Humans are notoriously bad at detecting whether a potential romantic partner is dropping subtle hints of interest. Men overestimate the odds that women are flirting with them, while women underestimate the odds that a man is flirting with them. A person’s perception and interpretation of another’s behavior is often colored by their desires and their fear of rejection. Maybe an objective observer could do better.
In a study from Stanford University, researchers were able to more accurately determine if a heterosexual pair was flirting with a “flirtation detection system,” rather than the people who actually experienced the conversation. The subjects went on a series of speed dates, and then rated whether or not they were flirting and if they thought the other person was flirting with them. After that, the researchers pored through the audio recorded during the date and created an automated system that divided up the linguistic elements of the conversation — all the vocabulary, the pauses, the inflections.
In the end, the system beat the humans. The system could tell with 71.5 percent accuracy if the women were flirting with men, the men were only correct 56.2 percent of the time. Women were closer to the course — they were 62.2 percent accurate, while the system was 69 percent accurate.
So what do we do? An article at Inverse goes on to give us specific examples of the “flirting words” the system looked for, which was different for men and women. Maybe an automated system can teach us something about how to flirt and how to detect flirtation in others. -via Pajiba
(Image credit: Ion Chibzii)
Comments (0)
Going to Mars would be a dream come true, for me, and for a lot of other people. While I want to go for the chance to experience and discover things that no one else has before, there certainly would be others who would get a thrill from the danger and the instant fame.
I mean, being one of the first people to set foot on Mars would ensure that you're remembered for all time (more or less).
And with the way the world's going, I'm sure there are plenty of people who wouldn't mind saying goodbye to the wars, diseases, crime, etc. of the Earth. You know, so they can bring all that stuff to Mars. ;)
I'm sure I can accomplish more on Mars in a few years than I am likely to in an entire lifetime on this planet. There are probably other people who feel the same way.
Either way, sign me up!
I say go for it. I'm not one of those people. The thought of not being able to come back home, not being able to go outside and breath in a lung-full of fresh air.. just no...
but if other people are up for it. More power to them! I'll sit at home and watch them on tv religiously! That would be SO damn interesting to watch.
Still. Even knowing that you will find people like that, I'm ill at ease to think of public policy built on the one-way-ticket idea, entrenched in the concept of the disposable human. And don't counter with "that what war's all about": it's one thing to say you might not come home, or even probably not, another to say you WILL not, even to a volunteer. So instead of a suicide bomber's lure of a virgin-laden paradise, you offer academic glory and screen-time? Because it's going to take a few missions at least until things are sorted out enough to the point that life expectancy is "shortened by a little bit" as in this gentleman's softening statement. And they won't be pretty.
Heck most main scientists anyhow only get famous only after they died and without them knowing it. So why not die on Mars and be sure about that place in History?
I'll put aside my opinions on the morality of your suggestion for a moment and concentrate on logistics.
This would conflict with the general idea that once they arrive, the people/explorers/colonists should do useful work- and by that, they mean useful both to themselves and to those of us back on Earth. For that we need scientists, doctors, engineers, and other highly skilled people who are motivated to work hard for little tangible reward.