311–320 of 421 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Profile photo with a person wearing a baseball cap and Oakleys? Yup, that’s a republican.
If it's that easy then why was human guessing only 55 percent accurate?
I think the key line is how much better this system is than humans attempting the same task: > Political orientation was correctly classified in 72% of liberal–conservative face pairs, remarkably better than chance (50%), human accuracy (55%), or one afforded by a 100-item personality questionnaire (66%). This isn't a matter of "recognize that old white people are conservative", because people will do that already, a…
My key issue is: why does that matter, humans should not be doing it in the first place, why do we need a machine that's even better at it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good points and summary. Adding on to that, the following was from the abstract about 2 sentences in. Seems like some users do enjoy jumping straight to the comments! * Political orientation was correctly classified in 72% of liberal–conservative face pairs, remarkably better than chance (50%), human accuracy (55%), or one afforded by a 100-item personality questionnaire (66%). * Accuracy was similar across countries…
"controlling for ... ethnicity" There's significant signal buried in here that is likely not controlled for, depending on how granular their controls are. White-German and White-Italian are much more (10-13 percent) likely to be conservative leaning than White-Irish or White-British. Hispanic-Cuban are more likely to be conservative leaning than Hispanic-Mexican.
There's an avalanche of people commenting on this who didn't bother to check the article before raising their methodological objections, so let's get these out of the way here. - Yes, they controlled for objects appearing in the pictures that might indicate political affiliation. The images are tightly cropped around the face. See Methods. - Yes, this is significantly better than both a coin flip and a human classifi…
The 72% number is the result when not controlling for demographics. When controlling for demographics, the results ranged from 65% to 71% accuracy. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-79310-1/figures/2 It makes we wonder what the accuracy would be if they controlled for demographics at a smaller granularity, like sub-ethnicities. Furthermore, it appears that the Canadian dating site data set was 54% conservati…
I eventually started a game in my mind where I'd try to guess their political affiliation before the chyron appeared. I'm pretty sure by the end I was getting it correct more than 50% of the time. Everyone was dressed similarly, but I remember looking closely at their tie patterns and hair cuts as clues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Profile photo with a person wearing a baseball cap and Oakleys? Yup, that’s a republican.
If it's that easy then why was human guessing only 55 percent accurate?
We all know there is a demographics/ethnics factor in people's political affiliation.
I only skimmed the paper, so I'm not claiming to know much about it, but one thing to keep in mind here is that a fair coin has a 50% accuracy using the same terminology as the headline. I'm not saying 72% is not an interesting achievement, its just that "you can do about 50% better than random chance" describes my gut feeling about how much you could actually see in someones face.
It says in the article that humans got just 55% (so 10% better than random chance) on the same test.