Republican Senator Tom Coburn has issued a report on waste in government — a two hundred page report of excessive spending in the millions and as small as $300. As a former intern for Sen. William Proxmire (D., Wis.) who used to issue his Golden Fleece Award, I always find such reports interesting. However, one small item caught my eye: $30,000 to the University of Washington and Cornell University for a study that proved that “Gaydar” actually exists. Of course, you might ask why the government has an interest in such a study but do not be surprised if the next DoD budget has $30 billion in research and development of a stealth gay project for the evasion of Gaydar.
The National Science Foundation contributed $30,000 to fund a study done by the University of Washington and Cornell University to measure “Gaydar.” They found it to be 60 percent accurate. That is only 10 percent over a random 50-50 bet, it would seem. However, the result were considered significant. According to the Science Daily, the study found “After seeing faces for less than a blink of an eye, college students have accuracy greater than mere chance in judging others’ sexual orientation.” The authors argue that this may assist in establishing the basis for discrimination claims.
The study involved 129 college students who were given 96 photos each of young adult men and women. Notably, the selection of gay women showed a higher percentage of accuracy: 65 percent. Even when the faces were flipped upside down, participants were 61 percent accurate in telling the gay and straight women apart. That means, that we can still peg the sexual preference of “Silly Sally” even after she “Went to Town Walking Backwards Upside Down.”
For men, the accuracy rate was only 57 percent. So there you have it. I am just not sure what it is except that I am pretty sure we could have used the money better in adding more science books in one of our struggling public schools. This is particularly the case when the limitations of the study are considered. Even assuming that this is a valuable exercise for federal funding, the subjects were shown simply still pictures of individuals. These pictures were further made more uniform by removing facial hair and other characteristics. I am not sure how such a display offers a real measure. Of course, the researchers could note that the percentage of accuracy is all the more remarkable given the lack of such distinguishing characteristics or the use of moving images.
Here is one serious concern that I have. The study actually shows slightly over random selection for males and a bit better for women. However, while I see the marginal value for a discrimination lawsuit (though I am skeptical of its admissibility in a given case), it also will likely reinforce the belief of many (including many homophobes) that they can tell someone is gay. Such suspicions are often wrong and based on stereotypes. From secondary school to employment environments, people are often subject to such rumors or harassment. I take from this study that there is actually a high level of inaccuracy in such assumptions.
I do not object to the universities pursuing such research. This is a major social and political segment of our population and the perception of the sexual orientation of individuals has, as the authors note, significance in a variety of different contexts. However, there is a legitimate question of whether public funds are justified.
Source: Townhall
Fairly Balanced, “Is it possible to post a link for us on the Report on Waste.”
I would suggest starting with the Pentagons Budget. :o)
Malisha, That’s interesting. Most of the gay people I know are lesbians. Madison is the SF for lesbians. And like the person you describe, a few despise gay men. I know one gay guy who doesn’t like lesbians but the 3 others I know have never expressed any animosity. In my sample, both the men and women believe they have gaydar. Although, one of the men told me I have a gay gait. NTTAWWT! Being a professional reader of people you need more than just a picture. Language, mannerisms, speech, gait, etc. What is quite interesting many of both the gay men and women in Wi. believe the baseball MVP[Ryan Braun] and football MVP[Aaron Rodgers] are gay. It’s a damn shame active professional athletes don’t come out. However, I certainly understand it. Redneck pitchers will throw @ their heads and lineman will blow out a QB’s knee. Sports is the last frontier for openess.
Sounds like a university trolling for grant money as a source of revenue. Not a very efficient study from a cost benefit point of view as Gene points out.
I wonder what was the cost of the study to find which picture was named Kiki and which Bouba. Kiki and Bouba Effect
“As a former intern for Sen. William Proxmire (D., Wis.) who used to issue his Golden Fleece Award, I always find such reports interesting. However, one small item caught my eye: $30,000 to the University of Washington and Cornell University for a study that proved that “Gaydar” actually exists…”
The Golden Fleece Award was cool JT.
That $30,000 Gaydar study money would have been better spent on teaching neoCons in the House how to calculate as accurately as Fifth Graders.
Those said House members do not know the difference between area and volume calculations even in matters of national security.
Nick S, a friend of mine who is a Lesbian who professes actual hatred for gay MEN used to tell me that her “gaydar” was so good she could spot a gay male while he was driving his car, turning left, and she was driving her car in the opposite direction and got a less-than-one-second glimpse of him. Yet unbeknownst to her, a mutual friend of our was a gay male who was married to a heterosexual woman we both knew. Both gay husband and heterosexual wife wanted the husband’s sexual preference to remain a secret so I never let this supposed expert know. She never suspected it!
A member of my family is gay. He has told me there is absolutely such a thing as “gaydar”. Could be I guess.
I would want to know what are the characteristics that caused the people in the study to decide, just on the basis of a picture, if someone is homosexual or heterosexual. Not sure what benefit that would be either but it might help codify the inherent biases against gay people by homophobes
Mike Spindell – You ask (in response to a reply I make, above), “Enoch, Ayn Rand much?”
Well, yes; but to infer anything from that admission, mustn’t it be true that you, also, have read Rand? On what other foundation might you ask that question as if to stereotype me with it – or is mere uninformed prejudice sufficient for you? More to the point, have you read Rawles (for example); and, if you have, mightn’t I arrive at very much the same question, viz. property, simply in objection to that author?
In brief, Mike, regardless who said it (to take cognizance otherwise would be to flirt with the ad hominem), isn’t it the question that matters, whether I ask it of my own reason or if I simply present what Rand – or Nozick, for that matter – might have asked?
So I will pose the question again: If public money is taken for anything, does not the taking raise the ethical question of the persistent interest in its use of the owner thus deprived?
Take careful note, Mike: I have asked a question. In other words, I have invited an interested party to offer a thoughtful answer – to the question. Interrogatories into my reading, preferred or otherwise, are not answers.
“So I will pose the question again: If public money is taken for anything, does not the taking raise the ethical question of the persistent interest in its use of the owner thus deprived? Take careful note, Mike: I have asked a question. In other words, I have invited an interested party to offer a thoughtful answer – to the question. Interrogatories into my reading, preferred or otherwise, are not answers.”
Enoch, I had read ALL of Rand probably before you were born. The simple truth is that she was a sociopath, who used her rather inept writings, to justify her own pathology. I even heard her “intellectual heir”, Nathaniel Brandon”, discuss objectivism numerous time in the late 50’s and early 60’s.
It is a bankrupt pseudo philosophy/economic statement that is only workable in a state run by gangsters, which its adoption would inevitably lead to. As far as debating you on the topic, I don’t have to because unbeknownst to you, this topic has been debated here on numerous occasions and each time the stupidity of the position has been trounced by rational thinkers going up against people who can’t think rationally. The longest thread in this blog’s history contains an excellent debate on Ayn Rand which you can access here: http://jonathanturley.org/2011/07/16/what-makes-a-good-law-what-makes-a-bad-law-2/
The truth is I find you Ayn Rand supporters boring and dull-witted. Now if you suspect in your dimness and arrogance that this attack was “ad hominem”, you would be correct, I refuse to waste my time.
When I first moved to Wisconsin Proxmire was our Senator. So, I’ve had the honor to vote for both him and Feingold. Two politicians w/ honor.
Although in the Proxmire tradition I think this is horsesh!t, I would like to have known the sexual orientation of the people viewing the photos. Gay folks I know all say they have superb gaydar.
I am not sure that we should be deciding if a scientific study was a waste because the results in this case did not return much value for the buck. We would not discover or learn new things if we guess up front that this particular study is not worth the money. Of course, that being said, Gaydar??
At $30,000, this must be the smallest grant ever handed out by the NSF! Grants generally are for a few hundred thousand dollars over two to five years. Since the original research article doesn’t list NSF funding in the acknowledgments, something that is traditionally done, but does say that the research paper was composed in partial fulfillment of the lead author’s master’s degree, it looks like this dude won an NSF fellowship and did this study as part of his master’s research, and that Sen. Coburn is simply picking little snippets from the NSF record and presenting them out of context.
In any case, yeah, a lot of studies sound ridiculous when taken in isolation by non-scientists. Galileo’s studies of gravitation, had they been published today, could have gone under the title “The Speeds of Falling Wood and Stone”, and you could say that of course things fall. Why do we need to test this? In all likelihood, though, this grant went to fund a greater research effort found this particular correlation among others. The same lead author, in fact, has another paper that seems to study emotional expressivity in general. They probably tested for many variables, and this is but one of their results. It’s akin to spending a hundred dollars at the grocery store, and saying that you’ve contributed a hundred dollars to the purchase of apples. You certainly didn’t buy a hundred pounds of apples.
Wow. When I saw the headline, I couldn’t understand it, and thought:
1. That the “waste study” meant that somewhere in a superfund dump or a wastewater treatment plant, a study of the waste was conducted; and
2. That somehow that study had turned up, as an unintended consequences, some kind of proof of the existence of gaydar; so
I just had to read the article.
NOT SURPRISED they spent money on this because almost anything that has to do with sexual preference or orientation is able to get funding over any kind of research that would back up claims that government needs to deal with more significant things (the list goes on and on and on and on); but
SURPRISED that anybody found it necessary to do this study. It’s “duh” research. A very ordinary person can tell a LOT from looking at a photograph of someone’s face. This is no surprise. Accuracy in the 57% to 60% range just means that the study participants were awake.
Is it possible to post a link for us on the Report on Waste. I am not interested in the gay recognition thing but would be interested to see some of the waste and perhaps discern who the wasters in Congress might be. I am sure that some of the wasteful programs are targeted to one district or one geographical area. Now if there was a study on how to spot Americans of Celtic origin who immigrated here to the colonies then we could pick out the crackers. Of course if we spot the crackers we probably do the reverse.
Not all crackers are of Celtic origin. There is a family tree of folks in NC who came over from Germany as Baumgaertner and changed the name to fit the place — to Bumgarner. Some guy with that name pitched in the playoffs the other night.
But if someone could please post a link to the wasteful spending report it would be good reading. I am interested to see if there is any study of the waste of spending public money in schools on sending kids home with “homework”. Maybe President Hollande has such a study for France or Remulak or where ever he is from.
“When one commits public money to any purpose, one diverts property from its owner’s use to the use of some other(s). A simple ethical question is implied by this: ought not those whose property is used without their leave have at least some interest in the outcome remaining? Some cognizable interest?”
Enoch,
Ayn Rand much?
Where do you sign up for these……
Mel, my earlier comments have been tongue-in-cheek. My comment to you is not.
When one commits public money to any purpose, one diverts property from its owner’s use to the use of some other(s). A simple ethical question is implied by this: ought not those whose property is used without their leave have at least some interest in the outcome remaining? Some cognizable interest?
By all means, seek knowledge. But how does one justify impressing others in the service of your ambition?
While I understand the concerns about wasteful spending, I always view this sort of reporting with some alarm. The concept of pure scientific research–of seeking out knowledge for its own sake–has been bludgeoned nearly to death in recent decades, and I find very exasperating the concept that studies shouldn’t be funded unless there’s an immediate practical application on the horizon. The implication lately has become (the “Golden Fleece” awards are a case in point) that the undertaking of any sort of research that doesn’t lead, in the most facile and obvious manner, to “useful” knowledge, is tantamount to scamming the system.
Criticize the methodology, by all means. Demand rigor and reproducibility. But posing questions for the simple sake of knowing the answers is what scientific inquiry is all about.
Yes, Gene, you’re quite right. I’m sure it alleviated the boredom for a while, though, and added raw material to the grievance industry.
And, after all, what’s a good, populist government without a well supplied grievance industry?
How much did the dear Senator waste having the study done? I’m old enough to remember Sen. Proxmire’s (D WIsc) “Golden Fleece” awards. All too often these ‘studies’ go out of their way to misrepresent the work done or to mischaracterize the intent and the results of scientific research for cheap political gain. Look at the “fruit fly’ controversy stirred up in the last election cycle as a classic example.
Yes, there is waste in government spending, and, yes, there needs to be tight controls on how the people money is managed. The problem is these sorts of grandstand plays do neither.
30K for building a survey comprised of 96 photos (which could be duplicated cheaply after initial processing), surveying 129 people, collating the data and writing a report. That’s $232.56 per survey yielding 192 essentially binary data points (gay/not) or 24,768 total data points across the whole sample space. Not genius level statistical analysis required to process.
That seems more than a bit excessive.
Amusing. Perhaps, “Spot the Gay” could become a new parlor game. Then again, it would be interesting to see if gay men or women are better at spotting other gay men or women that straight men and women are. This “study” doesn’t seem weight for or take into account this possibility.
On a related note, I’ve often thought I could correctly assign someone’s place on the political spectrum at a glance…or, maybe, I was just confusing the gay population’s predilection for liberal politics, and it really was sexual orientation I’ve been sniffing out all along.
My, this IS getting complicated, isn’t it?
I wonder if there might be a study designed to learn if straight liberal men can spot the conservative lesbian in the crowd, or vice-versa.
Now THAT would bring us far down the road to world peace and universal prosperity, wouldn’t it?