> What do you make of the claim that based on 5 photos they achieved a 90% success rate?

I'm reminded of Gerd Gigerenzer's book "Reckoning with risk". It's about medical testing, so forgive the language used:

> A condition exists. There is a test for that condition. The test is good, but not perfect. If someone has the condition there is a 90% chance they'll return positive. If someone does not have the condition there is a 1% chance they'll return positive. About 1% of the population have the condition. Bob has the test, and it comes back positive. What's the probability Bob has the condition?

Most people, even doctors who give these types of tests, get this wrong. The answer is about 50%, but most people put it much higher at 99% or 90%.

I think the Guardian reporting is irresponsible because the general public do not understand percentages, and any reporter using percentages is misleading (albeit inadvertantly) the public.

Here's a link to the book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reckoning-Risk-Learning-Live-Uncert...

> Offensive or not, sexual orientation is DNA based

Sorry, but do you have a source for that claim?

Yes, about 114 sources on Wikipedia.

"As of 1999, about 500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, have been documented engaging in same-sex behaviors.[3][page needed][4] According to the organizers of the 2006 Against Nature? exhibit, it has been observed in 1,500 species.[5]"

So if not DNA, then what else?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

That's missing the point. The question was whether there's any evidence that homosexuality (in humans) is the result of a particular genetic specification. We don't know whether or not that's the case for the worms. All we know is that some worms exhibit homosexual behavior.

It's not missing it. We are in no way different than other mammals in this question. Even the ratios match we observe in nature, so it's very likely that it's a natural process. It can be as deep as epigenetic effect, but I don't see how it's not coded into your system.

We don't even have reliable information on the ratio for humans. Please don't try to tell me that we have reliable numbers on what fraction of worms or chimpanzees are "gay".

There is no source, the gender spectrum is fundamentally based on rejecting science

I think you're confusing biological sex and sexual orientation. The poster above stated that sexual orientation is based off your DNA. There is no gene that determines whether you heterosexual or gay.

It has nothing to do with gender. You're just trying to proliferate your opinion that gender = biological sex. Anyone that is transgender would disagree with your opinion.

Sooooo your source is gamergate/redpill bullshit propaganda. Okay. Have fun with that.

>> What do you make of the claim that based on 5 photos they achieved a 90% success rate?

I'm assuming their model is badly trained and overfitting or they're misinterpreting (though I hope not misrepresenting) their results.