I take this to suggest that phrenology has been debunked, rather than merely not proven or merely seeming stupid.
-
-
Replying to @random_eddie @MorlockP
I'm now somewhat curious what the 5% of phrenology is that you think might not be bunk, and which aspects of phrenology have since been proven by studies.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @random_eddie
* skull size correlates with IQ * thicker facial features, specifically supra-orbital ridges, correlate with high T, agressiveness, criminality * other, unspecified, that viewers can detect and use to guess things like criminality, education, sexual orientation
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @realDharmakirti @random_eddie
lololol must ban the algorithm!
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @realDharmakirti @MorlockP
One legitimate issue with algorithmic classification is that we don't know what the algorithm is measuring, but we like to pretend that we do. Is it detecting genetic tendencies towards homosexuality that are expressed in facial structure? Or do gays take better-lit pictures?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @realDharmakirti @MorlockP
There's nothing wrong with noting correlations. There's the potential for great wrong if black boxes are picking up correlations which we can't identify, specify, understand, or explain. Because that leads us to start thinking that the calipers DO measure IQ.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Muting this thread now.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.