A new peer-reviewed study says that facial recognition technology can accurately "read" a person's political affiliation just by looking at their face.
They are both mentalities.
And while political affiliation is a weaker mentality trait than tendency for crime, that only makes it more impossible to determine.
Apart from some possible minor differences in things people do themselves, like how they have their hair or makeup.
But that can never be definite, since it’s a matter of fashion.
Phrenology is bullshit. Race has been shown to correlate with political leaning several times and it’s encoded as facial attribute. Also correlate income, education, and location.
It turns out that people in similar situations want similar things from their governments. It also turns out that a history of oppression based on race tends to put people from that race into a similar situation. And so on.
The correlation isn’t coming from anything specific to the face, but clues about what demographic that individual could be from.
Absolutely not, social status yes, but oppression of a race, doesn’t mean the race has a tendency, only that they are pressured into a social status that has that tendency.
The headline is clearly false, you can’t tell political affiliation just by looking at a persons face.
Maybe in USA you have a slightly better chance than random, because age and gender alone will give a statistical difference. But the claim of the headline remains false.
The claim of the headline is reiterated in the article:
A study recently published in the peer-reviewed American Psychologist journal claims that a combination of facial recognition and artificial intelligence technology can accurately assess a person’s political orientation by simply looking at that person’s blank, expressionless face.
Further down:
So, according to this theory, if you have a tiny face, you’re probably a progressive. Or, by contrast, if you have a big fat face, there’s a good chance you might be a Trump voter.
This simply can’t be true, if it was the attempt at a Phrenology/Craniology science would have detected it 200 years ago.
you’re putting mental traits in the same bucket as political leaning?
this is not at all what the study is about…
They are both mentalities.
And while political affiliation is a weaker mentality trait than tendency for crime, that only makes it more impossible to determine.
Apart from some possible minor differences in things people do themselves, like how they have their hair or makeup.
But that can never be definite, since it’s a matter of fashion.
Phrenology is bullshit. Race has been shown to correlate with political leaning several times and it’s encoded as facial attribute. Also correlate income, education, and location.
It turns out that people in similar situations want similar things from their governments. It also turns out that a history of oppression based on race tends to put people from that race into a similar situation. And so on.
The correlation isn’t coming from anything specific to the face, but clues about what demographic that individual could be from.
Absolutely not, social status yes, but oppression of a race, doesn’t mean the race has a tendency, only that they are pressured into a social status that has that tendency.
You’re the one bringing oppression and phrenology, that’s not what the study is about.
Who defines political orientation as a property of the brain? It’s socially established.
So is crime, ultimately both stem from a sense of self interest vs right and wrong, or lack of it.
idk what Phrenology or crime have anything to do with the study and I’m yet to see an argument for it
The headline is clearly false, you can’t tell political affiliation just by looking at a persons face.
Maybe in USA you have a slightly better chance than random, because age and gender alone will give a statistical difference. But the claim of the headline remains false.
The claim of the headline is reiterated in the article:
Further down:
This simply can’t be true, if it was the attempt at a Phrenology/Craniology science would have detected it 200 years ago.
It is, my bad - I thought that was obvious. The headline and the article conclusion contradict the study itself, it’s just clickbait.
But the study is not invalid because of it.