Was Lombroso right?

Discuss various aspects of ancient civilizations and humanity in general.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker


Ads by Google


Re: Was Lombroso right?

#2  Postby WalterMitty » Aug 24, 2011 8:41 am

Reminds me of the Blackadder episode "The Witchsmeller Pursuivant":

"Its the 'air, he's guilty!"
WalterMitty
 
Posts: 580

Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#3  Postby Dickens » Aug 25, 2011 2:15 am

WalterMitty wrote:Reminds me of the Blackadder episode "The Witchsmeller Pursuivant":

"Its the 'air, he's guilty!"

But here in the quiz you can actually check whether you sniffed it right.
User avatar
Dickens
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 93

Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#4  Postby Biowatch » Aug 25, 2011 5:02 am

There was another one a couple of years ago showing the more aggressive ice hockey players tended to have wider faces, reflecting higher testosterone. http://www.economist.com/node/11959198

This recent paper about facial symmetry and socioeconomic status is interesting too.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 7X11000773
Biowatch
 
Posts: 308

Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#5  Postby akigr8 » Aug 31, 2011 6:14 pm

30% correct.
Second try I got 70% correct, but three people were also in my first try.
I once applied for a job as a mustard cutter.

But unfortunately I wasn’t quite good enough.
User avatar
akigr8
 
Name: Kim
Posts: 3653

Country: No Reg
Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#6  Postby mizvekov » Aug 31, 2011 6:36 pm

Got 80% on my first try.
Basically my criteria was "happy face = not a criminal"
The rationale is that the photos of criminals are probably mugshots, and that criminals aren't happy when caught :)
mizvekov
 
Posts: 314
Age: 36
Male

Brazil (br)
Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#7  Postby Fallible » Aug 31, 2011 6:42 pm

70%
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51079
Age: 47
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Was Lombroso right?

#8  Postby Dickens » Nov 20, 2011 7:16 pm

Fallible wrote:70%

So was Lombroso right?
User avatar
Dickens
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 93

Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#9  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 26, 2011 7:11 am

I was going to say that this is guff, then I got 100% right on the first try! :o

But I still think it's guff! :D
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27415
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#10  Postby cavarka9 » Nov 26, 2011 8:17 am

mizvekov wrote:Got 80% on my first try.
Basically my criteria was "happy face = not a criminal"
The rationale is that the photos of criminals are probably mugshots, and that criminals aren't happy when caught :)


similar logic on second try :) but still caught a smiling rapist!.

everyone looks criminal, weird asymmetric faces. :what:
Every moment is a choice.Choices you make now determine your destiny.free yourself of old choices made. Success is a journey,not a destination.
User avatar
cavarka9
 
Name: prajna
Posts: 3256

Country: 21.0000° N, 78.0000° E
India (in)
Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#11  Postby cavarka9 » Nov 26, 2011 8:24 am

Biowatch wrote:There was another one a couple of years ago showing the more aggressive ice hockey players tended to have wider faces, reflecting higher testosterone. http://www.economist.com/node/11959198

This recent paper about facial symmetry and socioeconomic status is interesting too.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 7X11000773



I will correlate this with my scale later to the photos given, but the correlation factor is not given. When I am free of course.

This might help a lot in crime investigation, keeping probability on the side of law.
:ask:
Every moment is a choice.Choices you make now determine your destiny.free yourself of old choices made. Success is a journey,not a destination.
User avatar
cavarka9
 
Name: prajna
Posts: 3256

Country: 21.0000° N, 78.0000° E
India (in)
Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#12  Postby Dickens » Nov 28, 2011 7:49 pm

Spearthrower wrote:I was going to say that this is guff, then I got 100% right on the first try! :o

But I still think it's guff! :D

You think that you got a 100% by chance?
User avatar
Dickens
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 93

Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#13  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 05, 2011 1:24 pm

Dickens wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:I was going to say that this is guff, then I got 100% right on the first try! :o

But I still think it's guff! :D

You think that you got a 100% by chance?



Pretty much, yes. Of course, I did look for clues that would suggest someone having been arrested, as in 'sour expression', but as it's a random selection, i doubt I'd score 100% again.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27415
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#14  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 05, 2011 1:26 pm

Just to check that, I did it again and got 50% - one of the faces was the same as my first attempt, but this time I decided incorrectly he was a criminal.

There's an obvious test to be run here. Have entirely blank mannequin faces and maintain the binary 'criminal' / 'not criminal' selections, and see how well people do. My expectation is that there's no statistical significance to this when it's just a binary selection.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27415
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#15  Postby Lance » Dec 07, 2011 11:12 pm

There was a period about 30 years ago when customs officials relied heavily on 'experience' and the belief they could detect smugglers. This was widely believed. Then some scientists came along and spoiled the party, setting up real life scenarios with smugglers, to see how well the officials performed at detecting them.

The result was indistinguishable from random chance. In fact, it appeared that the main criterion by which officials decided someone was a likely smuggler was prejudice. Skin colour. hair style, clothes etc. Yet a clean cut man in a suit is just as likely to be a smuggler. Certainly, if I was a smuggler and I knew the officials were relying on their 'instinct', I would dress that way, and get through without any suspicion.

Needless to say, customs no longer rely on 'experience'. I believe that random checks are more the order of the day.
Lance
 
Name: Lance Kennedy
Posts: 116

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Was Lombroso right?

#16  Postby Dickens » Sep 10, 2012 6:15 pm

One guy claims to get a 90% result using Edenic Phrenology

http://excavatingeden.com/2012/09/09/ap ... -not-quiz/
User avatar
Dickens
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 93

Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#17  Postby HughMcB » Sep 10, 2012 6:23 pm

80% on my first attempt, what do I win?
"So we're just done with phrasing?"
User avatar
HughMcB
RS Donator
 
Posts: 19113
Age: 36
Male

Country: Canada
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#18  Postby Regina » Sep 10, 2012 6:26 pm

HughMcB wrote:80% on my first attempt, what do I win?

Have you checked out "Edenic Phrenology"? Impressive stuff.
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15618
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#19  Postby Mr.Samsa » Sep 11, 2012 5:16 am

Dickens wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:I was going to say that this is guff, then I got 100% right on the first try! :o

But I still think it's guff! :D

You think that you got a 100% by chance?


Be aware that even if there was some valid process behind the test you linked to, the authors of the study (where the pictures are taken from) go to some lengths to explain why Lombroso's theory was "wrong and fallacious". So trying to link this finding to Lombroso is baffling.

Secondly, the pictures in this study weren't blindly selected, so whilst searching for pictures of "rapists" or "murderers" who fell within their search criteria, it's entirely possible that the selector picked the image that looked more "criminal-y" than another. This would explain why nobody can distinguish between different types of criminals, and can't even distinguish between violent and non-violent criminals. In other words, it's plausible that biological factors that increase aggression could lead to that person being more likely to commit an assault and for those biological factors to have an observable physiological effect, however, it seems much less likely to me that there is a general "criminal gene" which creates observable characteristics and can equally cause someone to become either a murderer, or fraudster, or rapist, or thief, etc.

This is why, I think, the authors of the study try to make it clear that they aren't discussing the Lombrosian concept of the "born criminal", and instead are only discussing the accuracy of stereotypes. This result is confounded by (what seems to be) poor randomisation of sample stimuli, but if it proves to be a valid result, it only tells us that criminals look different from non-criminals. This could be explained by tired eyes, more wrinkles, worse skin, etc, which are characteristics common among people who are a bit down on their luck, struggling with money issues, holding down a job, etc - i.e. the sociological factors that lead to a person being more likely to become a criminal. This would explain why people cannot distinguish between various forms of crime, and avoids the unparsimonious assumption that there is a kind of "criminal gene".
Image
Mr.Samsa
 
Posts: 11370
Age: 34

Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#20  Postby Dickens » Sep 11, 2012 5:22 pm

Lance wrote:There was a period about 30 years ago when customs officials relied heavily on 'experience' and the belief they could detect smugglers. This was widely believed. Then some scientists came along and spoiled the party, setting up real life scenarios with smugglers, to see how well the officials performed at detecting them.

The result was indistinguishable from random chance.

What you call real life scenarios are in fact fake scenarios. Suppose that the officials could detect a smuggler because he is nervous. Obviously, you "real life" smugglers are not going to be nervous since they are not risking jail.


Lance wrote: In fact, it appeared that the main criterion by which officials decided someone was a likely smuggler was prejudice. Skin colour. hair style, clothes etc. Yet a clean cut man in a suit is just as likely to be a smuggler. Certainly, if I was a smuggler and I knew the officials were relying on their 'instinct', I would dress that way, and get through without any suspicion.

Needless to say, customs no longer rely on 'experience'. I believe that random checks are more the order of the day.

Do you suggest that crime rates do not depend on skin color? I don't know about smuggling, but black commit 7-8 times more murders per capita than whites. This is about as much difference as between men and women.

http://www.colorofcrime.com/

Suppose that you perform an act of an extreme prejudice and arrest all black men. Assuming that 15% of population is black and 85% - white you will arrest only 7.5% of the population. But the arrested will include a half of all murderers. This will well above statistically random result.
User avatar
Dickens
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 93

Print view this post

Next

Return to Anthropology

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest