Posted on 06/03/2012 5:05:21 PM PDT by Theoria
“GAYDAR” colloquially refers to the ability to accurately glean others’ sexual orientation from mere observation. But does gaydar really exist? If so, how does it work?
Our research, published recently in the peer-reviewed journal PLoS ONE, shows that gaydar is indeed real and that its accuracy is driven by sensitivity to individual facial features as well as the spatial relationships among facial features.
We conducted experiments in which participants viewed facial photographs of men and women and then categorized each face as gay or straight. The photographs were seen very briefly, for 50 milliseconds, which was long enough for participants to know they’d seen a face, but probably not long enough to feel they knew much more. In addition, the photos were mostly devoid of cultural cues: hairstyles were digitally removed, and no faces had makeup, piercings, eyeglasses or tattoos.
Even when viewing such bare faces so briefly, participants demonstrated an ability to identify sexual orientation: overall, gaydar judgments were about 60 percent accurate.
Since chance guessing would yield 50 percent accuracy, 60 percent might not seem impressive. But the effect is statistically significant — several times above the margin of error. Furthermore, the effect has been highly replicable: we ourselves have consistently discovered such effects in more than a dozen experiments, and our gaydar research was inspired by the work of the social psychologist Nicholas Rule, who has published on the gaydar phenomenon numerous times in the past few years.
We reported two such experiments in PLoS ONE, both of which yielded novel findings. In one experiment, we found above-chance gaydar accuracy even when the faces were presented upside down. Accuracy increased, however, when the faces were presented right side up.
What can we make of this peculiar discovery?
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
There's a BIG clue in most cases.
Don't forget "confirmed bachelor".
Haven't heard that one in a long time.
Surprised this ever made the NYT. I wouldn’t think it fit their meme, that gays are “just like everyone else”.
Have a theory that often gays are their own weird third sex culture. A man trying to imitate a woman, ends up some strange parody of what he thinks a woman is. Has nothing to do with the real way women think, talk, or act. I mean, no woman talks like a gay man.
I lived across the river from you for a few years. My gaydar and conservdar were both fairly honed.
I knew with a guy who was gay. Not only was he gay but so was his husband! What are the odds of that?
I'm working with a guy now -- I met him and spoke with him for a few minutes and I was thinking, "This guy is definitely a homosexual" and then all of a sudden the guy starts talking about his girlfriend. Which gets me thinking, "Who brings up a girlfriend just a few minutes after meeting a new co-worker? That's not natural."
I've worked with the guy for months now and he has never mentioned the "girlfriend" since, and he is definitely homosexual. The voice. The clothing. The mannerisms. The plant in his office. Queer as a $3 bill.
“...all of a sudden the guy starts talking about his girlfriend.”
He had a girlfriend. But he isn’t a girl, and he isn’t just a friend.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2891012/posts?page=46#46
Not exactly. The Hollywood perverts pick out the vulnerable kids and molest and rape them, thus turning them into perverts. The parents of the kids often let this happen or turn a blind eye so they can get $ from their childrens’ acting. Sick crap.
It’s the homosexuals’ expressions, not the features they are born with. This is just another attempt to prove the “born taht way” lie.
I've got some bad news for you...
Your gaydar apparently never functioned.
Good call. You described the situation more accurately than I. The essential point is that Hollywood child stars “somehow” seem to grow up homosexual at an inordinately high rate. I implied that the kids might be born with the tendency, but I think your statement is more accurate: the kids are molested into the lifestyle once the Hollywood establishment perceives them as easy conquests. The child actors perceived as not being easy conquests tend not to get so many jobs, and they just fade away.
A manager in our company took a group of us out to lunch one day. He wanted to discretely inform us one of the female managers had revealed to the management team that she was homosexual.
Every man there shook their heads ... we all intuitively knew it. Not a one of the women there had ever suspected.
My gaydar is set off by males with much bigger smiles. It’s true.
why do you say that?
Because non-gay bands don’t dress up as women and wear lipstick.
Me, too. I have great gaydar.
More than a few of them weren’t just putting on a show with their onstage appearance, is what he’s implying.
Gays are said to be a special race of people now - like blacks, whites, Asians, Hispanics, etc. It’s raaaacis not to celebrate their sex!
And Hollywood talent agents always seem to know which child actors are likely to grow up and be homosexuals. Those kids get the jobs far more often than the straight kids.
Most homosexuals report some form of molestation as children. Perhaps that’s why child actors tend to grow up to become homosexuals.
It’s the most likely reason that homosexual couples want to adopt.
Don’t forget one of the “Duke University 88” (who slandered the Lacrosse players) lived in a homosexual relationship with an adopted black toddler and offered to swap sexual favors with his toddler for access to another small child.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.