6 ms·

Truth doesn't really care about your sensibilities. It seems there is actually an art to finding the mind's construction in the face! What this is really telli

Truth doesn't really care about your sensibilities. It seems there is actually an art to finding the mind's construction in the face! What this is really telling us is that we should not be judging others on their political, sexual, ideological, whatever-ical affiliations. A person is a person and we should value them for that and only that. These other qualities may be more or less useful in some sense, but not in the sense that counts - that they are a thinking feeling person who deserves our respect.

DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
> Truth doesn't really care about your sensibilities. I think the GP was questioning the wisdom of seeking a detail answer on this question; not whether or not the question has an objectively true answer.
majormajor 6y ago
Do you think people hundreds of years ago with different common political views - some of which we'd find abhorrent now - had different faces too? Someone should test this classifier on old images. Maybe it's just identifying fashion, not facial structure.
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  A lot has changed, including nutrition. I would not be surprised if 17th century skeletons and body builds were observably different from the contemporary ones. In fact, at least height and weight of an average person is fairly different compared to the past.
  - majormajor 6y ago
    And those are all non-genetic factors along the lines of other non-controversial things like "how wealthy you are will influence your political views," versus things supporting the "all political views are sacrosanct and can't be judged, because people can't help themselves" direction that 'plutonorm was suggesting.
- Applejinx 6y ago
  No, what would change is that you'd get people from hundreds of years ago expressing conservatism or liberalism _for the time_. It's neither fashion nor facial structure, it's more or less intensity of facial scrunch vs. innocence, or wariness vs invitation. This is going to hold true for all humans and indeed for similar enough animals so long as they have the ability for comparable postures and expressions (dogs and cats would have the capacity for posture but I think dogs are more capable of brow expression/mobility, and of course monkeys and apes are close parallels to human expression) So you could, in a limited sense, tell whether you've got a hippie cat or one who wants the hippies to get off its litterbox :) the latter will give you more side-eye, and more of a narrowed gaze.
TomSwirly 6y ago
> What this is really telling us is that we should not be judging others on their political, sexual, ideological, whatever-ical affiliations. 1. Where did you get that from the article?! 2. One of these things is not like the others. Many "political" beliefs are perfectly well worth judging people on. Nazism is a political belief. Fascism is a political belief. White supremacism is a political belief - it's also racist, but it's a belief about how society is to be arranged, which is to say, with white people in charge. And Trumpism is a political belief, one that requires you to believe the most horrible lies and revere the most horrible human. I have absolutely not the slightest issue in the world judging people to be loathsome because of their loathsome political beliefs. I have no problems detesting Nazis, Fascists, the KKK or any number of people with proudly evil political beliefs. Why one might think political beliefs are off-limits with respect to moral, ethical or personal judgements is hard to understand. Surely then one could hang the word "political" on any vile belief and then say, "You can't judge me! I want redheads to be sterilized, but for political reasons only!" Indeed, the sorts of people who demand that humans not be loathed for their political beliefs are often people who have loathsome political beliefs.

DoofusOfDeath 6y ago

> Truth doesn't really care about your sensibilities. I think the GP was questioning the wisdom of seeking a detail answer on this question; not whether or not the question has an objectively true answer.

majormajor 6y ago

Do you think people hundreds of years ago with different common political views - some of which we'd find abhorrent now - had different faces too? Someone should test this classifier on old images. Maybe it's just identifying fashion, not facial structure.

inglor_cz 6y ago
A lot has changed, including nutrition. I would not be surprised if 17th century skeletons and body builds were observably different from the contemporary ones. In fact, at least height and weight of an average person is fairly different compared to the past.
- majormajor 6y ago
  And those are all non-genetic factors along the lines of other non-controversial things like "how wealthy you are will influence your political views," versus things supporting the "all political views are sacrosanct and can't be judged, because people can't help themselves" direction that 'plutonorm was suggesting.
Applejinx 6y ago
No, what would change is that you'd get people from hundreds of years ago expressing conservatism or liberalism _for the time_. It's neither fashion nor facial structure, it's more or less intensity of facial scrunch vs. innocence, or wariness vs invitation. This is going to hold true for all humans and indeed for similar enough animals so long as they have the ability for comparable postures and expressions (dogs and cats would have the capacity for posture but I think dogs are more capable of brow expression/mobility, and of course monkeys and apes are close parallels to human expression) So you could, in a limited sense, tell whether you've got a hippie cat or one who wants the hippies to get off its litterbox :) the latter will give you more side-eye, and more of a narrowed gaze.

TomSwirly 6y ago

> What this is really telling us is that we should not be judging others on their political, sexual, ideological, whatever-ical affiliations. 1. Where did you get that from the article?! 2. One of these things is not like the others. Many "political" beliefs are perfectly well worth judging people on. Nazism is a political belief. Fascism is a political belief. White supremacism is a political belief - it's also racist, but it's a belief about how society is to be arranged, which is to say, with white people in charge. And Trumpism is a political belief, one that requires you to believe the most horrible lies and revere the most horrible human. I have absolutely not the slightest issue in the world judging people to be loathsome because of their loathsome political beliefs. I have no problems detesting Nazis, Fascists, the KKK or any number of people with proudly evil political beliefs. Why one might think political beliefs are off-limits with respect to moral, ethical or personal judgements is hard to understand. Surely then one could hang the word "political" on any vile belief and then say, "You can't judge me! I want redheads to be sterilized, but for political reasons only!" Indeed, the sorts of people who demand that humans not be loathed for their political beliefs are often people who have loathsome political beliefs.