I wouldn't be too quick to say nurture isn't a factor in each case. I just don't think people like James Dobson and Joseph Nicolosi are correct when they pin the "blame" (and the shame) for homosexuality squarely on faulty parenting. I think it was Nicolosi who has said "I tell fathers, that if they don't hug their boys, that one day, another man will." Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! How catchy! And silly!
Well, let's see... It appears that there are two separate subjects being discussed here. One involves a self-described gay person claiming to be able to very often successfully identify other homos. That involves people in their entirety: mannerisms, clothing, faces, and overall personality. The dark red highlighted sentence, however, seems to be about something different. You are, I assume, referring to the picture I posted of the gay man (Nicholas Rule) who happened to have been the primary author of the study. You state correctly that it is more than a facial image. However, his study involved, in at least one of the phases, faces cropped from the bodies and with hair also edited out, to eliminate any potential bias from hairstyle. I wouldn't necessarily say stupid, but maybe misinformed, IF I am understanding your questions correctly, because you seem to have been addressing to distinct issues unawares.
It must be reiterated that the "greater than chance" hits were roughly 70 percent accurate, if I recall correctly. Not dead-on everytime, but curiously accurate.
well i have to say that the 'gay face' experiment cannot be accurate, if we are dealing in reality and not an alternate dimension. it is like rolling the dice and throwing sixes an unusual number of times. it can happen but is not proof of a golden arm.
A golden arm, a Midas touch...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!oke: I don't remember how many participants they used, could check, but they used nearly a hundred faces (maybe more because they did different test parameters for separate experiments, and may have had new sets for each one) and the results were about the same. Using cropped faces, and still getting a better-than-chance accuracy to me doesn't quite equate to lucky dice.
it depends. but to me this is no different than looking at someones face and knowing what they are thinking. one way to prove this is to ask you what identifying features would be present in a gay persons face. 1. ? 2. ? 3. ?
No. It's known as QUEER FACE! Don't you get it? :wallbang: Okay I was being silly about I honestly don't know what those GAY features would be. It really wasn't my hypothesis. Nor do I think the others here have fully endorsed it. The fact remains, that according to the study, self-identified gay males were identified as gay males up to 70% of the time. There's only two choices the test subjects could have chosen to identify these men as: gay, and straight. That means if there was no difference, they should have had an accuracy of about 50/50. Maybe there are flaws? You apparently take issue with their findings.
Have they done any tests where they would show live subjects to the testers, instead of just pictures? Perhaps more than just seeing a man's face is necessary to assess, with greater correctness, whether he is homosexual. Also, have tests been done for recognition of lesbians?
I guess "tests" are done everyday in real life. Not in the proper scientific way, obviously. I would however, think that tests on just a face, with body language and gestures and vocal inflections removed, would be interesting in itself, if it revealed a high degree of correlation. I believe at least part of the test may have involved lesbians, but I don't remember. I know most of the studies on homosexuality are done on males. Most of the decently predictable correlations are found in studies done on males (it has been more difficult to locate correlations in the females). And most of the controversy in homosexuality rests on the shoulders of the males. It is not as well tolerated, and it seems to be more interesting for study in general. :shrug: What the hay is that supposed to mean?
I don't know String. I don't think you have what I would call a homosexual face. If I met you and you didn't seem feminine in any way, I would probably be like that woman you mentioned earlier who didn't believe you when you told her. Now THIS is what I would say is much more of a typical "gay" face! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Same guy who did the study and is pictured on page one of this thread. Of course, he may be an exceptional case. Who knows? Maybe it is subconsciously why he did the study?!?!?
