this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2024

14 points (62.1% liked)

News

31023 readers

5060 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

Study Finds Faces Evolve to Match Names Over Time - Neuroscience News (neurosciencenews.com)

submitted 11 months ago by Gsus4@mander.xyz to c/news@lemmy.world

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 21 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 40 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Based on the methods, seems a stretch to say this isnt correlation alone

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago

Yeah, just the wording of the title is a huge red flag.

I'm curious if "faces" are really just faces or shoulders up where hairstyles and clothes give clues.

Like, an a adult that goes by Bob, Bobby, or Robert looks different. And people would subconsciously account for age and what names were popular.

A lot of shit goes on behind the scenes and sometimes the conscious brain doesn't know and makes up it's own reason for why it decided something.

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I don't care which way the causation goes or whether it comes from the name choice and preferences of the parents (yea, bad title), what surprised me is that ML can predict a name based on a face at all, there should be no correlation in first place.

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I disagree. Age biases the statistical likelihood of a name. Features that hint in any ethnic direction. Also some visible features might bias towards urban vs rural upbringing which also would also lean names in another direction.

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Oh yea, baby name trends, ethnicity, I don't know how heterogeneous the datasets they are using are when they mention the strength of the correlation, I was imagining it would distinguish a John from a Peter, but there could be a much lower correlation in that subset.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 22 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I’m gonna need a lot of concurring studies to accept this.

Also, did you know the shape of your skull can determine if you’re a criminal? /s

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 9 points 11 months ago

And now we know his name! Arrest him!

[–] wabafee@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Hmm I'm not liking where this is going.

[–] No_Eponym@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago

Going? Naw bud, it gone.

[–] Zier@fedia.io 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm changing my name to "Sexy".

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 5 points 11 months ago

"bonk!"

[+] catloaf@lemm.ee 7 points 11 months ago (4 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Even then, it gives just a little credence to those people who like to tell you that "You look like a Judy."

Thanks for looking up the article, the headline is most likely wrong.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Not sure why this was removed for rule 1, as there was no attack on anyone's person, it was entirely a criticism of the study.

Unless it was for describing journalists who refuse to provide direct references to the studies they write about as "fuckers", in which case I can edit that part out once the comment is restored, even though it was not directed at any one person.

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They say that they didn't have pictures with religious affectations, and that they cropped pictures to show little hair.

But, in the example pictures, the vast majority of the woman's hair is visible.

Maybe that's what they were referring to?

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm not bothering to open the study again, but from what I remember, the strong cropping was for the AI analysis. For the people, they cropped like in the example.

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Oh, yeah, you're right. Not cropped. I read that wrong:

Across the human social perceivers’ studies (Studies 1, 2, and 4A), the facial appearance of the targets in the images consisted of headshots cropped around shoulder height, and included facial accessories such as individuals’ hair, eyeglasses, and any subtle cosmetics they wore. To ensure that the hair is included in the image, facial images were cropped around shoulder height, occasionally including the top of the shirt in the frame, as depicted in Fig. 1. We did not include images of individuals wearing stereotypically recognizable accessories such as religious items.

So, sometimes articles of clothing and certainly makeup were present.

[–] jwt@programming.dev 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You know the kind of research result where you go: "Well, no shit sherlock!" ?

This is the diametrical opposite of that...

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Yea, peer review is (almost) dead.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -3 points 11 months ago

Neuroscience News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for Neuroscience News:

MBFC: Pro-Science - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://neurosciencenews.com/name-face-evolution-neuroscience-27492/

~Media~ ~Bias~ ~Fact~ ~Check~ ~|~ ~bot~ ~support~