Or the algorithm sucks. In the case of 10 random goth women,it was only 10% accurate in determining gender. I'm really curious to know if the way the average goth writes really is male biased or if it's just a crappy algorithm. I'm 61% masculine too.
Could be. I know that people who don't recognize my name often assume I'm male.
Mind you, that could be because I talk about my dick so much.
Anyway, I think writing styles that focus on logic, site sources and use words like "think" rather than "feel" are interpreted as being more masculine.
So we might all be reading as male because of writing patterns developed from years of having to defend our opinions on Usenet.
I plugged in a total of 25 more women on my friends list and 24 of them came up as male. mr_cutiepants came up as 28% male which is kind of ironic b/c she's far more masculine in persona than pink_envy who scored the highest in the lot. (79%male)
That makes sense. I only came out as 57% masculine, and I tend to post to LJ when I'm too sick or tired to construct competent arguments with proper backup, etc. ie. I come across like a complete girl.
Yet there's still people on Usenet who think I'm a guy.
It's a completely crappy algorithm. When the original page of the algorithm was going around, I had a look at the 'how we did' link. They scored roughly 50% correct ... i.e., chance.
I've plugged in about 40 different people and cats. Every cat and every human male has come out masculine. 6 of 20 human females have come out feminine.
So it looks like every now and again, it can pick out a female. I could probably get a higher rate of accuracy just based on names.
I think the algorithm is off. Judging from the keywords, I'd say discussion of music and culture in an opinionated manner would tend to drive the discourse into what they deem male mode. It really makes me wonder about the sample material they used to calibrate the measure. I suppose goth women are androgynous compared to some girly-girl blogs out there. More direct perhaps.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
zvi![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
I think Goths are really androgenous
Date: 2003-09-16 06:04 am (UTC)Re: I think Goths are really androgenous
Date: 2003-09-16 06:27 am (UTC)Mind you, that could be because I talk about my dick so much.
Anyway, I think writing styles that focus on logic, site sources and use words like "think" rather than "feel" are interpreted as being more masculine.
So we might all be reading as male because of writing patterns developed from years of having to defend our opinions on Usenet.
hmm... You might be on to something.
Date: 2003-09-16 06:55 am (UTC)Re: I think Goths are really androgenous
Date: 2003-09-16 07:17 am (UTC)Yet there's still people on Usenet who think I'm a guy.
Re: I think Goths are really androgenous
Date: 2003-09-16 11:03 am (UTC)Re: I think Goths are really androgenous
Date: 2003-09-16 06:33 am (UTC)Re: I think Goths are really androgenous
Date: 2003-09-16 06:56 am (UTC)It also said the
jv
Re: I think Goths are really androgenous
Date: 2003-09-16 08:06 am (UTC)Re: I think Goths are really androgenous
Date: 2003-09-16 08:50 am (UTC)So it looks like every now and again, it can pick out a female. I could probably get a higher rate of accuracy just based on names.
Re: I think Goths are really androgenous
Date: 2003-09-16 08:30 am (UTC)I got 61% myself.