There's significant signal buried in here that is likely not controlled for, depending on how granular their controls are.
White-German and White-Italian are much more (10-13 percent) likely to be conservative leaning than White-Irish or White-British.
Hispanic-Cuban are more likely to be conservative leaning than Hispanic-Mexican.
What does a final number with the controls active even mean? I doubt accuracy was identical within each grouping they used. Even the groupings are really unclear in the paper (at most 4 ethnic groups，no idea how they did age, etc.)
Unless you are a farmer
I don't know how the GOP still manages to run on a platform of "balanced budgets" when they have consistently running higher deficits than the Democrats for nearly that past 100 years.
I don't especially try to find opposing belligerents to moderate when a fight breaks out; that would just be a different form of bias. But it's handy when it comes up naturally, because it neutralizes the "you're only doing this because you disagree with me" objection which usually comes up, and which I'm always bracing myself for, otherwise.
I think this reaction must be biologically rooted somehow, because it's so common, and recognizably the same "no fair!" reaction that one can observe in small children and sometimes in animals. That's not a criticism, and certainly not a personal criticism—my point is that we all have this.
* Political orientation was correctly classified in 72% of liberal–conservative face pairs, remarkably better than chance (50%), human accuracy (55%), or one afforded by a 100-item personality questionnaire (66%).
* Accuracy was similar across countries (the U.S., Canada, and the UK), environments (Facebook and dating websites), and when comparing faces across samples.
* Accuracy remained high (69%) even when controlling for age, gender, and ethnicity.