Eyes can trump boobs in my case. Some of the gazillion girls I've been attracted to over the years I've liked for their intelligence, which shows through the eyes (and which I can spot in less than a second). Then weeks later I've noticed with surprise that they're quite impressively built. And it's not like I don't think boobs are wonderful...
You can learn everything about a woman by the shape of her boobs, why bother looking her in the eyes?
That's because most Autistics were burnt at the stake in Shakespeare's time.
Get your facts straight. Autism is not the same as Aspergers. Autistic individuals are disabled. Aspergers individuals are peculiar and aloof.
While psychology is irrelevant in the context of social interaction because "normal" people don't really exist, there are people who have superior social skills. Those who have superior social skills read and analyze people well. The ability to read a group in a room to determine which ones are vulnerable and to what, and to decide which ones have predatory instincts and which do not, and which ones are likely to behave in a certain way or not.
None of the deep level analysis is based on what position they cross their legs or whether they look at a persons eyes or breasts. Of course any guy is going to look at a womans breasts but this wont tell you if the guy is likely to be a rapist or not, this wont tell you if the guy has predatory instincts or not, the only way to find that out is to actually analyze his behavior over a period of time to determine just what type of predator he is likely to be.
Since everybody is a liar, and we all lie on a regular basis, determining that someone is a liar reveals nothing. It is useful to know when an inexperienced liar is telling a lie because their body language is honest. Experienced liars lie with their body language as well as their words.
Experienced liars will break down into tears in front of you and tell a sob story, and make you feel empathy for them only to exploit it later.
You can't, but people do. Once I was told that I make people uncomfortable by looking into their eyes for too long and it would be better to glance away from time to time. People found me too intense. I made an effort to do so and the effect on people is noticeable, they are more relaxed around me now.
So, if you're not good at dealing with people, it's worth knowing these things as a couple of minor behaviour changes could make things a lot easier for you.
You'll see what happens to those people. Any fighter who has not read the art of war, cannot claim to have social skills in any competitive context. Any fighter who has read art of war will know for certain that what people project is an illusion, that people wear masks, and that first impression is usually meaningless when dealing with an experienced actor.
I'm saying people who rely on gut feelings don't have real social skills, they have social emotions. Just like people who decide right and wrong on gut emotions don't have real ethics, they just have gut feelings.
You can't access character by watching a persons eyes or body language.
What do you mean by "character"?
If you mean their general morals, how they conduct themselves, etc., then you're probably right, at least for limited observation.
But, if you mean their "current" character, like whether they intend to rob you, or if they are lying, then you most certainly can "access [sic] character" by watching them.
By character I'm saying I profile people on behavior alone. Not how they dress, how they look, or what they tend to say, but on their actual behavior when shit gets "real".
Well, obviously you can't. Don't try to speak for the rest of us.
Just the thought that how a person chooses to interact with the world around them says nothing about them is totally illogical.
What you are falling prey to is that we cannot see what we do not understand. A properly trained fighter knows that a specific change in body weight means something will come flying at his head, most people would be on the floor before their brain even processes the weight shift as significant.
of course, not all fighters are equal. it's a subtle distinction between how much weight shift i need to kick to the head or the body, both dependent on how much force is used in conjuction with the flexibility and movability of the leg in question.
Nobody can. It's science. You think you can but it's just a subconscious gut feeling, it's not based on anything factual until you observe their behavior to find out what they actually will do.
Just their body language, facial expressions or eye movements, all of that can and will be faked when you deal with the elite level sociopaths or just anybody with above average intelligence and social skills. Read art of war.
You can't access character by watching a persons eyes or body language. That doesn't stop people from trying of course
No, but you can assess what they're thinking and whether or not what they're saying is truthful. That can play a part in assessing their character if interaction occurs repeatedly and over a longer period of time.
Not necessarily. Anybody who knows how to act can know to wear a mask.
But you can assess intentions. I wrestled in high school. Later as a coach, I could confidently instruct wrestlers to watch the opponents eyes, both in order to get an idea of their intentions and to never broadcast your move.
Someone's intentions give hints to their character.
No it doesn't. Unless you know what causes them to have those intentions it tells you nothing. Also the non telegraphed punch should be the first thing any fighter learns.
It's almost 2011. They all have mobile phones. Text a code number to the mobile phone associated with their userid. They have to enter the code to log in.
For users who still don't have a mobile, you shuffle them to the 'legacy' password login system, warning them along the way they're going the low-security path.
Mobile phones aren't any better. You act as if people can't take your phone or borrow it.
Apple has screwed over independent artists and publishers for too long. Mp3.com was doing fine until Itunes came along and sided with the RIAA ruining the thriving independent market. It seems they are at it again, siding with big businesses over artists, writers, and consumers.
That's an irrelevant comparison. There's no meritocratic entry requirement or competition for an 'elite family', whereas (with few exceptions) you only get into an elite university with high intelligence, hard work or both.
Would you dispute that the average ability of students at, say, Harvard, where they can pick and choose the best of the best from their pool of applicants, is higher than at a mid-range state university which accepts most applicants even with mid-range grades?
I'm not saying students at Harvard are (generally) smarter because of anything inherent to Harvard, I'm saying that a school with a greater pool of highly capable applicants will have the ability to only select the best of the best.
Even if the professors and the exams are the same (especially if they're the same, in fact), I'd definitely expect the higher ability group to achieve better grades.
Harvard and other elite schools reward students based on what quality of education they received in childhood. An elite family can put their child in a school with a high track record and probability of getting their child into an ivy league school. These children will have books, computers, good teachers, a safe environment where they aren't worried about being shot, stabbed, robbed, etc, where all they have to think about in life is getting into the elite school.
Then you have kids who grow up in ghettos, slums, where theres gang wars going on, sometimes third world slums in the middle of civil wars, with schools that are literally crumbling, no books, one teacher to 30-40 students, no computers, and of course the best teachers are afraid to even go into some of these neighborhoods not to mention these students are hard to teach because they don't have any parents to give them discipline.
So yes it takes intelligence and hard work, but intelligence and hard work alone wont get you into an elite school. Intelligence and hard work will get you into a good university. It will only get you into an elite school if you are very lucky, or so brilliant that you cannot be denied.
If we look at Barack Obama, he was not raised in the slums or ghetto. He was raised in middle class Hawaii. He did not grow up around gangs, or at least from what I know did not experience his friends being shot or killed, or any of the typical experiences. He did have a single parent family so this was a disadvantage, and he is black which is another disadvantage, but his mother also focused hard on helping him overcome these disadvantages and in a lot of ways he was lucky.
If you look at a lot of kids just as smart, who work just as hard, some of them don't live to go to college. Some of them survive their environment but get into a community college because they had to educate themselves, pass the GED exam, etc.
The elite schools aren't giving IQ tests, they rely on the SAT test which only applies to kids from certain backrounds who planned to go to college in the first place. If you never planned to attempt to get into an elite school, you wouldn't be in a position to train yourself for the exams, and your parents wouldn't be pressuring you to. You wouldn't spend every waking moment in the library to make up for your lousy education (if you have access to a library), and you just wouldn't be focused on the subjects which they care about.
What happens is in the end people go to schools according to where their parents went. If your parents went to Harvard or Yale you'll probably go there too unless something tragic happens. It's very rare for someone to come from true poverty and end up in elite schools but when they do I take my hat off to them, those individuals are actual geniuses.
But it has been my experience that most people in college aren't geniuses and are just spoiled kids who went to the best schools and had all the opportunities and who took advantage of them.
They don't work harder, they aren't smarter, or better, but they have more opportunity to take advanta
I'm not saying grade inflation doesn't exist, but isn't it reasonable to think that a more competitive, more selective university (where only smarter, harder working people can get in) is more likely to produce a higher percentage of As than average?
The alternative of grading everything on a curve is no better - your grades become more dependent on random class groupings that actual ability.
It's it also reasonable to think that elite families are populated by better, smarter, harder working people so thats why they make more money and have more things?
No of course it's not reasonable to believe such non-sense. Half the time the same professors teach in multiple schools, the exams are exactly the same, the statistics however support grade inflation.
Consider that the rich schools have better resources, more resources, easier grading because parents are powerful enough to influencing the grading and you have a recipe for grade inflation.
It's worth going to an elite college because elite colleges give better grades for the same work. As a student your goal is to get the best grades possible to get into the best graduate school.
And they'll break any law to accomplish the mission. The FBI has murderers and serial killers who are confidential informants. They also have thieves who are confidential informants.
It's a surprise to me that some Russian spies who you'd expect would be trained to deal with counter intelligence would be so careless.
the act of overthrowing an entire government often leads to far more death and misery than was present under the existing system.
Not that I disagree with your point, but I must point out a fallacy: by this logic, you'd choose life as a slave instead of fighting for your freedom.
What makes you think the revolutionaries will give you freedom when the revolution is over? It just might mean they'll be your new slave master or worse they could give you death.
Not that I disagree with your point, but I must point out a fallacy: by this logic, you'd choose life as a slave instead of fighting for your freedom.
It all would depend on whether or not my position in society would be higher after the revolution.
Yes, as long as the mob only consists of "lower class" people, who neither have intelligence nor education.
The problem is now that more and more people are pushed down that have both and can easily become leaders of rebellions and even revolutions. No revolution in history, at least no successful ones, were led by "serfs". They were led by intelligent and often very well educated people.
That is true. You make a good point. But in the 1960s highly intelligent people tried a revolution and failed. In the 1930s with the business plot highly intelligent people tried and failed.
Slashdot Mirror
You can assess behavior and intent, however, which is much more important in the short term.
If you could assess behavior at a glance, you'd never be conned right? Why didn't it work on Bernie Madoff?
No, YOU can't. It's science, you just don't know any of it.
If it's science then acting is also science, the science of fooling people who study body language.
Eyes can trump boobs in my case. Some of the gazillion girls I've been attracted to over the years I've liked for their intelligence, which shows through the eyes (and which I can spot in less than a second). Then weeks later I've noticed with surprise that they're quite impressively built. And it's not like I don't think boobs are wonderful...
You can learn everything about a woman by the shape of her boobs, why bother looking her in the eyes?
That's because most Autistics were burnt at the stake in Shakespeare's time.
Get your facts straight. Autism is not the same as Aspergers. Autistic individuals are disabled. Aspergers individuals are peculiar and aloof.
While psychology is irrelevant in the context of social interaction because "normal" people don't really exist, there are people who have superior social skills. Those who have superior social skills read and analyze people well. The ability to read a group in a room to determine which ones are vulnerable and to what, and to decide which ones have predatory instincts and which do not, and which ones are likely to behave in a certain way or not.
None of the deep level analysis is based on what position they cross their legs or whether they look at a persons eyes or breasts. Of course any guy is going to look at a womans breasts but this wont tell you if the guy is likely to be a rapist or not, this wont tell you if the guy has predatory instincts or not, the only way to find that out is to actually analyze his behavior over a period of time to determine just what type of predator he is likely to be.
Since everybody is a liar, and we all lie on a regular basis, determining that someone is a liar reveals nothing. It is useful to know when an inexperienced liar is telling a lie because their body language is honest. Experienced liars lie with their body language as well as their words.
Experienced liars will break down into tears in front of you and tell a sob story, and make you feel empathy for them only to exploit it later.
Think of Casey Anthony or Misty Crosland.
You can't, but people do. Once I was told that I make people uncomfortable by looking into their eyes for too long and it would be better to glance away from time to time. People found me too intense. I made an effort to do so and the effect on people is noticeable, they are more relaxed around me now.
So, if you're not good at dealing with people, it's worth knowing these things as a couple of minor behaviour changes could make things a lot easier for you.
You'll see what happens to those people. Any fighter who has not read the art of war, cannot claim to have social skills in any competitive context. Any fighter who has read art of war will know for certain that what people project is an illusion, that people wear masks, and that first impression is usually meaningless when dealing with an experienced actor.
I'm saying people who rely on gut feelings don't have real social skills, they have social emotions. Just like people who decide right and wrong on gut emotions don't have real ethics, they just have gut feelings.
You can't access character by watching a persons eyes or body language.
What do you mean by "character"?
If you mean their general morals, how they conduct themselves, etc., then you're probably right, at least for limited observation.
But, if you mean their "current" character, like whether they intend to rob you, or if they are lying, then you most certainly can "access [sic] character" by watching them.
By character I'm saying I profile people on behavior alone. Not how they dress, how they look, or what they tend to say, but on their actual behavior when shit gets "real".
Well, obviously you can't. Don't try to speak for the rest of us.
Just the thought that how a person chooses to interact with the world around them says nothing about them is totally illogical.
What you are falling prey to is that we cannot see what we do not understand. A properly trained fighter knows that a specific change in body weight means something will come flying at his head, most people would be on the floor before their brain even processes the weight shift as significant.
of course, not all fighters are equal. it's a subtle distinction between how much weight shift i need to kick to the head or the body, both dependent on how much force is used in conjuction with the flexibility and movability of the leg in question.
Nobody can. It's science. You think you can but it's just a subconscious gut feeling, it's not based on anything factual until you observe their behavior to find out what they actually will do.
Just their body language, facial expressions or eye movements, all of that can and will be faked when you deal with the elite level sociopaths or just anybody with above average intelligence and social skills. Read art of war.
No, but you can assess what they're thinking and whether or not what they're saying is truthful. That can play a part in assessing their character if interaction occurs repeatedly and over a longer period of time.
Not necessarily. Anybody who knows how to act can know to wear a mask.
But you can assess intentions. I wrestled in high school. Later as a coach, I could confidently instruct wrestlers to watch the opponents eyes, both in order to get an idea of their intentions and to never broadcast your move.
Someone's intentions give hints to their character.
No it doesn't. Unless you know what causes them to have those intentions it tells you nothing. Also the non telegraphed punch should be the first thing any fighter learns.
The average person is ignorant enough that you can learn everything about them by the color of their skin and the look in their eyes. Right?
Many attractive women/men aren't worth the time investment. Their intelligence is irrelevant, what is relevant is their character.
Forget about phones, forget about passwords.
It's almost 2011. They all have mobile phones. Text a code number to the mobile phone associated with their userid. They have to enter the code to log in.
For users who still don't have a mobile, you shuffle them to the 'legacy' password login system, warning them along the way they're going the low-security path.
Mobile phones aren't any better. You act as if people can't take your phone or borrow it.
You can't access character by watching a persons eyes or body language. That doesn't stop people from trying of course.
Independent music artists association. Independent writers association.
And get into the game.
Apple has screwed over independent artists and publishers for too long.
Mp3.com was doing fine until Itunes came along and sided with the RIAA ruining the thriving independent market. It seems they are at it again, siding with big businesses over artists, writers, and consumers.
That's an irrelevant comparison. There's no meritocratic entry requirement or competition for an 'elite family', whereas (with few exceptions) you only get into an elite university with high intelligence, hard work or both.
Would you dispute that the average ability of students at, say, Harvard, where they can pick and choose the best of the best from their pool of applicants, is higher than at a mid-range state university which accepts most applicants even with mid-range grades?
I'm not saying students at Harvard are (generally) smarter because of anything inherent to Harvard, I'm saying that a school with a greater pool of highly capable applicants will have the ability to only select the best of the best.
Even if the professors and the exams are the same (especially if they're the same, in fact), I'd definitely expect the higher ability group to achieve better grades.
Harvard and other elite schools reward students based on what quality of education they received in childhood. An elite family can put their child in a school with a high track record and probability of getting their child into an ivy league school. These children will have books, computers, good teachers, a safe environment where they aren't worried about being shot, stabbed, robbed, etc, where all they have to think about in life is getting into the elite school.
Then you have kids who grow up in ghettos, slums, where theres gang wars going on, sometimes third world slums in the middle of civil wars, with schools that are literally crumbling, no books, one teacher to 30-40 students, no computers, and of course the best teachers are afraid to even go into some of these neighborhoods not to mention these students are hard to teach because they don't have any parents to give them discipline.
So yes it takes intelligence and hard work, but intelligence and hard work alone wont get you into an elite school. Intelligence and hard work will get you into a good university. It will only get you into an elite school if you are very lucky, or so brilliant that you cannot be denied.
If we look at Barack Obama, he was not raised in the slums or ghetto. He was raised in middle class Hawaii. He did not grow up around gangs, or at least from what I know did not experience his friends being shot or killed, or any of the typical experiences. He did have a single parent family so this was a disadvantage, and he is black which is another disadvantage, but his mother also focused hard on helping him overcome these disadvantages and in a lot of ways he was lucky.
If you look at a lot of kids just as smart, who work just as hard, some of them don't live to go to college. Some of them survive their environment but get into a community college because they had to educate themselves, pass the GED exam, etc.
The elite schools aren't giving IQ tests, they rely on the SAT test which only applies to kids from certain backrounds who planned to go to college in the first place. If you never planned to attempt to get into an elite school, you wouldn't be in a position to train yourself for the exams, and your parents wouldn't be pressuring you to. You wouldn't spend every waking moment in the library to make up for your lousy education (if you have access to a library), and you just wouldn't be focused on the subjects which they care about.
What happens is in the end people go to schools according to where their parents went. If your parents went to Harvard or Yale you'll probably go there too unless something tragic happens. It's very rare for someone to come from true poverty and end up in elite schools but when they do I take my hat off to them, those individuals are actual geniuses.
But it has been my experience that most people in college aren't geniuses and are just spoiled kids who went to the best schools and had all the opportunities and who took advantage of them.
They don't work harder, they aren't smarter, or better, but they have more opportunity to take advanta
I'm not saying grade inflation doesn't exist, but isn't it reasonable to think that a more competitive, more selective university (where only smarter, harder working people can get in) is more likely to produce a higher percentage of As than average?
The alternative of grading everything on a curve is no better - your grades become more dependent on random class groupings that actual ability.
It's it also reasonable to think that elite families are populated by better, smarter, harder working people so thats why they make more money and have more things?
No of course it's not reasonable to believe such non-sense. Half the time the same professors teach in multiple schools, the exams are exactly the same, the statistics however support grade inflation.
Consider that the rich schools have better resources, more resources, easier grading because parents are powerful enough to influencing the grading and you have a recipe for grade inflation.
It's worth going to an elite college because elite colleges give better grades for the same work. As a student your goal is to get the best grades possible to get into the best graduate school.
And they'll break any law to accomplish the mission. The FBI has murderers and serial killers who are confidential informants. They also have thieves who are confidential informants.
It's a surprise to me that some Russian spies who you'd expect would be trained to deal with counter intelligence would be so careless.
the act of overthrowing an entire government often leads to far more death and misery than was present under the existing system.
Not that I disagree with your point, but I must point out a fallacy: by this logic, you'd choose life as a slave instead of fighting for your freedom.
What makes you think the revolutionaries will give you freedom when the revolution is over? It just might mean they'll be your new slave master or worse they could give you death.
Not that I disagree with your point, but I must point out a fallacy: by this logic, you'd choose life as a slave instead of fighting for your freedom.
It all would depend on whether or not my position in society would be higher after the revolution.
It could be that Wikileaks is also one of these kinds of organizations.
Yes, as long as the mob only consists of "lower class" people, who neither have intelligence nor education.
The problem is now that more and more people are pushed down that have both and can easily become leaders of rebellions and even revolutions. No revolution in history, at least no successful ones, were led by "serfs". They were led by intelligent and often very well educated people.
That is true. You make a good point. But in the 1960s highly intelligent people tried a revolution and failed. In the 1930s with the business plot highly intelligent people tried and failed.
Are precisely the sort of people who would encourage massive amounts of Wikileaks supporters to DDOS with software they supply.