Speaking of crap detection, I also don't see an obvious author on this article. I feel prompted to further research this web page.

Rheingold would agree that this is nothing new. The web makes information all the more accessible, and of course, it can be used to create hoaxes, fraudulent claims, and even manipulate or threaten people. Crap detection is extremely important in being able to discern the good and bad parts of the internet in order to protect yourself.

So, the AI system is not as efficient as it is presented to be because it only has 91% accuracy when it has a 50% chance of getting the answer of who is more likely to be gay correct. But, in a realistic situation where sexuality is more fluid, and a smaller fraction of the population is known to be LGBTQ, it would be harder to pinpoint who is actually gay or straight. I also believe that this research is slightly bias to the social expectation of what gay and straight appears to be.

What does this statement exactly mean? Does it mean that one can easily assume the sexuality of a person on a dating site by the way he or she present themselves?

My understanding from reading the text is that these techniques rely more on social engineering than genetic makeup. For example, I presume it means that women who appear to have more male hormones are more likely to be attracted to women.

What I get from this is that the level of testosterone and estrogen (hormones) plays a role in determining the sexuality of a person, but I disagree slightly because any sexuality is not attached to any particular sex.

This process of logistic regression is just advanced research like crap detection.The software studies which face structures are correlated to which sexualities and then makes guesses on entirely new data based on the correlations it studied and concluded from that. The sfotware determines what sexuality is more likely just as researchers do with their sources.

I think Rheingold might have disagreed with this statement. Its possible that if people were as exposed to the information (on faces) that artificial intelligence harbored, people could also be better at determining signs about a person just from their face. After all, research is all about analyzing multiple pieces of information, and being exposed to a plethora of information is definitely an advantage in that.

I highlighted this to point out that grammar is a part of crap detection because proof reading and peer review is one of the most significant parts of publishing a scholarly article. I don't think this sentence is grammatically correct because semicolons are usually used to separate two independent clauses.

I feel like this is the foundation of crap detection. When researching and analyzing a claim, one can only make "precise guesses" about the information based on information of other sources about the claim and about another source. Like I mentioned before and like Rheingold said, determining the credibility of a source isn't black or white but rather a measure of the degree to the researcher believes its accurate. Like the google system, people can also make infers about a claim or source based on patterns in other sources.

Even though this quote is describing the process of artificial intelligence, I think it indirectly describes the process that researchers should perform while filtering through online sources which Rheingold discussed and called crap detection. Although we may be no where near the capability of artificial intelligence, spotting patterns matters immensely when determining which sources are more or less reliable. When patterns are spotted, researchers can also use a technique called triangulating which helps support the credibility of sources and their claims.

I will make 10 annotations on this article in connection with Rheingold's Crap Detection Chapter 2

This is just a note to remind Ms. Rose that Jordan S. couldn't do my peer review because I didn't start my PSD 1 yet.

I also made a similar interpretation in my panel which had a kite flying in the sky instead of an airplane. I interpreted that it could symbolize words of encouragement.

I agree. I believe his career or hobby could be related to flying planes because the plane seems to be a more significant part of the panel, and I can't think of any other reason it would be there. However, there is also a British flag (I think) on the airplane. Was he in the military? Is he British?

The panel I'm working on is very similar being that it's set in the air and has the theme of a sky. Is the sky theme a common theme? It might be considering that it has a very bittersweet vibe to it.

This is a very unique point of view. I would've never thought about that deep symbolism being a possible interpretation of the panel.

I like that you used the word "could" here. It clarifies that the connection you made is only a possibility and opens up space to more interpretation.

This is a good connection, but I think you should use words like "could be" when analyzing the reason behind your observations.

I like the small background information you gave. It would be helpful to those who aren't already acquainted with this project.

This is a notable attribute that I didn't think of before. While studying material culture, I could consider the change in value that an object has over time and why it has occurred. More often since the world continues to progress and advance, many thing things become inept, like mp3 players and flip phones.

Throughout reading both Haltman and Woodward, I noticed the similarities between an ethnography and the study of material culture.However, I believe there are weaknesses in the idea that existing people or active people need to be present in order to make an ethnography. They are similar in observing, describing, and analyzing something (an object or space) to deduce something about a culture.

I can presume that much of the way historical artifacts are studied are a part of the study of material culture. Many ideas about a pre-existing culture can be uncovered or inferred by investigating artifacts which are material culture. When the author, Sophie Woodward, uses the word "agency," I think she means the conscious actions and thought processes that the creators had while making the material. That's definitely important in defining cultural differences, and because of cultural differences, objects do impact societies completely differently, large and small.

This is entirely what material culture is about. Materials are not just meaningless objects. In a sense, they are alive. They hold historical significance that carries truths about a a people or place that we otherwise would not be able to understand without that material object. Knowing more about the physical aspect of a material object can open up our understanding to underlying layers that we could not see on the tangible surface.

Material culture is definitely a fusion of natural science and social science. It's an analysis of how these two sciences interact and make sense together. "Why this material?" can answer questions both about the physical (practical) and social side of a culture.

I feel like this breaks down the process of analysis perfectly. It shows the relationship that observations have with conclusions. These are questions and answers that we should be asking and looking for to simplify our understanding of our subject.

It's an interesting view that we can't necessarily analyze something we haven't "written." I think the author really means "think about deeply" when he says, "writing." Writing is kind of a deeper form of thought or speech because it takes more time and energy to form thoughts into words that make sense. It could have to do with how busy and abstract our minds are. It reminds me of how my last English teacher explained that witness accounts in court are many times blurred because our memory isn't as great as we think it is. If I am not thinking about something purposely, cautiously, or consciously, I probably haven't thought about it enough to be able to analyze it. Writing puts that all into perspective.

I see many connections to outside knowledge in this reading. In critical thinking, the instructor taught the class to always give more information about an argument than less. It was our job as critical thinkers to translate "emotionally-charged" language into unbiased language in order to solve arguments logically. Both of these combinations allowed us to depict a logical argument which is similar here with descriptions depicting non-emotionally-charged language.

Description is an unbiased form of explanation using the five senses. Interpretation is the impression something (concept, action, etc.) has on an individual (basically an opinion because interpretation is subjective). If someone tells you their impression of something without explaining what that something is without including their opinion, your interpretation of that thing is at the mercy of their impression. However, if only the description was presented to you, you would be at a better advantage to create your own interpretation without the corruption of someone else's. I think that is what Haltman is explaining when he says, "description...has opened itself up to an interpretation."

Haltman is discussing the importance of concise language here. Concise language is vital to description because it is a large part of the process of translating an image into words in order to interpret it as accurately as possible. In most English classes, we're taught to avoid using "to be" verbs such as the ones stated because they do, in fact, cause obscurity and result with less dimension. For example, instead of saying "he went to the store," someone could say, "he raced to the store." The latter description creates a clearer vision in one's mind to understand more precisely what is being described.

Cultural relativism exists in all aspects of life. As learned in Ethics, cultural relativism is about the differences in values, practices, etc. among cultures, and I feel that is a large part of my understanding in this text. In this case, though, material objects are being discussed, and this statement explains that these objects which seem to have one or a simple purpose are all relative to culture and determine significant differences in every culture's structure whether it be social, political, or economic.