3 ms·
I was apart of a similar study once. I'm gay, and they were unable to tell. During their study it was actually an under chance of 40% which was pretty bad. Need
by tupacshake 14y ago
I was apart of a similar study once. I'm gay, and they were unable to tell. During their study it was actually an under chance of 40% which was pretty bad. Needless to say, 60% isn't much of chance either.
This is the only thing that made any sense in that article:
"We speculate that people overzealously interpret whatever facial factors lead us to classify men as gay. That is, it may be that straight men’s faces that are perceived as even slightly effeminate are incorrectly classified as gay, whereas straight women’s faces that are perceived as slightly masculine may still be seen as straight. That would be consistent with how our society applies gender norms to men: very strictly."
- Locke1689 14y agoYou should probably review a statistics test -- under 40% is great. In fact, under 40% is better than 60% (assuming statistical significance). All that would mean is that people see homosexuals as more heterosexual than heterosexuals (which would be quite funny). Any statistically significant deviation from 50% implies successful visual differentiation abilities.