However, I call shenanigans. Some of the real clips were him reading from a script for the advertisements at the beginning of his show. Joe has a really flat/unnatural delivery when he's reading from a piece of paper.
In addition, if they were including the advertisement reading in the training material, that would definitely mess up the final model. Advertisement Joe doesn't like Joe.
Someone should test this on criminal psychopaths and see if they are significantly better or worse at it than the general pop. I would bet there will be two major populations of psychopath in solidly each category.
Yup, it's fairly obvious there is a difference between a somewhat more robotic intonation vs someone who puts emphasis on certain parts of each word. Still, they nailed the sound/uniqueness of his voice pretty well.
Somewhat in my defense, although I've seen a few clips with Rogan, I'm not very familiar with him. I agree with the GP's comment, I thought the real Joe Rogan reading ads sounded very staccato and robotic. Near the end I got a little better with the "OK, robotic sounding Joe is the real one."
That said, I'm an introvert and I don't enjoy social situations with people I don't know, so while perhaps not a psychopath it's plausible the my poor ability to infer emotional intonation is at play both here and in social situations.
However, as I mentioned in this comment[1] I don't think you have much to worry about. The correct criteria for diagnosing fake vs real is actually not being robotic. I knew immediately what was real because there was emphasis and affectation, as opposed to the monotone counterpart.
Finally, a minor quib: "psychopathy" is not about an ability to infer intonation (quite the opposite). I'm an introvert like you (Hell, I'm probably considered a hermit) and I was easily able to identify the doppelganger.
What does introversion and being a hermit have to do with psychopathy?
I also don't want to make people feel like they're necessarily terrible people if they can't. Sorry if that's the way it came across.
Thinkint about this: It seems that culturally we are comfortable telling people feel like they're dumb (ie SATs, grades, uni admissions) or unathletic (competitive sports is a big part of growing up)... But we don't say anything about moral character.
I never had a coach tell me I am not athletic or a teacher tell me I am dumb.
Explained musically: the fake one goes from C to C# instantly, and the real one sweeps through all the frequencies in between in order to switch tones.
Those psychopaths who are "bad" at determining authenticity versus those who are "good" at it (mostly-wrong as opposed to mostly-correct, respectively)?
I'm hesitant to agree with that; from my understanding, a "psychopath" (current medical definition is Antisocial Personality Disorder, ASPD) is one who is outside of social norms and mores. Much like a precise machine, they are able to attenuate their focus to the nuances most neurotypical people take for granted.
Although far from a medical professional, I would hazard to guess an autistic person would be one of the groups you might attribute to supposed psychopathy (specifically: those unable to diagnose fake from authentic). However, even that claim should be taken with an ounce of salt. Point being, I get triggered when people use psychopath willy-nilly!
I understand people commonly intend empathy to convey 'well intentioned' or 'harboring feelings to understand and help others,' but I thought the actual meaning is the first sentence of your comment?
But again, I shudder to think how technology like this could be used to malign people.
Or rather, would it make maligning people impossible because you would never be able to tell if it's fake or real?