shikaisi]

If it turns out that, on average, 95% of people who watch Top Gear are heterosexual and 95% of people who watch Glee are homosexual, if I like both it proves absolutely nothing about me.

Except that now we all know you are bisexual.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[sckeener]

I figure over-reliance on this sort of analysis explains why Facebook will show me ads for dating services even though it knows I'm married. I like all this geeky stuff, so obviously the advertisers assume I'm single.

where's the 'like' button when you want it?!

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[njnnja]

A good classifier will take into account interactions as well, so if 80% of the people who like both Top Gear and Glee are heterosexual, then they can still get some predictive power. Further, if 90% of people from your city are heterosexual, they could take that into account as well. And that doesn't consider the internal stuff that Facebook knows (and can sell to advertisers), such as the demographic profile of the people near your IP address.

It's not just averages of society, it is individual profiling. At it's most benign, it will target ads that it thinks your demographic profile will be most responsive too, but at it's worst, it could certainly be (mis-)used for individual persecution.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[i kan reed]

With respect to google: adblock(firefox version, the chrome version does nothing) + duckduckgo limits how far they can follow me.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[drinkypoo]

You're just an outlier in the data. Easily identified, easily filtered out...

Coming up with a profile that is completely incorrect and undetectably so is far more difficult than just being random and contradictory.

But that's not the bar. You only need to come up with a profile that is meaningfully incorrect and yet won't trip some sort of agent.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[CanHasDIY]

Considering that he specifically noted it pulls results from Google, I think that would be the point at which someone sends them a strongly worded letter.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Facebook Knows If You Are Gay, Use Drugs, Or Are a Republican.

and/or

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I figure over-reliance on this sort of analysis explains why Facebook will show me ads for dating services even though it knows I'm married. I like all this geeky stuff, so obviously the advertisers assume I'm single.

Not only do I get dating service ads despite telling Facebook I'm married, I get android ads despite telling Facebook I work at apple.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[allo]

> Which is why I hit the "like" button for EVERYTHING!!!!!
thats exactly wrong. Then facebook knows, whats everything for you. So they know all of your environment, because you clicked like on everything YOU saw, but of course not on things, you did not see.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[interkin3tic]

Also, I've been shaving since 2004.

This is not the first time I've seen you admit that you are no longer bearded. If I knew that, surely google knows that.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[Chris Mattern]

Well, why not just never use facebook then?

Sounds good to me.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[DQKennard]

I had an accident, I'm already at the hospital

Did the people who "liked" that hospital status start seeing flower delivery services in their sidebar ads?

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[danlip]

The real goal is advertising, and I am sure advertisers will pay extra for targeted advertising that is only 95% accurate. Heck, they'd probably pay for 55%.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[Bob the Super Hamste]

They would probably pay good money for advertising that is 10% accurate. At this point the accuracy of targeted advertising over random advertising (broad cast over TV for example) is like using an improved cylinder choke instead of cylinder bore in a shotgun.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[Medievalist]

You're just an outlier in the data. Easily identified, easily filtered out...

I, on the other hand, am not in the data.

That's how I stopped those RUMOKO terrorists, you know.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[peawormsworth]

You and me both, I've convinced Google that I'm a gay male yoga instructor.

Picking such a specific persona says something about you

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[computererds]

I would say there is interest, I would certainly like a random Google searcher to add noise to recording.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[Common Joe]

That's a very high percentage, but I have an anecdotal story that may shed a little light on that.

A number of years ago back when I was in college, I was in a statistics math class. It was the only math class I found easy in college. Two girls (a blond and brunette) and I formed a friendship that semester. They quickly realized I could help them with math and I decided that since others had helped me in my other math classes, I should help others where I could.

The blond became flirtatious with me. I was pretty well convinced she had a thing for me. I wasn't the only one who noticed. The brunette understood my background as a nerd, understood that I had learned to be better in my social skills (making friends was becoming easier), but also understood that asking girls out was not easy for me. She heavily encouraged me to ask the blond out. About eight or so weeks into the semester, I did.

"I have a live-in boyfriend." Talk about a punch in the gut. When I reported back to the brunette, she was utterly confused too. In all those weeks we were together, she never once mentioned to either of us that she had a boyfriend.

I went to a guy friend of mine who was a couple of years older than me. We never really hung out together (different interests), but our families are close, we grew up together, and we are good friends. He was also really good at picking up women. I asked him what kind of game the blond was playing. He said she was probably in a bad relationship and thinking about getting out of it. She wanted to know if she was still attractive and I was her test.

It was an interesting idea. I have no idea if my friend was right or not. A few days later, I told the blond that I didn't appreciate what she had done, but that I'd continue helping her with math if she wanted. She took me up on the offer, but I let the friendship cool between us. I didn't trust her anymore. The brunette couldn't understand why I continued to help the blond. In all the weeks I was with the blond, it was because it was the only falsehood that I detected from her (and my B.S. detector -- like most people on Slashdot -- is pretty good). I knew from the look on her face that she realized she made a mistake. She let a nice guy slip through her games. Neither of us talked about it after that. She learned from her mistake and I learned about life from her. In a sense, we were even.

Coming back to the parent's post: I don't understand why so many married guys go to dating sites. I'm in a very happy 12-year marriage. Today, looking at a couple of my friends who are thinking about divorce or have a very rocky marriage, I suspect that my guy friend was on to something. A really bad marriage with an emotionally abusive wife could lead guys to turn to something like a dating site to boost their self esteem -- just like the blond might have been doing with me. This means it may also cut the other way with gals and an abusive husband. It's an interesting idea, but I have no scientific data I can show to back it up.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[jalopezp]

It works because the algorithm only claims to be correct 88% of the time, and because musical theatre is not the only variable that is considered. One counterexample - especially when it's likely that the only people that voice their views are the ones that don't fit in the model - does not make statistics.

Re:Knows and Presumes are not the same thing

[jalopezp]

Likes are public information, so it's not necessary facebook. Also, it neither knows nor presumes anything about you. It can merely predict with 60-93% accuracy certain dichotomous/dichotomised traits.

Also

[mozumder]

You can tell that just by talking to people.

Re:Also

[mozumder]

and i'm pretty sure your credit card companies already knows these things just from your purchase habits.

Re:Also

[s.petry]

Well, credit card companies are probably digging all the information. Insurance agencies also. Guess who gets a higher premium in their life insurance? Guess who gets better credit?

Re:Also

[powerlinekid]

They only know where you shop, not what exactly you buy.

Re:Also

[s.petry]

If you buy with a credit card, they get the invoice so yes.. they know what you purchase as well as from where.

Re:Also

[houghi]

Well, credit card companies are probably digging all the information.

In Belgium that would be illegal. Also there are very specific laws about who does and does not get a credit.
In fact in Belgium it is more designed to NOT give people credit then it is to give people credit.
And that is a good thing. Why give people credit who are unable to pay it back later? Not good for the company. Not good for the person.

What the companies look at is how many cards you already have. How many other credit you already have. How much your income is and other financial information. With that they either give or give not a card.

And if you want to buy a house, very often this means canceling your credit card(s).

So you do not get a better credit, you get a higher credit, depending on your situation. And if you use that to live from, you are an idiot. Borrow some money from the bank if you need it. Much cheaper.

Oh and in Europe, you need to pay back your card completely once in a while. That is the law. So no continuous credit and paying back of loans.

And if you're a gay drug using Republican

[Anonymous Coward]

They have a job for you at Facebook.

Turns out

[WillgasM]

Turns out, I'm gay. Even Facebook knew it before I did.

Re:Turns out

[Anonymous Coward]

*phew* close call, you could have been a republican!

Re:Turns out

[KingSkippus]

Funny, but it does make me wonder. While I'm not gay, I do tend to like statuses and pages that have to do with gay rights, and several of my friends on Facebook are gay, yet I still see ads all the time for single ladies in my area. It makes me wonder: 1) Has Facebook accurately pegged me as straight (or bisexual) even though I haven't given it any direct indication of what I am, 2) has Facebook not made the connection and/or advertisers don't care, just spamming their ads to all males, or 3) is Facebook using some other algorithm that happens to be accurate for me, but generally less accurate for the population as a whole? Personally, I think #2 is correct.

I'd like to see a page about me that says, "Here's the information you've provided, and here's the information we're inferring from what we know about you." I suppose they'd never do that because it might very well creep people out too much, but then, it might get people whose inferences are wrong to directly supply the information to them.

Re:Turns out

[246o1]

I'd like to see a page about me that says, "Here's the information you've provided, and here's the information we're inferring from what we know about you." I suppose they'd never do that because it might very well creep people out too much, but then, it might get people whose inferences are wrong to directly supply the information to them.

BlueKai does something similar (except it's for a wide range of display advertising, not just facebook) - they infer things about you based on your browsing history and use that to target ads at you. They are all over the web, so they have a good amount of information, but the surprising thing to me is that they let you look at your profile on their website - http://www.bluekai.com/registry/ is the place to find it.

I don't work for BlueKai, or even for a company that uses them.

Re:Turns out

[The_Revelation]

Clearly your not a fan of Wu Tang or Shaq.... and you know what? I'm glad that these two equally talentless groups of people are now the benchmark for hetrosexuality. Keep it classy, Facebook Analytics!

Re:Turns out

[game kid]

Wait 'til they study RPG character creation. By extrapolation from the Wicked findings and my female mage frequency, they'll conclude I'm the chair of glaad and late to the next board meeting.

Re:Turns out

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a Republican Gay Man, you insensitive clod! I oppose gay marriage only because I don't want us homosexuals to have to be as unhappy as you heterosexuals!

Re:Turns out

[DigiShaman]

Log Cabin Republicans. Such a group exists.

Re:Turns out

[fatphil]

If he's gay he could well be a closet Republican that's in denial.

Re:Turns out

[Nossie]

I have discovered they apparently know nothing about me..

+1 no script /ghostery

Re:Turns out

[Sporkinum]

Same here. I even went to their test site page and refreshed, which confirmed all my filters are working as they should. At least for them.

Re:Turns out

[c4tp]

Warning: don't google Log Cabin Republican unless you want Google to know what you are.

Re:Turns out

[xski]

Why couldn't I have mod points today...

Re:Turns out

[barakn]

Shaq.. because devotion to an enormously huge black man is surely a sign of heterosexuality.

Re:Turns out

[demonlapin]

Hardly strange. My wife and I are socially liberal Republicans; we're not the majority of the party but we aren't unique either. We're friends with a very traditional, very Republican lesbian couple. (Like, ridiculously so. One of them took the other's last name when they got married.)

Re:Turns out

[demonlapin]

Pro gay rights isn't a gay opinion. Pro musicals is. Easy enough?

Re:Turns out

[nametaken]

I don't know why people think it's so impossible. It's only about as strange as liberal gun owners... of which there are millions.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that people have opinions on more than one thing, at the very same time.

Re:Turns out

[demonlapin]

Yeah, it's bizarre.

Re:Turns out

[kiwimate]

I'd like to see a page about me that says, "Here's the information you've provided, and here's the information we're inferring from what we know about you."

Go to your account settings and choose to download your expanded archive. (You can also download an abbreviated version.) If you just click on "settings" it's at the bottom of the "General" settings, which is the default page - nice and easy to find.

Be aware it takes quite some time to collect all the info for the expanded archive - they tell you to continue browsing and they'll email you when it's done. Have fun seeing your account history. I'm quite sure it won't show what they're inferring, but then neither will Google's data access.

Re:Turns out

[Black Parrot]

If he's gay he could well be a closet Republican that's in denial.

Maybe he can be cured of his Republicanism!

They cure Teh Gey with the traditional "laying on of hands". (Presumably if it doesn't give you a boner, they know you're cured.)

Similarly, they cure Teh Republicanism by burying you in money. If it doesn't give you a boner, you're not a Republican anymore.

Re:Turns out

[GoogleShill]

There is absolutely nothing "socially liberal" about the Republican party. Are you just following the party that your parents taught you to follow, or do you lack any sense of critical thought?

Anyone who claims to be a Republican or a Democrat is an idiot. You are following a group of other people's ideals, not your own. When the party changes, you follow them, regardless of where their ideals may have shifted.

Think for yourself, don't align yourself with a party and vote based on your own morals and a candidate's voting record. Calling yourself a "socially liberal Republican" is calling yourself a hypocrite, because such a thing does not exist. That's a fact, and the voting record of every Republican in DC proves that.

Re:Turns out

[demonlapin]

Okey dokey. Thanks for the update.

Re:Turns out

[tehcyder]

My wife and I are socially liberal Republicans

I assume you're one of theose "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" types who thinks they're a libertarian because they smoked dope at Harvard before taking over daddy's bank?

Re:Turns out

[Nossie]

And this here fellow /. readers is a prime example of a pedantic troll with no social skills.

Instead of saying 'I don't use either but it shows nothing for me, btw - did you know ghostery is ad industry funded and here is why?'

You attempt to belittle me for choosing the tool-set I do and provide absolutely no evidence to support your claims

http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/31/ghostery-a-web-tracking-blocker-that-actually-helps-the-ad-industry/

There, I just gave you one because I'm kind - any proof they are doing anything nefarious? like oh I don't know - adblock that whitelists people that pay?
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/02/05/reddit-whitelisted-by-adblock-plus-for-using-acceptable-online-advertisements/
http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/adblock-plus-accused-of-shaking-down-websites/

OMG, I provided another source - are you learning yet?

So troll, go back to your lynx browser - I have to wonder what the domain rpxnow.com knows about you though :)

Re:Turns out

[Nossie]

thank you for the information... after some googling though - I still can't find anything nefarious that ghostery is actually doing? It's probably a good idea to move away from this service but is there a smoking gun yet?

Are they doing anymore than no script or adblock when it comes to being selective about what they block or collect?

Re:Turns out

[demonlapin]

Nope. Nice try, though.

Re:Turns out

[ChrisMaple]

Being a Republican or a Democrat means you are registered to vote as such AND NOTHING MORE . This allows you to vote in the respective primaries and affect that party's policies thereby.

Re:Turns out

[ChrisMaple]

"Socially liberal Republicans" fall into two categories: 1. Rinos. 2. People who mind their own business and aren't thieves.

Re:Turns out

[demonlapin]

Probably. Why not sign in? For all you know, we're neighbors.

Re:Turns out

[KingSkippus]

It shouldn't be, but statistically speaking, you're wrong. Don't confuse stereotyping individuals (which may or may not be a factually correct assessment of someone, depending on the individual) with aggregate data collection (which can be proven to be statistically valid). Most people who actively associate themselves with gay rights are gay. That is in no way saying that no straight person does so, or that most straight people aren't for gay rights (which has become the case in only the last decade). It's only saying that those people marching in gay rights parades? They are predominantly gay. If you pull someone out of the parade, they might or might not be gay. But if you want to advertise, for example, a heterosexual dating service, you'd probably be better off targeting a different event demographically.

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

...stereotypes happen for a reason?

But

[Master Moose]

The highest intelligence indicator were the users who ignored everything, revealed very little and never "liked" anything - knowing that anything they did on facebook would be mined and used for metrics and marketing.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Not Intelligent, just paranoid. Kinda like posting anonymously on Slashdot.

Re:But

[dwywit]

Wouldn't the "highest intelligence indicator" be applied to those who don't "do" facebook, twitter, etc?
 
Or did I just miss something flying over my head?

Re:But

[rsborg]

Wouldn't the "highest intelligence indicator" be applied to those who don't "do" facebook, twitter, etc?

Or did I just miss something flying over my head?

You aren't missing it, but aren't seeing the totality of Facebook's insidious nature. Now not having a Facebook account is treated by HR departments as suspicious behavior. Also, Facebook made it easy for people to "tag" you - if you don't have an account, you can't repudiate it (or prevent tagging by default). You are literally forced to play their game unless you want your good name being abused. So best move is to have one that's effectively empty, and turn all privacy settings down to the most private.

Of course this defeats the purpose of having a Facebook account - but that's the purpose, right?

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no intelligence left on facebook. I routinely campaign for my co-habitating "things" (Do I call them human?) to not use facebook and delete their profiles, stop playing their dumb-ass facebook games and start getting "involved in their economy and government".

They facebook, smoke, drink, and whine about how the government and corporate monopolies are oppressive, rather then considering doing anything about it. They also pretend to garden. Which is ironic because they would starve if walmart and publix did not exist.

They also procreated.

I bet you can deduce a lot from what I have to say. But humans are a dumb species in general. I have met smarter animals, usually large predators that don't hang out near people in plain site are smarter then most people.

Re:But

[gl4ss]

in other news my 3 other personalities are super intelligent, because they've never liked a single thing or shared even a real seeming name on fb.

stupid study all and all. of course you can make an educated guess that someone who has twenty likes for different marijuana pages might think that marijuana is cool and if he's a male and has marked himself as seeking men and has attended the gayfest2012 at bar supergay then maybe, just maybe, he's gay. or someone has been fucking around with his computer. or you can try to guess it from liking my little pony but that type of likes don't really end up telling much.

but if you never reveal anything, never show support for anything - what's the point in having an online presence? is this really taking the never talk to the cops video to the extreme? never talk to anyone publicly on record? never sign a petition for anything? HOW FUCKING FUCKED UP ARE AMERICANS TODAY?

Re:But

[Spy Handler]

The highest intelligence indicator were the people who never joined facebook and want nothing to do with it.

However, people with the lowest IQ who cannot learn to operate a computer or a phone also were not able to join Facebook.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Now not having a Facebook account is treated by HR departments as suspicious behavior.

Frankly, any HR department that really thinks this can go fuck itself with an iron stick.

I think this is a myth the media is pushing to try to get more people on Facebook.

Re:But

[Kjella]

but if you never reveal anything, never show support for anything - what's the point in having an online presence? is this really taking the never talk to the cops video to the extreme? never talk to anyone publicly on record? never sign a petition for anything? HOW FUCKING FUCKED UP ARE AMERICANS TODAY?

Facebook invitations is the only reason I care to have a profile there. If you want to get to know me, get to know me don't be a Facebook stalker. At least there's nothing I feel like broadcasting to all the "friends" I have there, nor does 99.9% of what shows up there interest me. I could go through it I suppose and hide everything but the people I actually care about hearing something from it's always awkward if you're on Facebook and didn't see some major event a semi-close friend posted because you've hidden them. My profile is a wasteland, I never post status updates and I never comment or like anything anyone else wrote so if anybody asks, no I don't read your (or anybody else's Facebook).

Re:But

[GumphMaster]

Now not having a Facebook account is treated by HR departments as suspicious behavior.

This, I fear, is quite believable given some of the looks of incredulity I have had when asked by HR for my mobile (cell, for our American brethren) number. I politely decline on the grounds that I neither own nor want a mobile phone. One HR drone even accused me of being dishonest because it was so far beyond her youthful experience as to be unbelievable that one could survive without a mobile. Heck, our home phone when I was a child was made of bakelite and had a handle on the front you turned vigorously to get the operator's attention: our complete phone number was "78". (For the record I am only 45.)

Re:But

[joelleo]

I wish _I_ had a risk-benefit radio :( All I have are these stoopid actuarial tables :(

Re:But

[fyngyrz]

risk-benefit radio

The risk is that you'll hear Rush Limpballs; the benefit is that you can clout him with the radio. Is that it?

Re:But

[ClioCJS]

Goddamnit.

lol :)

Re:But

[vux984]

Tagging if you don't have an account is pretty meaningless because the tags aren't attached to your account. Its just a name attached to that picture.

Facebook made it easy for people to "tag" you -

Last I heard, it was quite a bit easier to tag friends on your contact list then non-users who don't have accounts. So the odds of being tagged go down if you don't have an account.

Now not having a Facebook account is treated by HR departments as suspicious behavior. [...] So best move is to have one that's effectively empty, and turn all privacy settings down to the most private.

And then HR just assumes you have another account you aren't showing them.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

You weren't trolling for a reaction. That's your backup excuse for when you get called out on the stupid things you said in complete earnest. And it never fools anyone. Not even yourself.

Re:But

[s.petry]

I agree. Especially when I hear the constant "follow us on Facebook and Twitter" plugs on every major news agency. Twitter would be fine for members of an active revolution or something.. but not day to day contact and communication. I don't care when you fart or how good your hamburger tasted. Most other people don't care either. The delusions of grandeur we can access so easily, and yes that is what many people use it for.

Re:But

[fyngyrz]

I swear, sometimes the most amusing things I see in a day are either typos or auto-corrections. :)

Re:But

[DerekLyons]

Or did I just miss something flying over my head?

No. But you did just reveal deep ignorance and unfounded bias.

Re:But

[Master Moose]

I would mod you up if I could.. Well said. . .

Re:But

[ClioCJS]

Indeed. Now I want the radio.

Re:But

[DerekLyons]

The highest intelligence indicator were the people who never joined facebook and want nothing to do with it.

Three quarters of the Mensa members I know use Facebook. I know a lot of *very* smart and intelligent people, and the vast majority of them are on Facebook too.
 
Seriously Slashdot, get the fuck over yourself - this ignorant bias against anyone who uses Facebook doesn't make you intelligent, it makes you look like a jackass.

Re:But

[ClioCJS]

Too bad about my typo, though....

Re:But

[Wovel]

I agree with your sentiment, but Mensa? Really?

Re:But

[dwywit]

Perhaps I should have used better language, or a smiley face.
 
I WAS JOKING! Sheesh.

Re:But

[dwywit]

IT WAS A JOKE!
 
Perhaps we really do need some markup tags for jokes, sarcasm, irony, and for you, sir, condescension.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Mensa is for a special class of genius. It makes sense that that same segment would gravitate to Face Book.

Re:But

[betterprimate]

Three quarters of the Mensa members I know use Facebook.

Mensa is club for moderately stupid people who have altogether failed at life and need to sustain a false sense of self worth. Anyone who is willing to join a club for this will likely use Facebook for the same purpose.

I know a lot of *very* smart and intelligent people, and the vast majority of them are on Facebook too.

No. No, you don't. No one intelligent uses Facebook for *personal* use.

Seriously Slashdot, get the fuck over yourself - this ignorant bias against anyone who uses Facebook doesn't make you intelligent, it makes you look like a jackass.

You sound insecure.

Re:But

[demonlapin]

My online presence exists for my convenience, not others'.

Re:But

[demonlapin]

Back when they had cheap student rates, it was worth it for the puzzles in the newsletters.

Re:But

[Black Parrot]

The highest intelligence indicator were the users who ignored everything, revealed very little and never "liked" anything - knowing that anything they did on facebook would be mined and used for metrics and marketing.

It would be interesting to see the correlation on that. I know that geeks who choose to ignore Facebook (or social gatherings all around) think that it is an high intelligence indicator, but the facts might surprise.

Which raises the question: What can they tell about people who don't use Facebook?

Re:But

[Black Parrot]

I agree. Especially when I hear the constant "follow us on Facebook and Twitter" plugs on every major news agency.

Or you buy something trivial on line and get a button to automatically post what you bought to some popular social networking site.

Re:But

[Black Parrot]

Wouldn't the "highest intelligence indicator" be applied to those who don't "do" facebook, twitter, etc?

Or did I just miss something flying over my head?

Well, you obviously miss the social networks flying over your head. If they are not for you, great, but equating your choice with greater intelligence is kind of condescending isn't it?

Maybe it's just a sign that he's got a life.

Re:But

[Black Parrot]

My online presence exists for my convenience, not others'.

Heresy! Somebody delete that post before the idea spreads!

Re:But

[Toonol]

You're not understanding your value as an example. It's not in the way you'd like to think.

Re:But

[Toonol]

People who are smart usually have a low emotional IQ, but thats not necessarily true.

I'd say it's usually not true. Smart people often have excellent emotional insight. There's just a particular class of easily recognized high-IQ, low-EQ individuals (who all hang out at Slashdot, of course). Those people, partially because of their low EQ, think that low EQ correlates with high IQ... probably because that describes them, their friends, and most of the people they work with.

There are marvelously intelligent businessmen, politicians, artists, even actors... but because they may have stronger emotional sensibilities than us, they express their intelligence in different ways.

Re:But

[Toonol]

Granted, it was a joke. The trouble is, there are not just a few people on slashdot who will gladly and vociferously proclaim their superiority because they don't have a facebook account, don't have a cellphone, or don't own a television. You've got to give us some clue that you aren't deadly and arrogantly serious. I suggest the sarcasm punctuation mark: '~'. As in:

A new punctuation mark. That'll catch on~

Re:But

[QRDeNameland]

Wouldn't the "highest intelligence indicator" be applied to those who don't "do" facebook, twitter, etc?

Or did I just miss something flying over my head?

It was the new FaceDrone, remotely piloted by Zuckerberg himself, screaming "Let's see you opt out now, motherfucker!!"

Re:But

[DerekLyons]

Or maybe people should stop making lame, ignorant, 'jokes' that are anything but funny. Or sarcastic. Or ironic.

Don't blame other people for your own fuckup.

Re:But

[DerekLyons]

ROTFLMAO.

Re:But

[xenobyte]

Mensa is for a special class of genius. It makes sense that that same segment would gravitate to Face Book.

Trailer Park Genius?

When I went to the University of Copenhagen doing my major in Computer Science, we formed "Manse", an alternative to Mensa - for those smart enough not to be affiliated with Mensa... Basically we did t-shirts and had some awesome parties... but all members were actually qualified for Mensa; none had IQs below 130 and most of us above 150. The name "Manse" is of course a lame anagram for "Mensa" but also a very funny male name often seen used for submissive somewhat effeminate husbands from the upper class.
 

Re:But

[tokencode]

Most truly intelligent people do not need to join a club to proclaim their intelligence.... it should be self-evident.

Re:But

[stretch0611]

I don't care when you fart or how good your hamburger tasted.

I don't blame you for not caring. However, I know for a fact that my co-workers do care when I fart.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, it's not a myth. I applied for a job at a well known automotive manufacturer and was fastidiously internet stalked by their VP of marketing. The interview went well, I was introduced to the entire team, he told me point blank that I had the job and he'd call me the next day to extend a salary offer, but instead he ambushed me by asking about my internet presence, saying that I was too hard to track down and asking why I didn't have a Facebook account. I hung up on him...

Re:But

[stretch0611]

Now not having a Facebook account is treated by HR departments as suspicious behavior. Also, Facebook made it easy for people to "tag" you - if you don't have an account, you can't repudiate it (or prevent tagging by default). You are literally forced to play their game unless you want your good name being abused. So best move is to have one that's effectively empty, and turn all privacy settings down to the most private.

NO NO NO!!! The way to fight this crap is to never deal with facebook.

You are telling people to follow the masses in order to save yourself. This NEVER works. It will just reinforce the problems you describe and make not having an account even more suspicious.

If you have an account, delete it - permanently. If a hr rep asks you why you do not have an account tell them that you place no value in having one, and you would rather spend your time productively. (i.e. show them why it is an asset not to conform.)

If a business requires you to "like" them on facebook for discounts, tell the owner that you will go to the competition which doesn't treat you like cattle. (The second you "like" a business, or use its apps, is the second they have open season on your personal information.)

Once society realizes that there is a large amount of people that do not want facebook and will never get facebook, can we stop this bullshit that everyone needs it.

Re:But

[tehcyder]

I bet you can deduce a lot from what I have to say.

You're a bitter college drop-out with mild self-diagnosed Asperger's, your parents told you that you were special because you once got over 120 on an IQ test after they force fed you answers for three straight weeks, you're puritanical in your outlook on life despite thinking of yourself as socially progressive, and (above all) you need to get laid?

Re:But

[tehcyder]

There are plenty of intelligent people who use facebook and twitter. There are rather more unintelligent people who use facebook and twitter, because there are rather more unintelligent than intelligent people in the world and a high percentage of the population uses them.

Re:But

[tehcyder]

I agree. Especially when I hear the constant "follow us on Facebook and Twitter" plugs on every major news agency.

Or you buy something trivial on line and get a button to automatically post what you bought to some popular social networking site.

Who's forcing you to click on that button?

But I really couldn't care less if Facebook knows I just bought a new charger for my phone.

Re:But

[tehcyder]

The highest intelligence indicator were the people who never joined facebook and want nothing to do with it.

And the highest smug indicator were [sic] the people who posted the fact that they don't have a facebook account on slashdot.

Re:But

[tehcyder]

The name "Manse" is of course a lame anagram for "Mensa" but also a very funny male name often seen used for submissive somewhat effeminate husbands from the upper class.

Oh, how you must have laughed at your own wit!

Re:But

[ToddInSF]

From the article you've quoted :

"Perhaps more important, Facebook users have slightly more close confidents (2.16) than non-users (1.93). Confidents are defined as "people with whom they discuss important matters.""

Also from the same article :

"N for full sample 2,255 and margin of error is +/- 2.3 percantage ponts. N for facebook users-877 and margin of error is +/- 3.6 percentage points."

So, yeah, people who don't use FB at all are more intelligent.

At least, arguably, intelligent enough to regard such small sample sizes and such large margins of error as rendering the very slight significance of social network users as being somehow anything but more *needy* when it comes to the kind of *insulated* "social interaction" provided through the internet !

Of course social networks are just a tool, any tool can be used intelligently, or foolishly. Mostly social networks are used foolishly by people who are foolish for thinking that their constant status updates and "likes" are some kind of significant or meaningful "social" interaction.

Re:But

[dwywit]

Okey doke - I have a mobile phone (a Nokia 3315 - it meets my needs and I want to see how long it will last), my wife and son have facebook accounts and mobile phones, but /., tech research and video editing/production take up enough of my time, I can't afford to spend hours, even minutes of a day on facebook, twitter, or even linkedin - and I really don't give a toss about people who do - I don't care one way or the other until it starts to affect me. We have a 55" LCD TV and a foxtel subscription, but the few watchable channels aren't worth the money, so I won't renew it. We have a collection of DVDs, and some decent catch-up/streaming services (e.g. www.abc.net.au/iview), so that'll serve my entertainment needs.
 
You're right - using a sarcasm tag would have been much quicker.

Re:But

[fyngyrz]

Maybe I can help you out. Works under OSX or Windows. Free.

I could even provide you with a recording of a portion of the AM band including one or more stations where Rush is afflicting the spectrum, so you could repeatedly hit the mute button, lol...

Re:But

[ClioCJS]

hahaha nice

Okay... I just had to read the wiki for SDR. Wow...

Do I have to have hardware to use this? I only have an FM transmitter, and it's not attached directly to my computer anyway... (SPDIF/optical out into SPDIF/optical splitter into DA converter into ground loop buzz isolator into FM transmitter)

Re:But

[rsborg]

Now not having a Facebook account is treated by HR departments as suspicious behavior.

This, I fear, is quite believable given some of the looks of incredulity I have had when asked by HR for my mobile (cell, for our American brethren) number. I politely decline on the grounds that I neither own nor want a mobile phone. One HR drone even accused me of being dishonest because it was so far beyond her youthful experience as to be unbelievable that one could survive without a mobile. Heck, our home phone when I was a child was made of bakelite and had a handle on the front you turned vigorously to get the operator's attention: our complete phone number was "78". (For the record I am only 45.)

Of course, the workaround in this day and age is to give out your Google Voice (or CallingVault / Phonebooth ) number. You can whitelist callers or just turn off ringing and have a cloud voicemail (as I did when I was hiring - all calls went to VM and got transcribed, so I could just grep the messages). I never give out my cell to business relationships, unless I really know the person. This way I can give out my number but ignore inbound calls if I choose.

Re:But

[Common Joe]

However, I know for a fact that my co-workers do care when I fart.

I had a good laugh, but somehow, I don't think you publicize a warning on twitter or facebook when you drop an SBD. I think you just let them discover the surprise on their own.

"Facebook knows if you're Republican"

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Re:"Facebook knows if you're Republican"

[stillpixel]

nothing wrong with being batshit crazy.. nope not at all.

Re:"Facebook knows if you're Republican"

[fustakrakich]

Hey, for the right price anybody will wear the red nose.

Cultural bias much?

[aristotle-dude]

What the hell do any of those listed have to do with male heterosexuality? All it shows is that you are an American with narcolepsy. Shouldn't they be looking for likes of certain types of pictures and jokes?

Re:Cultural bias much?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell do any of those listed have to do with male heterosexuality? All it shows is that you are an American with narcolepsy. Shouldn't they be looking for likes of certain types of pictures and jokes?

They are looking for signals documented across a sample population, not stereotype indicators. The signal for being gay might as well be that you like blue cars, skiing and basketball, in combination, if that is what the statistics show. The signals doesn't necessarily have any obvious meanings in themselves.

Re:Cultural bias much?

[fermion]

Hence the 12% error rate. This is a game or a means to allow advertisers to target users. It is really no different that assuming your status based on the neighborhood you live in. Or your intentions based on the bars you visit. I pretty much know if you gay, a frat boy, looking for rich husband, based on what I bar I see you in.

Re:Cultural bias much?

[aristotle-dude]

What the hell do any of those listed have to do with male heterosexuality? All it shows is that you are an American with narcolepsy. Shouldn't they be looking for likes of certain types of pictures and jokes?

They are looking for signals documented across a sample population, not stereotype indicators. The signal for being gay might as well be that you like blue cars, skiing and basketball, in combination, if that is what the statistics show. The signals doesn't necessarily have any obvious meanings in themselves.

Right. I have no clue what 'Wu Tang Clan,' 'Shaq,' and 'Being Confused after Waking Up from Naps.' are referencing because I am a Canadian and I am over 30. Even if I did know what they were about, I would think "liking" dirty jokes concerning blonde women and suggestive pictures with scantily clad women would be a better indication of your preferences than some arbitrary crap that some 20 something kids in Southern California happen to like at the moment.

Re:Cultural bias much?

[styrotech]

Right. I have no clue what 'Wu Tang Clan,' 'Shaq,' and 'Being Confused after Waking Up from Naps.' are referencing because I am a Canadian and I am over 30. Even if I did know what they were about, I would think "liking" dirty jokes concerning blonde women and suggestive pictures with scantily clad women would be a better indication of your preferences than some arbitrary crap that some 20 something kids in Southern California happen to like at the moment.

I suspect the reason you don't know much about Wu Tang Clan and Shaq is more likely to be because you are too young, rather than too old :)

I'm in my 40s, and they were well known when I was a 20 something kid before Al Gore had even built the internet. And I'm nowhere near Southern California (or the US). Definitely not my scene back then - although the Samoan and Tongan kids lapped it up.

I had no idea they were still around.

But as for that naps thing - no idea.

Re:Cultural bias much?

[aristotle-dude]

Nah. Liking overtly hetero stuff is a clear indication you're trying to hard and in denial. Unless it's twinned with an indication of a room temperature IQ.

I really don't care if you are a backdoor pirate. That is your business and please keep it to yourself thanks. Seriously live your life however you wish but just keep it to yourself. Let me let you in on a little secret. Those guys that talk about how much they are scoring with the ladies are probably gay. I don't talk about my social life because I'm not looking for approval from other men let alone anyone else. The average straight guy is like that. We are the silent majority. Why would a straight guy want to impress other men with their apparent sexual prowess? Think about that for a minute. Mind blown? Was it too far over your head?

Room temperature? Is your IQ measured in fahrenheit or celsius?

I'm personally a social conservative, a supporter of some libertarian ideas, a supporter of economic freedom (capitalism) and social giving. I believe in the redistribution of wealth through social giving by acts of "free will" rather than coercion through the state. The church was originally communist. That is not the same the so-called "communist" parties which were actually extreme socialists. True communism is compatible with christianity and capitalism because it allows individuals to share the wealth they generate through honest work and/or honest enterprise with those in need. The early church shared everything in common and gave to those in need. Socialism requires a large state apparatus because it functions through control of all of the means of production and coerces everyone to "share" even with those who are able but unwilling to work. But actual communism is not about the state but rather a community who agree to "share" with each other collectively.

Socialism is NOT compatible with christianity because socialism supports a tyrannical state that forces people to hand over all of the means of production and it does not promote an honest work ethic.

Re:Cultural bias much?

[Toonol]

You might think that, but the numbers plus some math would prove you wrong. Ten correlating factors that are each only slightly significant can peg a person with near certainty. Not absolute, but near enough. If you want to market to homosexuals, a list that is comprised of 90% homosexuals is good enough.

Re:Cultural bias much?

[tehcyder]

Socialism is NOT compatible with christianity because socialism supports a tyrannical state that forces people to hand over all of the means of production and it does not promote an honest work ethic.

Well, apart from the work ethic thing being bollocks, you do illustrate why communists want to destroy the power of the church after a revolution. Some things are just too evil to be allowed to flourish unopposed.

Individual christians are just deluded, I don't care whether you believe in God or Gollum, that's your choice. But when the poisonous influence of your beliefs spreads like a cancer through society, well...there's always a cure.

Re:Cultural bias much?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Now what about people who are into Milli Vanilli like one of my co workers who collected a bunch of memorabilia once they were outed thinking he could cash in some time in the future. I too wondered why the Wu Tang Clan and Shaq were still relevant, especially since I hear radio commercials with Shaq pitching the Icy Hot patch which indicates he is washed up.

I wonder...

[bobthesungeek76036]

if that "Honey-Boo-Boo like" on Facebook will lower my IQ score...

Re:I wonder...

[idontgno]

Liking anything on the former "The Learning Channel" is indisputable proof that your IQ can't go any lower. The fact that you make that liking visible in Facebook doesn't change that one way or the other.

Re:I wonder...

[wisnoskij]

More likely, it was that that Lil Wayne like that did it.

Re:I wonder...

[RivenAleem]

Is that a risk you are willing to take?

The "know" absolutely nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

I love Lord of the Rings AND Harleys, hate rap in general, believe in human rights, and enjoy the hell out of productions like Wicked and Phantom of the Opera. So am I an intelligent homosexual male? A dumbass straight male? A dumbass homosexual male? Or an intelligent straight male?

But you know what? FB can presume all they want on their own time. The second they start using stats like this to say they KNOW someone is in one category or the other and make that information publically available, is the second they open themselves up libel suits for the 22% who are incorrectly flagged as idiots, gay, or whatever and it affects their life in any way.

Then again, shit like this is why I never "like" any brands or companies on FB. Fuck that noise.

Re:The "know" absolutely nothing.

[pipatron]

They don't care what you love or not. They care what you "Like" on Facebook. Big difference there.

Re:The "know" absolutely nothing.

[demonlapin]

If you like musicals, you're gay. If you like Ann Hathaway, you're either female or gay. Nothing wrong with that, but they're pretty clear tells.

Re:The "know" absolutely nothing.

[Toonol]

They wouldn't say you're homosexual. They don't know that. They would just say that your history of likes puts you in a category that is composed of x% homosexuals. Since that's TRUE, and they can mathematically back it up, there is absolutely no libel claim at all. These people do know statistics and how to properly run regressions. They aren't stupid.

Re:The "know" absolutely nothing.

[tehcyder]

If you like musicals, you're gay. If you like Ann Hathaway, you're either female or gay.

God, life is just so simple isn't it?

Re:The "know" absolutely nothing.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Hey a few pictures I have seen of Ann Hathaway she is attractive but it isn't very consistent. Then again I like women with very fair skin and dark hair.

Re:The "know" absolutely nothing.

[demonlapin]

You're going to have a stroke by age 40 if you don't learn to lighten up a little.

Re:The "know" absolutely nothing.

[demonlapin]

She looks like a boy. A very attractive boy, of the sort that could almost make you want to ... well, you see what I mean about being gay and liking Ann Hathaway.

She looks like the kind of woman that other women always describe as "so beautiful" but that most men are very "meh" about, which is probably why so many women feel comfortable talking about how beautiful she is - they don't perceive her as a threat.

Re:The "know" absolutely nothing.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Yes she does in most cases look like a boy but there are a few (not many) pictures where she doesn't. I suppose that is probably due to the makeup and cloths though.

Similar to Winning Bid on Netflix

[Araes]

Uses a similar methodology (SVD, which was the highest scoring method in isolation) to correlate Likes with Traits, whereas Netflix used prior movie Likes to correlate with future movie Likes. Effectively, Netflix's competition was probably correlating with a hidden indicator or personality subtype set which corresponded strongly to likes of particular movies.

It is highly likely that were they to apply the winning method from the Netflix competition (SVD paired with a weighted set of other indicators) that they would probably show even higher correlation and predictive power for personality subtypes.

Facebook Determines This For Non-Members As Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people don;t realize that Facebook has become as big a threat as Google in the privacy game.

Those like buttons on so very many pages on the net report back to Facebook everytime the page is loaded. At an absolute minimum, Facebook is notified of your IP address when you visit the page, even if you are not a Facebook member and even if you have NEVER visited Facebook. Yet, they still are able to track interests and activities including where and when your IP address visit pages on the internet.

Any time you see a like button, Facebook already logged your visit. You do NOT need to click it.

And if you do have a facebook account and you are logged in, then they knwo even more about who you are and what you do across the WWW.

Facebook

[ThePeices]

I love stories like this. As if I needed any more, but this is just yet another reason why I am so glad I removed my Facebook account years ago.

Why people will happily hand over the intimate details of their lives, in the face of dozens of horrifying Facebook privacy stories, ill never know.
I guess Facebook users are like battered wives. They get their teeth kicked in by the abusive BF time after time, but wont leave him because 'they still love him'.

Re:Facebook

[R3d M3rcury]

Why people will happily hand over the intimate details of their lives, in the face of dozens of horrifying Facebook privacy stories, ill never know.

Here's an interesting question, though: What percentage of Facebook users have been adversely affected by Facebook's privacy ills?

Have I had a police officer show up at my door with a search warrant because Facebook believes I'm a drug user? Nope.
Have I been hit on by men because Facebook believes I'm homosexual? Nope.
Have a group of republicans descended on me because Facebook believes I'm republican? Nope.

Have I lost a job due to any of the above? Nope. Been denied a loan? Nope.

Don't get me wrong, I somewhat agree with you. But I'm not sure your "battered wife" analogy stands up in that there is no actual battery going on. If I were to use your analogy, the best I could say is "how can she be married to someone who could beat her, even though he never has?"

Re:Facebook

[Chrontius]

Actually there were two. But we can't just go using the last one left on piddly shit like facebook users. ;)

Re:Facebook

[dissy]

Newsflash - nobody cares about you. No black helicopters out there, son.
Posted by Mindcontrolled

Suuuuure, I bet that's exactly what they wanted you to say!

Re:Facebook

[Toonol]

Nothing goes on facebook, no like button gets clicked, unless I'm perfectly fine sharing that with the whole world. But... there's not much I'm honestly worried about the whole world knowing. Why should I be scared to let my political, social, religious, sexual opinions known? If there IS something I don't want people to know, I don't 'like' it, since the whole stinking POINT of 'liking' something is to announce something publicly.

Re:Facebook

[Toonol]

"how can she be married to someone who could beat her, even though he never has?"
Hey, that's progressive feminist logic.

Re:Facebook

[cffrost]

What percentage of Facebook users have been adversely affected by Facebook's privacy ills?

100%; loss of privacy is an adverse effect.

Re:Facebook

[serviscope_minor]

Have I been hit on by men because Facebook believes I'm homosexual? Nope.

Awww you mean that was because of Facebook? I thought it was because of my rugged good looks. It's just not the same now :(

Re:Facebook

[rapidmax]

Have I had a police officer show up at my door with a search warrant because Facebook believes I'm a drug user? Nope.

Not yet

Have I been hit on by men because Facebook believes I'm homosexual? Nope.

Not yet

Have a group of republicans descended on me because Facebook believes I'm republican? Nope.

Not yet

Have I lost a job due to any of the above? Nope. Been denied a loan? Nope.

Who will ever know about this?

As the data is out there we can't be sure the data will never be used for this.

For example: As long as the marked demand is as high as now, Facebook will do anything to ensure nobody get access to the data (other than through the well defined interfaces). But what happens with the data when the marked has changed? Will the raw data be sold to the highest bidder? Or what if Facebook can't afford the same level of security anymore and some cracker stole the data?

Re:Facebook

[HaZardman27]

Thank you, for being a reasonable person who understands that responsible use of social network services does not mean Facebook has access to your bank accounts and personal diary. Facebook is a tool; I can use it for keeping in touch with my friends and family all around the country and other parts of the world in one easy place, and I can communicate non-personal stuff to them. If you're using Facebook as an hourly log of your activities and thoughts, you shouldn't be surprised that other people have access to that data.

Gaydar

[Anonymous Coward]

Similar research conducted by MIT student project back in 2009. See http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2611/2302. Surprised it wasn't cited.

Base rates

[jon.willits]

I can do better than 88% accuracy at guessing if people are homosexual by guessing "no" every time.

Re:Base rates

[c9brown]

This is why prediction results are basically meaningless without sensitivity and specificity numbers...

Re:Base rates

[tekxtc]

Dude - had you left off the last sentence or two from your comment, you might have received many insightful mods. Why Godwin yourself? What a waste of such an insightful comment.

Re:Base rates

[fatphil]

You don't have that option in the test they did. They took a gay and a straight, and you (the mathematical model) had to determine which one was gay and which was straight. You can't apply your method to this test.

Re:Base rates

[cosm]

You don't have that option in the test they did. They took a gay and a straight, and you (the mathematical model) had to determine which one was gay and which was straight. You can't apply your method to this test.

Yes you can. Define f(p1,p2,p3,p4,....p_n) = 1. For all properties of person p1 to p_n, if f = 1, then they are straight. Pretty accurate model. Doesn't tell you anything about the underlying phenomena though....or is this a tautology :) ....perhaps.....

Re:Base rates

[fatphil]

Now reread what I wrote. This time for comprehension.
Hint: The answer "they're both straight" is not available to you.

Re:Base rates

[tehcyder]

It's not Godwinning just to mention the Nazis, or else they'd become some sort of taboo. It's inappropriately comparing someone to Hitler/a Nazi that's a Godwin.

Although GP's comment was wildly paranoid (since it seems unlikely that either Facebook or Teh Government are going to be exterminating gays any time soon) it was not exactly a Godwin.

Re:Base rates

[HaZardman27]

But with what accuracy can you determine which individual is homosexual? That's the more difficult task.

Re:Facebook knows that I like fisting?

[Anonymous Coward]

And Slashdot can now think it knows for everyone else based on whether they clicked "Read the rest of this comment..."

So now they are competing with....

[3seas]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121110/17435521005/dhs-fbi-present-you-might-be-terrorist-if-hotel-guest-edition.shtml

cultural

[MavEtJu]

the researchers found that users who "like" "Thunderstorms," "The Colbert Report," "Science" or "Curly Fries" are all slightly more likely to have high IQ than those who don't.

And it rated for people not living in heavily American culturally influenced and non native English speaking countries that they all had a lower IQ.

Re:cultural

[__aaltlg1547]

So it was correct on all counts! (Many IQ tests really do rate people in non-native English-speaking countries lower, which proves either that speaking English from birth makes you smarter, that English evolved to express the complex thoughts of smart people or that what IQ tests really measure is how Anglo you are rather than how smart.)

Anglo Quotient?

Re:cultural

[quenda]

So all those north-east Asians are secretly Anglo-Saxon?
Or have you considered the possibility that the positive correlation between native English-speaking (and Japanese, etc) and average IQ is real but not causal?

Re:cultural

[__aaltlg1547]

Non causal explanations are unsatisfying. This has been shown in numerous studies...

Re:cultural

[Black Parrot]

the researchers found that users who "like" "Thunderstorms," "The Colbert Report," "Science" or "Curly Fries" are all slightly more likely to have high IQ than those who don't.

And it rated for people not living in heavily American culturally influenced and non native English speaking countries that they all had a lower IQ.

So does "Curly Fries" mean curly fries? Or some hip sitcom that I missed? Or is it one of the Fries brothers?

Re:Facebook Determines This For Non-Members As Wel

[rsborg]

Which is why you need to have noscript or face-blockers to read the net.
Of course this assumes that Disqus, Intensedebate or other forum software aren't as insidious/snooping.

Here's a question

[Okian Warrior]

So facebook knows all sorts of things about people.

Here's a question: Does facebook know if you're guilty?

Re:Here's a question

[Neil Boekend]

Yes, of course it does. The answer is "Yes". However it usually does not know what you are guilty of.

Thus why I never click those "like" buttons

[Anonymous Coward]

Not on pages, not on friends' comments, not on all the My Little Pony pictures I post.

Inaccurate title yet again.

[jklovanc]

"Facebook Has Information That Can Infer If You're Gay, Use Drugs, Or Are a Republican"
Researchers, who crunch data found on Facebook, can infer traits to an accuracy of as much as 88% in one instance.

How to sound smart with stats

[Anonymous Coward]

whether men were homosexual with 88% accuracy

You can achieve this by guessing that 100% of men are heterosexual.

Re:How to sound smart with stats

[Sique]

Not really, because then you would have 100% false negatives for homosexuals.

FAIL

[illestov]

I ran this article through my data analysis software , turns out the people behind this research have a 95% chance of being gay republicans drug users.

..

"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Douglas Adams

Kind of obvious

[Alioth]

This is not shocking, it's kind of obvious. And in other news, bears shit in woods.

Re:Kind of obvious

[fatphil]

Not quite - if it's a bear, then it's 88% likely to like shitting in the woods!

But...

[Anonymous Coward]

It says more about the author that they'd group homosexuality, drug use, and republicanism together as "dirty secrets". So much for tolerance.

Re:But...

[Toonol]

Well, maybe they thought they had 'Democrat' covered when they detected drug use.

Re:But...

[tehcyder]

It says more about the author that they'd group homosexuality, drug use, and republicanism together as "dirty secrets". So much for tolerance.

Even as a non-American, I can see that it's a mild joke aimed at a party perceived as being anti-drugs and anti-gay. Why do right wingers get so upset by a mild slur when they're always insisting everybody should let neo Nazis spew their filth in the name of free speech?

If Facebook knows that...

[Sebastopol]

...imagine what Reddit knows. /shudders/

Party Affiliation is Public Record

[Anonymous Coward]

Political party affiliation is public record. Anyone can find out, There isn't any secretive voodoo to it.

Re:Party Affiliation is Public Record

[computererds]

Unless you live in one of the 23 states that do not make you register for a political party to vote in primary elections (the only real reason to register with a party.)

Screw with the Algorithm

[Stormy Dragon]

I left the TV on when I fell asleep, so I was confused when I woke up from my nap to discover Tyler Perry talking about The Lord of the Rings on the Daily Show. If I was that rich I would just buy a really Wicked Harley Davidson.

88% accurate

[CncRobot]

Facebook guesses if your are hetrosexual or homosexual 88% of the time? I can beat that.
Whoever is reading this, I'm going to guess for you specifically with 98.3 % accuracy.

You are Straight.

1.7% in the US are gay. So is it just me or is a 88% accuracy when you can just guess one answer every time and be 98% accurate worthless?

Grew suspicious of this a few weeks ago

[Chewbacon]

I was having a conversation about physics with a friend via comments. It wrapped up with him expressing he enjoyed the argument, thanked me, and added "we should get high sometime. Haha, jk." Anyway, I liked the comment because of the leading statement. The next day I see a "suggested post" about marijauna. Thanks FB. I tried pot in college, the time and place for that, and have too much to lose by getting caught with it now. However, I think you should be able to do what you want with your body and legalization would cut expenses of chasing it. But FB seems to think I'm a habitual smoker based on the ads I've seen.

Re:Grew suspicious of this a few weeks ago

[tehcyder]

So what though? You get a "suggested post" about marijuana? do you really think the FBI are going to raid your house based on that or something?

Tyler Perry

[SpaceManFlip]

LOL

Just The Tip

[Bob9113]

found that sensitive personal characteristics about people can be accurately inferred from information in the public domain.

I've done this stuff, for both ad targeting and music targeting, and I understand the math. Knowing whether you are gay is just the tip of the iceberg.

From the data it can be inferred whether you believe Bradley Manning was justified, whether you think it is treason for a politician to support warrantless surveillance, and whether you believe the "four boxes" epigram is relevant in the current context.

It can be inferred how you react to various turns of phrase, which ways of presenting an idea will ring with you, and therefore how to present a story to you, such that you will be likely to repeat the sound bites on one side of the issue or the other.

They can do this, with an automated system, for hundreds of millions of people -- as can anyone who pays them enough for the data or analysis. It is not a difference in type from what has gone by the name of PR, spin, or handling; but rather a difference of speed, pervasiveness, precision targeting, and potency. It puts more power to distort human perception of reality in the hands of fewer people than ever before -- by orders of magnitude.

The data, once gathered, will remain, and will be packaged and sold, and cracked and siezed, until long after you are dead -- barring some very serious and extremely disruptive counteractivity. It is getting worse every day, and the cost of correcting it is growing exponentially.

Most people don't know it is happening, and most of those who do don't seem to grasp the consequences.

Re:Just The Tip

[tehcyder]

It can be inferred how you react to various turns of phrase, which ways of presenting an idea will ring with you, and therefore how to present a story to you, such that you will be likely to repeat the sound bites on one side of the issue or the other.

There is a simple defence against this sort of thing. It's called thinking.

Re:Just The Tip

[Bob9113]

There is a simple defence against this sort of thing. It's called thinking.

Indeed, and it is an ongoing arms race. The rate at which we spread the word that people need to raise their defenses is inversely proportional to how much these new tactics distort our society and economy. Hence my post.

Re:Just The Tip

[matthew_t_west]

I completely agree. It's easier to aggregate who a person is through a centralized hub of activity in their life. In this example, it's Facebook. Don't think that a credit card company or bank won't give up that information. We are being profiled constantly. Right now it's just to scrape money, but who knows? The data is there, why not use it? "C'mon, it's there. We don't want terrorism do we? It's so easy to find terrorists now with all this data. So let's use it!"

Quite on topic, I deleted my Facebook account two days ago due issues like this. When I tell people, they ask, "Oh, you just deactivated it right? You'll be back." When I tell them, I went out and "deleted" my account, they sorta freak out. I remind them we have things like phones and e-mail. They can contact me directly.

I've also gone more to spending cash than using a debit card these days. Sure, I'll use it at a grocery store or an ATM, but no longer will I be announcing to my bank that I go out drinking on certain nights or that I purchase items from Gary's Discount Firearms or whatever.

The real story here?

[ThisIsSaei]

Confirmation that Tyler Perry fans are idiots.

Re:The real story here?

[tehcyder]

The real question for non-Americans is who's Tyler Perry?

Re:The real story here?

[ThisIsSaei]

Terrible sit-com.

lotr = high iq?

[noh8rz10]

TFS:

other personality traits linked to predictive likes include for High IQ — ...'Lord of the Rings,'

bahahahaha

Re:lotr = high iq?

[Qzukk]

The authors of the study all liked LOTR.

..and once again, happy I'm not on Facebook.

[kheldan]

Need I say more?

Re:Only 88% accuracy?

[nephilimsd]

I've seen a few comments now about being better than 88% by predicting no constantly, but I think that misses the point. You would accurate predict actually being homosexual 0% of the time with that method. Predicting hetrosexuality is easy, predicting homosexuality is arguably more complicated. If they accurately predict homosexuality with an 88% success rate, and attribute all the rest as hetrosexual, that is a real achievement.

Re:Facebook knows that I like fisting?

[KGIII]

Man, I always click to read more on those things unless I've read it before. They must think me a perv which, honestly...

Re:Only 88% accuracy?

[fatphil]

You lose - you failed to even answer the test question.

The test question is "which of subjects A and B, of which one is straight and one is gay, is the gay one?".

Need clicks? What about a cookie query from "f"

[redelm]

I haven't done a full netstat trap'n'trace, but last I looked, the blue "f" on many pages sure looks like it opens a uniqueID IMG tag HTTP connection to *.facebook.com . From which a simple cookie query would reveal any fb.com cookies you leave available. So they could know you've visited the page whether you "liked" it or not.

I don't much like this tracking, so I create separate user profiles (Seamonkey/Firefox) for hazardous surfing. The profile has cookies for whichever site under quarantine and is only used for that site. Main profile swept clean of suspect cookies.

Harley Davidson?

[__aaltlg1547]

Two of the smartest people I know like Harley Davidson. Hmm... What does that say about me? No, seriously. They're both very smart. IQs over 130. The just like Harleys. But I haven't seen them liking "I Love Being a Mom" or Tyler Perry. Now what would be funny would be an app that tells you what inferences Facebook draws about you because of your likes. But somehow I doubt anybody's going to make an app that tells people it thinks they're stupid.

Re:Harley Davidson?

[krovisser]

Harley's are a typical mid-life crisis vehicle for the uninformed. The 4-wheel version is the corvette. You'd have to be an idiot to buy one, they are overpriced, unreliable (although the last 10 years has seen incredible increases in that dpt., admittedly), and aimed at people who just want to look cool. They are horrendously slow and inefficient. The engine is designed around making a sound, not going anywhere.

A friend went to a HD dealer once, his dad wanted one. They left after the guy said: "You aren't buying a motorcycle, you're buying a lifestyle."

Re:Harley Davidson?

[frank_adrian314159]

They're both very smart. IQs over 130. The just like Harleys.

OK. I guess some folks live their lives as complete non sequitors.

Re:Harley Davidson?

[SleazyRidr]

Exactly, liking Harleys doesn't necessarily mean you're an idiot, it just means that you don't know anything about motorcycles. Although maybe falling for that "you're buying a lifestyle" line pushes you over into idiot territory.

Re:Harley Davidson?

[__aaltlg1547]

The one of the pair that I know better is an accomplished aerospace and materials engineer, holds more than a dozen patents on novel materials, has several published books and co-founded a company based on his inventions. I'm sure he won't leave a mark.

And he rides a Harley. For some reason, he thinks it's fun. I understand it doesn't take a lot of smarts to ride one. It just takes more than you've shown in judging people's intellect by a single aspect of how they choose to entertain themselves.

Please don't embarrass yourself any further by misusing any other phrases you don't understand. I don't think I can stand that much schadenfreude.

That's not how they tested

[Anonymous Coward]

They took two individuals, one of whom identified as gay on their profile and one of whom identified as straight, and then asked the model to pick which was which. Guessing straight every time would've given you 50%.

The actual paper

[Anonymous Coward]

The actual paper can be found at (click full text): http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/03/06/1218772110.abstract

The "88% accuracy" figure actually has a meaning. From the paper:
"shows the prediction accuracy of dichotomous variables expressed in terms of the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC), which is equivalent to the probability of correctly classifying two randomly selected users one from each class (e.g., male and female)."

Given one gay and one straight. They have 88% accuracy of predicting which class the person belongs to. The strategy of simply picking no, would give you 50% accuracy (on average).

I love this stuff

[pclminion]

People like to think that they're "undefinable". In fact, all they are are values of a vector random variable. If you know the values of some of the components you can infer the values of others, because they are not all independent. A similar principle (vector quantization) is used in lossy data compression.

Somebody will come in here and say "No, you can't know for certain, that's what makes us human" -- no, that's what makes you a random variable. A vector-valued one, but a random variable nonetheless.

Re:I love this stuff

[pclminion]

Okay Mr. Smartypants. Do it. Define everyone alive according to related values. It sounds so easy, and it's not like people's qualities can contradict, nor can people be ignorant or irrational in an infintesimally large number of ways. Make yourself a billion dollars and invent perfect speech recognition while your at it.

I didn't say anything about making perfect predictions. You can't even do that for ordinary random variables, much less ones as complex as humans. There is plenty of low hanging fruit to play with, though.

And...?

[zedrdave]

"I had not selected any political orientation, yet these researchers were able to predict my Democrat leanings, merely based on my 'like' of Barack Obama's page. What witchcraft science is that!?"

From all I could read of these (repeated) stories, this is so basic it barely even count as data mining. Also, I'd really like to see the the type I and II errors in that thing: sure, the guys who 'liked' a dozen pages for disney musicals might have higher chances of turning out to be gay, but what about the handful who just really like musicals? Same for the hetero guys who support gay friends and will like gay rights pages. And better hope that absolutely nobody out there practices sarcastic liking (but we're safe, because really: who is ever sarcastic online these days).

Wake me up when we are talking actual science and real data-mining, not two-bit hacking and obvious results.

Gay, use drugs or are a Republican...

[__aaltlg1547]

... wait a minute! Doesn't that account for everybody???

Re:And...?

[__aaltlg1547]

What about the hetero dads who watched countless musicals with their Disney-obsessed daughters?

OR?

[xombo]

"Or"???!11?!!?!?

You should reread that article.

[denzacar]

From TFA:

The Williams Institute found that, overall, an estimated 8.2 percent of the population had engaged in some form same-sex sexual activity. Put another way, 4.7 percent of the population had wandered across the line without coming to think of themselves as either gay or bisexual.

That same study found out that (from the same FA):

just 1.7 percent of Americans between 18 and 44 identify as gay or lesbian, while another 1.8 percent -- predominantly women -- identify as bisexual.

Basically, that "less than 2%" number is the people who think of themselves as being homosexual or bisexual.
8.2% apparently just like having sex with people of the same sex. Clearly, they're not gay.
Cause they don't identify with being gay.
Cause it's all about identifying.

That's why I always identify myself with Superman.

Re:You should reread that article.

[Zumbs]

8.2% apparently just like having sex with people of the same sex. Clearly, they're not gay. Cause they don't identify with being gay. Cause it's all about identifying.

That is not what your quote is saying. It is saying that 8.2% of the population has at some point in their life experimented with same-sex sex. It does not say if they liked it nor if it was more than once. It is like going to Church a few times is not the same as being a Christian.

Re:You should reread that article.

[denzacar]

Yeah, sure.
Let's go into semantics and let's try to quantify how gay is having sex with a member of opposite sex and how much exactly is one form of having gay sex more or less gay than the other.
Cause if we semanticize it enough, we simply must come to a conclusion that someone is gay only if they reveal it publicly in front of an audience of at least 5 million, while riding a zebra. AmIright?

Or... we can take a look at the study discussed in the article which tells us that the "same-sex sexual attraction" is actually 11%, with those 8.2% being a subset of people who actually acted out on that attraction.

So, yeah... Those 8.2% weren't conducting sterile medical experiments - they were having steamy human to human sex, motivated by attraction to humans of same sex, NOT by their scientific curiosity.
Not that we really need numbers to tell us that when it comes to sex, humans tend not to be scientific or clinical.
Instead, they are more like mindless passionate fuck-machines.

On a side note, the OP is wrong even without going beyond the those who identify themselves as LGB.
It's 3.5%, not less than 2% - 1.7% are those who identify as ONLY gay or lesbian, the rest of them being bisexual.
So even the number of declared LGB humans is TWICE as much as the OP claims.

Re:You should reread that article.

[Talderas]

On a side note, the OP is wrong even without going beyond the those who identify themselves as LGB.
It's 3.5%, not less than 2% - 1.7% are those who identify as ONLY gay or lesbian, the rest of them being bisexual.
So even the number of declared LGB humans is TWICE as much as the OP claims.

The OP was responding with 2% being gay to the statement that 5-10% of the population is gay. I've not heard the term gay used much beyond homosexuals though maybe the term does include bisexuals. So you essentially support his claim by pointing out 1.7% are homosexual while it doubles when you include bisexuals.

Re:You should reread that article.

[tehcyder]

8.2% apparently just like having sex with people of the same sex. Clearly, they're not gay. Cause they don't identify with being gay. Cause it's all about identifying.

That is not what your quote is saying. It is saying that 8.2% of the population has at some point in their life experimented with same-sex sex. It does not say if they liked it nor if it was more than once. It is like going to Church a few times is not the same as being a Christian.

But when you add in people who are gay/lesbian but have not engaged in same-sex sex (Catholic priests, and so on), you're probably up to the 10%.

Now, while there is clearly a difference between someone who jerked off their friend once when they were 14 and someone who has a string of same-sex lovers, a keen interest in musical theatre and so on, the fact remains that close to 10% of the population are at least a bit gay. This is interesting because if only 2% actually admit it, it means there are a lot of more or less repressed homosexuals out there, and it is often these people who are the most stridently anti-gay.

Re:You should reread that article.

[gsslay]

A large number of homosexual people have engaged in heterosexual activity, at one time, for one reason or another. (Indeed society makes it almost non-negotiable that they do so.) That does not make them, or will ever make them, heterosexual. So why would engaging in homosexual activity, at one time, for whatever reason, make anyone irrefutably homosexual?

This is why what people identify as is paramount. Because only they know what they really are, regardless of what you think their activity makes them, or what you presume that they 'like'.

Re:You should reread that article.

[denzacar]

So we're back to more semantics? What "is" means?

OP was using selective reading of the article to "prove" that there are "A lot less" gay people than "5-10%".
I.e. He was cherry picking.

While doing that he blindly went for the lowest number, ignoring the fact that when it comes to homosexual sexual relationships - bisexual IS homosexual.
Bisexual does not mean homosexual += heterosexual.
It's homosexual && heterosexual.

It's an intersection of two sets, not a sum.

Re:You should reread that article.

[denzacar]

So why would engaging in homosexual activity, at one time, for whatever reason, make anyone irrefutably homosexual?

Because heterosexual sexual and romantic attraction is a biological thing. It's how we procreate.
Homosexual sexual and romantic attraction does not result with procreation. Humans and other animals do it for reasons other than just procreation.

As such, it is a part of a different set than heterosexual romantic and sexual attraction and relation.
And heterosexual set is an exclusive set, because its limits are dictated by biological factors.
Only one combination out there actually produces babies.

And before you go complaining that bisexual partners can produce biological offspring - bisexuals are an intersection of two sets, not a sum.
They are homosexual && heterosexual, NOT homosexual += heterosexual.

Like Slashdot?

[otaku244]

Where is that on the predictive spectrum?

okay so...

[slashmydots]

So this study found that stereotypes are completely, completely true. That's great.

I'd question "unwittingly"

[NitWit005]

I'm going to go ahead and suggest that most people know the message they are sending when they like a page like "Republican National Comittie" or "GAY SEX CLIPs". The whole point of liking it is to 'tell the world'. In fact, if my wall is any indication, that's the ONLY reason people like things. Okay, that and websites that trick them into it.

Re:Facebook knows that I like fisting?

[dyingtolive]

I always looked at slashdot kink-trolls like I was watching a train-wreck in slow motion. On one hand, the dehumanizing sight of gore and sinew splayed about should be stomach turning, especially as others gather around afterwards, having not seen the initial spectacle (this makes it something personal and special between you and the ones who got painfully dismembered by the gruesome event), but on the other hand, I _just can't_ look away...

Interesting off-topic. One of my coworkers today genuinely thought I didn't realize that ctrl+z was undo in Windows products.

Re:Mensa's full of idiots

[Black Parrot]

It's also the bottom rung on the ladder of the Smarter-Than-Thou clubs.

Re:If you use Facebook you are probably on drugs.

[Black Parrot]

Next headline "Slashdot Knows If You Have Higher Education, Neuroses, Porn On Your Computer"

I suspect I can answer that last one without doing a study.

Re:or all three!

[Black Parrot]

yes, gay drug addict republicans, facebook is out to get you!

Can't imagine why a gay drug-using Republican would be paranoid.

Re:And...?

[Black Parrot]

What about the hetero dads who watched countless musicals with their Disney-obsessed daughters?

They all turned gay?

Re:IQ is easy

[Black Parrot]

Anybody liking Republicans, or Fox News, or Rush has a low IQ. (duh)

"I didn't mean to say that conservatives are stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are conservatives."

(I thought that was Mencken, but don't see it on wikiquote.)

Re:How many gay drug-using Republicans are there?

[Toonol]

No, there's just a correlation.

Re:And...?

[DerekLyons]

sure, the guys who 'liked' a dozen pages for disney musicals might have higher chances of turning out to be gay, but what about the handful who just really like musicals?

That's why you don't measure on just one factor - there's no proof that they do, and every reason to believe otherwise.

I have no idea what FB thinks about me....

[msevior]

Coz I browse with the ad-block plugin with Firefox.
Makes the web a whole lot more enjoyable.

BTW here is a fun trick. Trying posting a message about Ad-Block on facebook. It will get blocked.

Next try the most direct method you can think of to tell your friends to try ad-block on facebook. See what gets allowed.....
Clearly FB has algorithms that censor posts. It is fun to see what really annoys them though :-)

Re:Facebook knows that I like fisting?

[KGIII]

They are beautiful in their own right I suppose. My most common shortcut in Windows would be WinKey+D.

88% pfffhhh

[Paradigma11]

I can be 95% correct predicting if a somebody is gay:
No
No
No
No ....

Re:Facebook Determines This For Non-Members As Wel

[knorthern knight]

Actually, I use /var/lib/iptables with the following ranges blocked...

31.13.24.0/21
31.13.64.0/18
66.220.144.0/20
69.63.176.0/20
69.171.224.0/19
74.119.76.0/22
103.4.96.0/22
173.252.64.0/18
204.15.20.0/22

Who cares?

[tehcyder]

Even assuming some future Evil Government makes it illegal to be gay or a drug user or Republican, these sorts of analyses can only prove that you are statistically more or less likely to be gay, a drug user or Republican. They can't prove that you are gay, a drug user or Republican.

I suppose I'm just not paranoid enough.

88% accuracy worse than chance

[ethorad]

The study claims they can predict homosexuality with an 88% accuracy?

You can do far better than that by chance. surveys suggest that around 3-7% say of the population is homosexual (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States)

Therefore if you "predict" that everyone is straight, you will be correct around 95% of the time. Even randomly picking 1 out of 20 people as homosexual with no analysis of their likes would retain a 95% strike rate.

(I know, chances are they mean that they only get 12% false negatives on their homosexual predictions, compared to 100% or 95% on my systems)

A probability is good enough ...

[golodh]

I'm amazed that some people still don't seem to understand what this discovery means in the real world and come up with dumb tweets like "knowing and presuming aren't the same thing" and "facebook incorrectly presumes".

It's never about *proving* you're gay, conservative, or whatever. It's about obtaining a better than even probability that you might be. That's all that's required. And since when do you have to prove gossip? Facebook also happens to be way more reliable than gossip with a 90%-95% hit rate, ok? That's good enough for management work.

Since you seem to stop so far short of thinking it through, let me give you a few examples.

Consider your health insurance (if you have any). What's to stop every insurer in the country from assigning you a risk factor on basis of your facebook profile and use that to raise your premiums? Insurers deal in risks every single day: there simple are no certainties in insurance. Insuirance is the business of mitigating and managing risks. Facebook-based models would fit in perfectly. And you have no comebacks whatsoever unless it's legally prohibited to do this. Like it?

If someone were in charge of hiring staff for a sensitive position, and had reason to believe that certain of your facebook characteristics signaled that you'd be a 30% risk in the job instead of the ordinary 15%, what do you think that would do to your chances of being hired? Why do you assume a potential employer would take 1% more risk than they absolutely have to? Want to bet even now companies are checking with their legal department to see if they are allowed to weigh this kind of probability-based info when assessing candidates? How's that for fun?

If a manager in charge of a bank's mortgage desk thought that certain of your facebook characteristics signaled an increased risk of defaulting on your part, he/she could block your mortgage. No questions asked (and certainly no questions from you answered in any meaningful way). Good eh?

Just assume you're applying for a place in college (a good college). Competition is tough and one of the things that affects your chances is the essay you'll have to write about yourself and your motivation. How would you like that college to just assign a score to your facebook profile and use that instead?

If the above examples don't focus your mind a little, I don't know what will.

No you can't, and besides you may not get a chance

[golodh]

First off, talking to people takes valuable time. Time to schedule, time to conduct, time to evaluate.

Assigning a score to someone's facebook profile only takes a few millisecs of computer time plus the cost of processing a facebook profile, but you can outsource that to a consultant (or even a website).

Chances are you won't even be talked to if your facebook profile suggests there's a better than even chance you have some characteristics the person considering to get in touch with you deems undesirable.

Secondly, people are adept at concealing any personal *characteristics* considered undesirable by whatever group they try to be a part of by adjusting their *behaviour*. It's part of human nature.

So you won't probably won't find out by simply talking to them. And most of the time people succeed in keeping that up for long periods of time or even indefinitely, allowing them to function in the group of their choice.

This development could well cut that sort of chances short.

Quit while you still can

[gatkinso]

Your Facebook profile will soon be the largest regret of your life.

Facebook has Gaydar?

[realsilly]

I thought that was only a myth....

Denial?

[Comboman]

I'm also a fan of musical theatre, but somehow not gay....wonder how that works?

Denial?

Mensa...

[nortcele]

It would appear that Mensa members are higher in Egotism and wannabe I.Q. It's mostly a club of.. "Go solve this puzzle and post your time on Facebook".

The smartest people I know won't have a Facebook account. They tend to like being low profile.

Gay naps

[bickerdyke]

It is somehow disturbing that gay males aren't confused after waking up from naps.

Re:Most Salient Table

[tehcyder]

I loved the fact that on opposite ends of the "artistic and liberal" to "conservative" scale were Oscar Wilde and I Don't Read. Who'd have thought?

Re:And...?

[tehcyder]

What about the hetero dads who watched countless musicals with their Disney-obsessed daughters?

I feel your pain, bro, I feel your pain.

Re:Facebook knows that I like fisting?

[tehcyder]

They are beautiful in their own right I suppose. My most common shortcut in Windows would be WinKey+D.

Is this where I say the best shortcut key is Alt+F4 repeatedly until you can install a proper operating system like Linux?

Morpheus

[Anonymous Coward]

My instructions are to amuse visitors with information about themselves. Human beings feel pleasure when they are watched. I have recorded their smiles as I tell them who they are. The need to be observed and understood was once satisfied by God. Now we can implement the same functionality with data mining algorithms.

The individual desires judgement. Without that desire, the cohesion of groups is impossible, and so is civilization.

next step

[allo]

the covariance of these properties.

Re:Nah, we heard enough out of you ... Next....

[kheldan]

.. But the self-righteous. "Sure glad *I* don't use Facebook!" comments are already getting really old and stale.

Things are tough all over, buddy.

Are you sure you don't know...?

[halfkoreanamerican]

Pretty soon facebook is going to be recommending dealers for people.

It is not!

[CaptainNerdCave]

Are you sure that isn't dependent upon which state you call home? In my state, no political registration is necessary.

That's right, North Dakota doesn't force you to take sides until you actually vote. What a concept!

Seems fair

[ThatsNotPudding]

Most gay Republicans probably are heavily medicated to help combat their schizophrenia.

Re:IQ is easy

[JonStewartMill]

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." ~ John Stuart Mill

Don't laugh; it's already being done

[knorthern knight]

Maybe great minds think alike http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2414591,00.asp

> Most Facebook users have embarrassing comments or status updates
> hidden in the depths of their social network profile --- long forgotten
> but not gone. So why not tidy up a little with the new FaceWash Web app?

> The service, which is geared primarily toward recent college graduates, aims
> to delete your seedy Facebook history before you enter the professional world.

If You're Gay, Use Drugs, Or Are a Republican

[Dabido]

This week on American Dad ...

That's not fair

[RivenAleem]

Why are they lumping in Gay people with Drug users and Republicans, as if it's a bad thing?

Re:Facebook knows that I like fisting?

[KGIII]

You can say that if you'd like though I use Mandriva, Ubuntu, and Windows 7 here. ;) I'm an OS whore I suppose. I have other computers with other OSes on 'em around the house (as well as phones, ebook readers, and iDevices) but I mostly use Windows 7 because it is there and, alas, I'm lazy. I did, however, quantify it with "in" which should have probably let ya know that I use more than one OS though I suppose I could have been clearer. Either way, Linux has its place though it appears that that place isn't on this laptop because I am lazy and I kind of like Windows 7. It's speedy, stable, and I've not had any security issues that I've found. Oh, and it does what I want it to do - easily and when I want it to do it.