= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
polymathwannabe comments on Yet more "stupid" questions - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (340)
OK, I just ran some numbers based on wild guesses. Assuming 10% of all men are gay, and 80% of gay men look gay, and 15% of straight men look gay, my napkin calculation gives about 37% chance that a man who looks gay is actually gay.
Doesn't look like any gaydar based on perceived behavior would be too reliable.
Of course, if any of my steps was wrong, please let me know.
A gaydar doesn't have to depend on how gay a person looks superficially. There are plenty of other cues.
True, I should have used more general wording than "looks gay;" it would only be one component of the gaydar criteria. The problem is finding how to state it in not-loaded language. It would be impractical to use "matches stereotypically effeminate behavior."
"Stereotypically effeminate behavior" and "gay male behavior" are practically disjoint.
This comment made me reassess my confidence in being able to tell if someone is gay or not.