|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why Do Gay Men Sound Gay? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
That would be valleyspeak.. Right, or perhaps just another stereotype, just a little bit further from the truth than the one that started this thread. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Yes very much a stereotype. Like all stereotypes there is some basis in facts and reality.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
That would be valleyspeak, ... Yes. And Valleyspeak is another of the many registers stereotypically associated with 'gay speech'. For evidence that this stereotypical association exists, just google it.
... something completely different. Not entirely, no. As anglagard's daughter pointed out, the rising intonation of Valleyspeak is quite commonly associated with 'gay speech' - at least as far as stereotypes go.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
So "gay speech" is different things to different people.
I wonder what sounding gay actually means to Faith. I honestly have never heard anyone actually use valleyspeak, straight or gay. It has always just been a caricature on TV and movies in my experience. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Not entirely, no. As anglagard's daughter pointed out, the rising intonation of Valleyspeak is quite commonly associated with 'gay speech' I think that means that you cannot actually type gay, since you cannot type with an intonation. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
Here is another study debunking the whole "gay voice" and "gaydar" thing. Just stereotypes, according to the people that actually study these things.
quote:Page not found - Talent Management Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
So "gay speech" is different things to different people. Obviously.
I wonder what sounding gay actually means to Faith. Ask her.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
I should just not respond
Edited by Theodoric, : Forget itFacts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What does "sounding gay" mean to me? Not much. I started the thread as I said because of the voiceover put on Trump on the Humor thread that was identified as gay, and clearly sounds gay to me. I've never analyzed a voice to see what makes it gay to my ear, but like many I think I recognize it when I hear it. The thread made it clear that some who sound gay aren't and lots of gays don't sound gay, identified a "camp" voice, and made me aware that it ultimately derives from female speech patterns, all of which I found interesting.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Theodoric writes:
I don't think that's true. It's a subtle form of non-verbal communication, body language, etc. How do you tell whether or not somebody is attracted to you? You're getting "signals" (which some people are better than others at detecting and decoding). Gay people in particular have an incentive to hone those skills.
Gaydar, the pop culture sixth sense that many people proudly claim to have, doesn’t actually exist....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, Theo.
You have to be really careful with this stuff. Once again, the paper you linked to can't really support the broad claim that "gaydar is a myth." The problem is that they isolated a few specific components of the "gay" archetype, and discovered that people couldn't use those specific components, in isolation, to reliably identify gay people.
Here's a link to the abstract. Basically, they found public-domain photographs of people who self-identified as "gay" or "straight," cropped them so only the face or face-and-hair were visible, and paired them randomly with a single profile statement of varying "gay-stereotypicality": for example, "he plays football" or "he is a hairdresser" or "he likes to travel." They saw no consistent trends in the effect of facial or hairstyle cues on gaydar results, but the statements did influence people's gaydar judgments. This is a far cry from what happens when people actually attempt to use their gaydar in real-life situations. Speech, mannerisms, clothing style and other factors also play a role; and it's the aggregate of many different factors that likely serve as the basis for the claimed "gaydar" ability. So, isolating one component and saying "this doesn't tell you whether a person is gay" is not debunking the overall myth. That said, I tend to roll my eyes at anybody who claims to be able to make this type of snap-judgment with any kind of accuracy. Most likely, they are suffering from confirmation bias, and even if they are accurate, they've likely misidentified the reason why (e.g., in the previous paper, listeners claimed that "gay-sounding" voices are "high-pitched," but the voices they identified as "gay-sounding" were not actually high-pitched voices). Then again, some computer algorithms can identify gay people with 88% accuracy based only on innocuous Facebook likes, so perhaps gaydar is a more plausible idea than we think it is. ----- One thing that I've not seen is a comparison between different stereotypes. For example, has anyone ever tried to compare the accuracy of "gaydar" to the accuracy of "gamer-dar" or "pedophile-dar" or "liberal-dar" or anything else like that? Because, so far, all the evidence seems to take the form of "well, that wasn't very accurate, so you must not have that ability." But, what is the expected accuracy for something like this? Isn't it entirely possible that 55% accuracy (or whatever) is abnormally good for "stereotype-dar"? How would we know?-Blue Jay, Ph.D.* *Yeah, it's real Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
If it is no more accurate than chance it isn't accurate.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Blue Jay writes: Isn't it entirely possible that 55% accuracy Theodoric writes: If it is no more accurate than chance it isn't accurate. Does that really answer Blue Jay's question. (maybe it was not intended to) A method that identifies gay people with only a 40% success would not be accurate, but it might be of use if you were a gay person using the technique to identify potential partners while trying to avoid homophobes. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1053 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
Here is another study debunking the whole "gay voice" and "gaydar" thing. The study says the square root of fuck all about gay voices. The word 'voice' does not even appear in the article at all. The study is intended to test whether some people can recognise sexual orientation by facial structure. This is an entirely different question to that of whether gay men are more likely to have a stereotypically gay voice than straight me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, Theo.
Theodoric writes: If it is no more accurate than chance it isn't accurate. Well, I agree with you. The problem is that none of these studies provides an estimate for what results "chance" would yield. To do that, you would need a way of truly randomly sampling people, like picking every nth person who passes to be "gay." So, if 10% of people actually are gay, then I would expect that about 10% of any random sample would be gay. If I instead pick people based on my gaydar, and 30% of the people I picked actually are gay, what does that mean? Clearly, the gaydar "works," doesn't it? I mean, it improves my odds of identifying a gay person. It's still wrong most of the time, but from the perspective of an individual making decisions on the fly, it sure seems to help some. This is kind of the double-edged sword of the stereotype: just because it's usually wrong doesn't mean it doesn't work. Calling it a "myth" because of it's inaccuracy is misrepresenting the function that a stereotype serves to the individual. We didn't evolve our cognitive mechanisms to accurately organize global information into appropriate categories: we evolved our cognitive mechanisms to improve our chances of making useful local decisions on a case-by-case basis. That's my take anyway. But, I'm not a psychologist, so I may be way off.-Blue Jay, Ph.D.* *Yeah, it's real Darwin loves you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024