No, that's the opposite. Since there is no correlation between the shape of the skull and the morals of a person, they are over-complexifying something that does not exist.
That's an ideological claim, not a scientific one. A scientific claim would be that "no such correlation has been found in empirical studies", which means we can assume there is no such correlation, not that we should automatically reject new studies that find correlation.
Computers can be made to produce any arbitrary output.
True, which is why we test our software. The core principle of the scientific method is that the correctness of a model is strongly tied to its ability to provide accurate predictions. Same is true for machine learning - so if there really is no correlation then no ML solution should be able to provide reasonably accurate results when tested on a test set.
The thing with products is that there's always an "ideology" component behind it. "We are better than these people because they have big noses" is as good an ideology as any to sell a product, mostly when you know there's already a market for such a thing (e.j bigotry, prejudice and all the -isms). Throw a little sciency mumbo jumbo and you've built yourself a company, add some mystical component to it and you can built a religion, pair it with a manifest and you can made a movement.
I seriously doubt they are using computer vision algorithms to detect the nose, measure its size, and put it through a monotonous function to get a number determining the person's personality. It is much more likely that they are feeding the face data to a neural network which determine the actual relationship.
Ok, since we're both educated persons (I have college degrees in both philosophy and software engineering) let stop with the oversimplifications.
On they site they state this:
Researchers from Edinburgh University studied more than 800 sets of identical and non-identical twins to learn whether genetics or upbringing has a greater effect on how successful people are in life. Writing in the Journal of Personality, the researchers found that identical twins were twice as likely as non-identical twins to share the same personality traits, suggesting that their DNA was having the greatest impact.
This my friend is behavioral genetics, in a very simple and biased form.
Our face is a reflection of our DNA
That's true, but the implication that those are the genes related to, let's say, violent behavior is as far as I know, a fallacy.
In fact, It’s already possible to make some inferences about the appearance of crime suspects from their DNA alone.
Yes, if you have someones DNA you can describe he/she/. But I dare you to find an article in a respected journal that states that the reverse procedure can be made with at least a 50% accuracy.
The list of fallacies in their statements keeps going.
That's an ideological claim, not a scientific one. A scientific claim would be that "no such correlation has been found in empirical studies", which means we can assume there is no such correlation, not that we should automatically reject new studies that find correlation.
True, which is why we test our software. The core principle of the scientific method is that the correctness of a model is strongly tied to its ability to provide accurate predictions. Same is true for machine learning - so if there really is no correlation then no ML solution should be able to provide reasonably accurate results when tested on a test set.
The thing with products is that there's always an "ideology" component behind it. "We are better than these people because they have big noses" is as good an ideology as any to sell a product, mostly when you know there's already a market for such a thing (e.j bigotry, prejudice and all the -isms). Throw a little sciency mumbo jumbo and you've built yourself a company, add some mystical component to it and you can built a religion, pair it with a manifest and you can made a movement.
I seriously doubt they are using computer vision algorithms to detect the nose, measure its size, and put it through a monotonous function to get a number determining the person's personality. It is much more likely that they are feeding the face data to a neural network which determine the actual relationship.
Ok, since we're both educated persons (I have college degrees in both philosophy and software engineering) let stop with the oversimplifications.
On they site they state this:
This my friend is behavioral genetics, in a very simple and biased form.
That's true, but the implication that those are the genes related to, let's say, violent behavior is as far as I know, a fallacy.
Yes, if you have someones DNA you can describe he/she/. But I dare you to find an article in a respected journal that states that the reverse procedure can be made with at least a 50% accuracy.
The list of fallacies in their statements keeps going.
On the other hand. Thanks for being the "devils advocate" here. Always glad to have a healthy debate!!