Was Lombroso right?

Dickens · #1 by **Dickens** » Aug 22, 2011 9:15 pm

Take this test to see if you can tell a criminal from a law-abiding citizen.

WalterMitty · #2 by **WalterMitty** » Aug 24, 2011 8:41 am

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

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

Dickens · #3 by **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.

Biowatch · #4 by **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

akigr8 · #5 by **akigr8** » Aug 31, 2011 6:14 pm

30% correct.
Second try I got 70% correct, but three people were also in my first try.

mizvekov · #6 by **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

Fallible · #7 by **Fallible** » Aug 31, 2011 6:42 pm

Dickens · #8 by **Dickens** » Nov 20, 2011 7:16 pm

Fallible wrote:70%

So was Lombroso right?

Spearthrower · #9 by **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!

But I still think it's guff!

cavarka9 · **#10** by **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:

cavarka9 · **#11** by **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:

Dickens · **#12** by **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!

But I still think it's guff!

You think that you got a 100% by chance?

Spearthrower · **#13** by **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!

But I still think it's guff!

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.

Spearthrower · **#14** by **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.

Lance · **#15** by **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.