Sounds great. Would love to hear more!
-
-
Replying to @AlexJonesPhD @Ben_C_J and
A lot of it is really just putting numbers on what you see going on with Lisa's face above. I suspect selfie cameras also have wider lenses
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Richie_Research @AlexJonesPhD and
Why do you think that actual face width is a good variable to measure/infer sexuality when there's no credible theory postulating a link?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @AlexJonesPhD and
It's a terrible measure. But the paper cites jaw contour & nose morph as what their ML used; this shows those are highly malleable.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @LisaDeBruine @AlexJonesPhD and
Sure, that's fine. But some people above are asking for 3d scans of people's heads.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @LisaDeBruine and
Sorry, just to clarify......my point was that if you want to measure stuff from faces, 3D scans are the best way to do it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
People make strong claims about links between aspects of face shape and things like hormones.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
To test these ideas well you need to measure face shape well.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Ben_C_J @LisaDeBruine and
Hormones affecting face shape might be a nice little correlation to look into. Nowt to do with sexuality.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
What makes a morphology-sexuality link taboo to investigate? I *feel* like that study's not OK, but I want to be able to explain that better
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I explained in another part of this thread to you why. Structural oppression.
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.