I think this kind of thing is fascinating. Depending on the context, we simply enjoy or take for granted the benefits of artificial intelligence without necessarily thinking about the underlying mechanics. My favorite semi-trivial example is this one:
https://twitter.com/nke_ise/status/897756900753891328
It illustrates how blind spots, even among researchers/developers with the best of intentions, can lead to absolutely ridiculous and prejudicial outcomes.
oops meant to post that in the Covid thread
I don’t think it’s nuts, but imo it becomes less plausible the more you think about it. It needs to hit the target of being reliably indicative without our having evolved to detect it (or to be detecting it only unconsciously, which, eh nah). Basically an evil green beard that’s also invisible. Not nuts, perhaps, but far less plausible than many seem to think, imo.
ACKSHULLY it’s technically physiognomy, so there. 
Just to pile on @clovis8, which is fun, I also think that filtering research projects through ethics committees isn’t some controversial idea, its standard operating procedure at reputable universities and stops a lot of bad stuff from happening. One of my wife’s numerous roles is as a researcher in psychiatry. I can assure you that ethical guardrails on what kinds of experiments people are allowed to run on psychiatric patients are a net positive. These ethics committees on funding bodies aren’t perfect, but they’re not idiots either.
He got shoved in a wood chipper in Fargo
And had a heart attack in The Big Lebowski
Adele’s birthday is today and she posted a picture of her showing some weight loss.
People complimented her for looking good and a bunch of people on twitter collectively lost their mind. “How dare you tell people they only look good if they lose weight” etc etc.
I don’t see why you need to assume the worst since I made it crystal clear in my previous posts that harm is obviously a factor and that ethics always plays a role in research?
Seems like the fact that some actions are criminal for some people but not others would screw things up pretty bad. On some level you’d imagine they’re just finding poor or unattractive people.
I was wondering why the “Problem Poster” thread had well over 100 new posts yesterday. Didn’t click on it, but I assume that since the title has been changed to “Unreadable Dumpster Fire” and moved to French BBV, it’s not worth reading?
As long as they’re not focusing on her anodyne drivel music.
Ldo. I was talking pre-Mr. Pink.
The new regulations narrow the definition of sexual harassment and require colleges to hold live hearings during which alleged victims and accused perpetrators can be cross-examined to challenge their credibility. The rules also limit the complaints that schools are obligated to investigate to only those filed through a formal process and brought to the attention of officials with the authority to take corrective action.
Schools will also be responsible for investigating only episodes said to have occurred within their programs and activities. And they will have the flexibility to choose which evidentiary standard to use to find students responsible for misconduct — “preponderance of evidence” or “clear and convincing evidence.”
To find a school legally culpable for mishandling allegations, they would have to be proven “deliberately indifferent,” in carrying out mandates to provide support to victims and investigate complaints fairly.
Looks like Betsy has invoked the Rapist Protection Act.
How? Does the facial expression cause the crime or the crime cause the facial expression? What’s the mechanism?
I wasn’t expecting to see a defense of phrenology ITT this morning. What wonders this forum holds.
Major grunch because I haven’t read the linked paper and half the posts about it–I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some correlation between crime likelihood and physical appearance where the real connection was something like growing up poor. Higher likelihood of crime, higher likelihood of poor nutrition, boom there’s correlation.
Still seems like a major WTF effort. How about we fight crime by making lives easier for poor people?
I didn’t say criminal. I said anti-social. I also have no intention of postulating how it might work since it’s obviously a very unlikely correlation. I’m simply stating I don’t see why it’s de facto impossible.
Of course, you know no such defence has been posted so I’ll never understand the value of this type of post.
You wanted to be officially on the record as anti-phrenology? Congrats, I guess.
Condolences to our German posters (even if they don’t like the band) and lovers of early electronica.
Jesus he was 73! How the fuck old am I?!!
