))))

)))))

<'))><

Fucking hate Jesus.

BLASPHEMY.

was a good clan

indeed!

do you remember the lineup, who of these guys is still playing?

I only remember bengan and crypt because they sometimes played on my favourite public server (I think it was +SPP+. senior pistol party or something). I don't know if anyone is still playing as I stopped following cs in 2004ish.

hehe, same here ... 1.5 with the stupid movement killed it for me, stopped playing in 03/04. bengan rings a bell, he played in SK as well ... found the following info/players after a little search

Devil
searcher
Bengan
crypt
phyrre
cyphoneR


aahh, good times :)

matrix. those guys were awesome.

do you really expect people to reply to you in a respectful way? )))))

yeah sure.. why not? :/

because you're an annoying idiot and nothing else. )))))

)))))))))))))))))))))))))

how adequate for you to reply. ))))))))))))))))

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

why u have so bad opinion about me?

and btw the things is.. ppl wanna just have fun.. if they dont flame at you then they find ANOTHER human to flame him.. its like in real life.. in school ppl flame another ppl who learning in same class.. they flame in commnuity another ppl.. in every (?) place ppl flame another ppl just to have fun and not to be flamed first..attack is best defence)) with time when u get older and (?) smarter u gonna understand this.. it was just unluck that u was in wrong place wrong time wrong game ))))) next time start flaming another human first or think out a good defensive style )) relax m8 all cool

u r first human on internet who copy paste my words.. now im proud.. thx for this feeling ! :P

u r first human on internet who copy paste my words.. now im proud.. thx for this feeling ! :P

u r first human on internet who copy paste my words.. now im proud.. thx for this feeling ! :P

Ah, good old flaming.

ESR went down hill the moment "Troll" was added to the vocabulary and thus every comment that wasn't "Yeah, I agree totally, you're the greatest person ever" was a "Troll" and totally invalid no matter the content.

idiots always cry troll when confronted with actual arguments.

TROLL

qed

QQ

not all of us idiots do that :( stereotyping cunt

Ex-fucking-actly. "Troll", "Epic" and "Fail" are 3 words that fucking ruined the internet.

gj at emulating his english

(((((((((

Jonesy, you are soooo fat!
uups, wrong thread

:D :(

This is such a strange forum... You need to joke all the time or pretend to be dumb =). It even manages to make me think that saying something normal (like now) makes me look like an idiot here.

ur an idiot

Well, most here are twentysomethings who've been on the interweb so long, you have to use scientific notation to write down the layers of ironic detachement, with which everyone here regards everything, to not break the forum layout.

And then there are those that don't get that. They are easy meat.

I know one other forum like this, although a little different, the public there is more diverse. The problem with this type of forums is not that of not getting something, it's more about actually fitting in. I kind of can't write like they do, and maybe I could with some training, but I see no reason to adapt that particular talking style =). It's just not interesting to talk like that, although strangely it's rather entertaining to read.

serious and/or informative posts rarely get mocked like that on esr. it's the idiots like gillz/jamerio/fragerr/iceman etc. who get what they deserve. it's still better than handing out bans in my opinion.

eg.:
http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1691204
http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1809067
http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1815752
http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1815152
http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1835022
...
http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1768284
:d

I see. However even in those topics you can see the trend of replies is to joke and such, except the hardware one. It's a chatting style, many one-liners as replies, not entirely normal for a forum. At least not for the kinds that I visit =). And many threads get lost in trolls anyway, at least whenever I click something I see this type of thing =) But I'll look more =)

Most forums I see seem to revolve around posting large pictures with no content :s

.

what a coincidence, i have
blood on my hands, and he
has blood on his pants,

hand-pants on a ground-land
wasting up your name for, a,
land-sliding town,
a land-sliding town,
you look like a moot,
with your loot on the ground

Most forums I see seem to revolve around donating me large sums of money :s

we urge demisums

i agree completely with that

cowabunga man

lol

write normal ffs noob


<3

actually most of them aren't pretending at all.

WHAT IS THIS!?

a very interesting book what i am reading atm and wanna know from ppl who did read this how they think about this book and did they practise after they read it to end

))))))))))

Is it a book about lies treated psychologically, or a book criticizing psychology for being a lie? xD

in any case i can't find a book called "psychology lies".. who wrote it?

i'll guess it's psychology of lies..

this one maybe, http://www.amazon.com/Lies-Psychology-Deceit/dp/0880489979 ?

i like micro-lies, the small lies that go under our general way of thinking that we really need to be on guard to catch.. but then that might just be gloss and slack,

i want to write a book about how "psychology" lies.. i recommend it

would be cool if my english could only give me the chanse to talk about it with u )) well its very interesting book. i didnt read it till end atm but already now im looking for more books like this :) in russian it was: ïñèõîëîãèÿ ëæè and google translate gave me Psychology lies
http://www.kodges.ru/27960-psikhologija-lzhi.html
Pol Ekman

Can't you discover lies on your own, need books for that? =) Reading body language is about life experience. Imho if somebody writes a books on it, he shows that he can't really read others instinctively and needs to create some guidelines instead...

Can't you discover lies on your own, need books for that?

if i understand u right then it means that u say u know all about lies but in real u know nothing..if u think that u can see all times who lies and who not then irs ur highest lvl of thinking what u can reach atm.. to get at next lvl of ur own thinking first of all u need to watch on urself and accept where u r right now.. u cant go higher with wrong thinking about urself..ofc sometimes i can see when ppl lie or not but if u get more info about where u should look more when talking with guy who mb liying it gives ur more % that u catch him..right now i see u as a human who is 25 years old (ur profile) and thinks that he is very smart and dont need to learn more in life.. but this is wrong way dude..accept ur lvl of thinking atm or u dont gonna improve or atleast so fast as it is possible.. and after all reading book is good because it gives u new information and gets ur brain to work.. brain is like muscle.. if u dont train it then it goes afk.. and when more u dont use it then harder its to make him work again..

Reading body language is about life experience

yes i agree with u here.. first at all u need to understand teoretic part to be more sucesfull in practise mode.. ye more u practise more u can catch ppl who lie and more u belive in u own..

Imho if somebody writes a books on it, he shows that he can't really read others instinctively and needs to create some guidelines instead...

:)))) right.. so you really think that all the ppl who write books dont really understend what they talking about? dude.. if u wanna keep talking with me in this thread then please tell ur opinion larger out or i gonna just think that you are not understand what u talking about and just wanna show how smart you are what is not rly cool because u dont win things here for being smart.. thank you

I already told you my opinion, why do you need to change it? I'm sure that people who write this type of books are bad at reading people, just because when I read this type of books I always discover that I knew the majority of the stuff that they were spelling out, without thinking of it on the conscious level.

And it has nothing to do with brains or smartness. It's something subconscious. In my life there were a lot of cases of such sensed lies, and they turned out to be correct even though I couldn't explain to others why I didn't believe somebody.

Neither it has something to do with age... I don't know what it has to do with. But I know that women are much better at this type of reading, so maybe it has to do with the way of upbringing or something, with what you're used to pay attention to and what you're used to ignore.

So, although I don't believe that your post was serious... Actually it's a limitation of Internet, you can't 'read' others here and know what they actually thought... =)

I already told you my opinion, why do you need to change it?

I dont say that you need to change your own opinion (would be funny if i wanted that).. you need to understand that sometimes when ppl receive more information about things what r interested to them,they change their own opinion..you can improve with this new information or you just can ignore it and think that you already know all about it..

I'm sure that people who write this type of books are bad at reading people, just because when I read this type of books I always discover that I knew the majority of the stuff that they were spelling out, without thinking of it on the conscious level.

You are correct when you think that ppl who write these books maybe are bad at reading ppl thats why u need to understand good where is practise and where is theory.. you can be a very good in sport.. receive medals and stuff but in same way you can be a bad teacher.. even if you know what and how you do.. you maybe cant tell another ppl how they can improve in this sport..and same by theory.. you can write very good books and tell ppl very good how to manage some things what you know but uself maybe are bad at practising it.. also at start there could maybe 5-10% of ppl who can be good at 2 things at same time.. of course with time the % will grow up because people will train at their low sides but you should understend that its 2 different things practise and theory.
2 the part where you reading book and thinking that you already know the stuff what is writted there..it would maybe a surprise to you but i think that much ppl(me too) if not all think the same way..when i read it i think.. yeah sure.. i knew it already.. what is he trying to tell me when i already know it and im 20+ years so its shit book where human trying to tell me what im already knowing..

And it has nothing to do with brains or smartness. It's something subconscious. In my life there were a lot of cases of such sensed lies, and they turned out to be correct even though I couldn't explain to others why I didn't believe somebody

yes you can find ppl who lie and who not even without reading books like these because u use intuation.. but after reading material like this u gonna think more about what human doing.. how he looks..in what position is he sitting.. what is he winning/loosing when he lie.. what can be motives why he would lie.. important is do u know this human or no..you gonna even think r i wanna that he lie to me? because in some situations ppl allow other to lie to them... in some situations ppl who lie wanna that u catch them and then they feel good and free :) also the % where u can find lie out gonna grow up when u know these things where u should watch more

Neither it has something to do with age... I don't know what it has to do with. But I know that women are much better at this type of reading, so maybe it has to do with the way of upbringing or something, with what you're used to pay attention to and what you're used to ignore.

age.. more younger you are more you think that you know all.. more you learn more you understand that you know nothing..cant say anything about female intuition )

So, although I don't believe that your post was serious... Actually it's a limitation of Internet, you can't 'read' others here and know what they actually thought... =)

i hope u dont think that im trying to find out who is liyng and who not in internet because it would be very stupid ))) i wouldnt never in life reply so big answers about quake or smthng if it wouldnt be so interesting for me, i hope you understand atleast 90% of what i write in my engrish )))

Maybe you should visit a good forum on psychology, if you're really interested? =) Somehow I doubt that somebody in a gaming forum is going to read that book.

And on topic, there's something in what you say, but it's like with poetry. Poets just compose poems, they don't need any knowledge on how to do it. And then there are people who study them, invent titles for rhythms and all that. They too may write poems, of course, but somehow I doubt that all that knowledge was helpful to them in the process. In the same way if somebody is going to analyze another guy instead of 'intuiting' him, he'd come off really dumb in my humble opinion... He'd have to turn off totally his ability to go by memory and associated lie-patterns, and would instead become a dumbass who knows only what he read. Alright, it's an exaggeration for sure, you can't block out all life experience, but if you decided to use a critical analyzing approach you'd have to try doing just that. =)

i hope you understand atleast 90% of what i write in my engrish )))
You can write in Russian, I wouldn't mind that at all =)

"Maybe you should visit a good forum on psychology, if you're really interested? =) Somehow I doubt that somebody in a gaming forum is going to read that book."

I think i gonna visit yeah but before i need to collect more info to not look very dumb and new to ppl who r know very much about it )) well if i tried it then i think someone maybe did it too because here is 300-500 users online all time

"And on topic, there's something in what you say, but it's like with poetry. Poets just compose poems, they don't need any knowledge on how to do it. And then there are people who study them, invent titles for rhythms and all that. They too may write poems, of course, but somehow I doubt that all that knowledge was helpful to them in the process. In the same way if somebody is going to analyze another guy instead of 'intuiting' him, he'd come off really dumb in my humble opinion... He'd have to turn off totally his ability to go by memory and associated lie-patterns, and would instead become a dumbass who knows only what he read. Alright, it's an exaggeration for sure, you can't block out all life experience, but if you decided to use a critical analyzing approach you'd have to try doing just that. =)"

I dont know how poets compose poems but i think that they know a little bit about them and how to create,but not sute.I dont think its right to watch poems and psychology stuff in 1 line.. idd that in book r not all info is helpfull but for this you have you own head to watch what info will help you and what is useless.I didnt want to say that you need to analyze only.. i mean you need analyze how he acting etc and then watch it from a different point too when u believe in ur own intuition..you cant be 100% sure that he lies to you..also i think its better if u summarize all and then just do a overview for u and only u about this human and after that u watch how u speak with him..

"You can write in Russian, I wouldn't mind that at all =)"

they delete some comments in other languages)) and for sure i think they would delete my comments because i dont really watch here to who i speak how and when.. i just dont care about my reputation in internet ))

i need to collect more info to not look very dumb and new to ppl who r know very much about it ))
i just dont care about my reputation in internet ))

How does that match up? =)

On psychology forums people aren't really knowledgeable. There are some, but mostly just fans of psychology or people vaguely interested for their own reasons. They even troll sometimes or just plain argue on controversial matters. You won't look dumb there for sure, they're normal forums not something special.

"How does that match up? =)"

well its 2 differents things..i dont care about my reputation on internet yes but mb i sayed it in wrong way.. i mean to talk on these forums u need atleast some basic expirience.. it would be stupid if i dont know anything and come to them and try to argue with them when they have 10+ years working time on these things..its like when son comes to teach dad how to fuck womans :D

"On psychology forums people aren't really knowledgeable. There are some, but mostly just fans of psychology or people vaguely interested for their own reasons. They even troll sometimes or just plain argue on controversial matters. You won't look dumb there for sure, they're normal forums not something special."

well.. thats not cool i think.. i mean.. with wannabe trolls i can speak here too if i want ))) will see in future.. right now need to read it to end this book and rethink all info what i got

I think you don't need any experience to talk on topics like this... Well, about that book. About some known theories or stuff maybe, but about such a book, no. Even if you look at philosophy forums, which should be consisting of high talk, usually people just bring up some idea and everybody discusses how they can, without involving anything like true knowledge base. But as you wish of course =). Just saying. You underestimate yourself, I think... and overstimate how smart and educated others are =) Just an opinion.

"I think you don't need any experience to talk on topics like this... Well, about that book. About some known theories or stuff maybe, but about such a book, no. Even if you look at philosophy forums, which should be consisting of high talk, usually people just bring up some idea and everybody discusses how they can, without involving anything like true knowledge base. But as you wish of course =). Just saying. You underestimate yourself, I think... and overstimate how smart and educated others are =) Just an opinion."

well will see.. mb dont need experience about things like this,but it will be only welcomed.. about philosophy forums.. lets say so that u cant start talking about smthng about what u didnt hear anything or saw it.. u dont need much knowledge yes but atleast u need to understand what they talking about..good is that u r trying to show ur opinion and not trying to involve here another things like my answers on another topics and stuff.. but well.. mb u r only at start so and if u visit this forum longer u gonna use more stuff to just make opponent look stupid..)

Paul Ekman seems highly interesting; i've possibly even come across him before, as i've always been very interested in facial expressions.

I particularly recall the experiment that i now see in part is his doing, where they did a tournament of lie-detection among 20000 random participants, who in general (surprisingly) didn't do much better than chance (50%) and were eventually left with only 50 or so people who had > 80% chance of detecting a lie..

While what ToyTiger says is probably true in many cases, that people go theoretical in relation to something because they are intuitively poor at it, just the complete opposite is also the case. I have a belief - presumably because i see something others do not - that facial expressions reveal more than we think.. and just because of this am i interested in it as a field for fruitful inquiry.

I tend to applaud people going into (relatively) new fields like this even if they don't get it all right. i've heard figures like that they identified 3000 states and so on; but imagining extending that to include succession (time-complex) reveals the enormous challenge of the task..

More than detecting lies, i've been highly interested in detecting how expressions go from one area to another. I note new expressions arising like new words/slang, i see expressions from famous people suddenly mimicked by people on the street, and i have an uncanny ability to recognize in myself an emotion triggering an expression i've seen before.. in that moment i will think "ah. this expression that fleetingly arose and vanished from my face now is what that person that time on the subway/in the movie was having, therefore he probably must have felt like or been in a state like i just was".

Of course, this latter thought is highly untrustworthy; i feel i have this unique intuition, yet how can i be sure that it's really real? this is the point where i reach for some kind of science. yet considering what i'm describing, this is still hard to do in any hard quantitative way.

like in the case of music we have, and some more than others, an ability to recognize sets of tones/beats whatever lets say a pattern 4,2,3,9 - it can be whatever; our brain is suited just for this kind of abstraction. so we can look across, and unconsciously assign a concept to it that we don't know about until the next time we hear it and think "ah, that's the same"; and this is sooo interesting in relation to meaning....

but with facial expressions, what is so extremely fascinating is that it's already so juicy in its contents. whereas music can be somewhat more abstract and be assigned meaning depending on what it stands in relation to (think of clockwork orange, where protagonist is played his favorite music while being induced with something that made him feel extremely nauseous), facial expressions have somewhat more autonomy - even moreso than dance perhaps (!) (and here i must inject another point; i recently saw a clip by the famous dancer/choreographer Martha Graham, where she says something to the effect of "you move in such a way that it gives the meaning back.. you have your roots in fundemental things.".. and what she means is that you do the move and the meaning comes automatically... and this, which is perhaps is more likely to occur to an extremely talented dancer, is perhaps obvious for anyone to see in the case of facial expressions - you do the expression, you smile, and you feel it instantly.. the symbol (expression) and its meaning (the feeling) is almost like the symbol is the face of the meaning! heh, heh!

just as a sidenote, i'm not particularly good at detecting lies myself, even though the face has extreme impact on me (much like sounds can be more intense to a muscician), and i don't know if this is because i'm somewhat of a naive person, or because i tend not to look directly at people (can't really handle it - it's "too much").

dude in few words.. what u wanted to say? )

keep it up!
if you're lucky,
you'll learn -
a lot!

:D

hah)) well i think reading a book is never a time waste :) only +

book-time may not be wasted,

but sometimes you use it for the wrong books xD

but although, the book you chose sounded cheesy,
i think the person who wrote it is good, honest researcher.

maybe u can advise some book what u did read or hear about which is connected with psychology and what i can read later

well, completely unrelated, but quite interesting are the books of Ramachandran.. if you're not convinced you can see some video-talks by him on youtube or whatever.

perhaps not completely unrelated as he speak of "confabulation", how the brain lies to itself sometimes.. e.g. some people who are paralyzed on one side of their body will deny that they have a right arm and so on.. and you ask for instance "well, *lifts up right arm, and shows* what is this?" "ohh.. that's my grandfather's arm!" and so on :D which is pretty ridiculous.. and he has countless extremely interesting examples of how the human psyche can go wrong, and it's extreeemly interesting to see how this reveals a lot about who we are and what insane kinds of thinking that is hiding just underneath our everyday normal thinking.. :D

ripe with philosophical implications also ;)

heh ok)

also, found some articles by him

http://www.paulekman.com/wp-content/uploads/2...-Liars.pdf

http://www.paulekman.com/wp-content/uploads/2...otions.pdf

but english :c

hehe in english no thx))

i don't understand, you speak English pretty good, yet reading is difficult?

ofc) i understend only ezi words what ppl use most of the time when they talk to each other..

use a dictionary and learn more?

someday i may do this but not for esr users at all

yeah okey, improving your English is totally pointless because it is just something esr assholes want

i use eng only here

yeah, okey, because it's only useful here, these articles and books were written by ESR trolls

sadly u dont get it

are you an idiot?

the only raging idiot r u atm

if you're not an idiot, pick a dictionary, and start typing like this:
"the only raging idiot is you, at the moment" or
"you are the only raging idiot [here], at the moment"

the only raging idiot r u atm
.

so you are an idiot

should i feel sad that someone on internet thinks that im an idiot? :( :D cmn dude dont make it more laughable for me :D

I'm pretty sure CPLains would only publish trilogies.

I

would

not.

:D

first part was the best imo
sounded a bit narcisistic, but it left smth for interpretation

no,

for a long time i've thought about thinking as just another form of movement. the creation of a thought when thinking being the same thing as creation of a step when walking, that walking is basically a manifestation of (unconscious) thinking. the various belief systems being like monty pythons ministry of silly walks. feelings being like the reflex of taking your hand off that hot stove you put it on.

the crappy thing is it's possible to create chronically tense muscles just like it's possible to create thought loops, only they are more permanent since you don't need to dissolve them to create new thoughts or move your other muscles.


just one of my silly walks i felt like sharing in response to the emotion-expression link you mentioned.

haha! brilliant :D

i read once about this strange creature called a sea squirt that lives in the sea. when it's young it moves around actively, but as it grows older it looks for a place to stay, and when it finally finds a place, it *plants* itself so as to remain rooted on the spot for the rest of its life. now the first thing it will after having set roots is to digest its own brain! why? well, it doesn't need a brain any more, because it has stopped moving! brain is now useful to the extent that it is dissolved and turned into nutrients. the primary reason for a brain and ultimately a nervous system, was to be able to predict whether a movement or step would be good or bad for you - so all thought starts from there; or for the plant, stops there :D

the comparison with thoughts and muscles as forming a general knot is very interesting and powerful. though i say face is the most deeply intertwined with thought, dance is also a very direct medium - and this is the reason why i'm now taking some courses to explore that whole way of expressing myself..

ultimately i think reconnecting theory and thought in general with its more immediate concrete manifestations is something we are beginning to see now.. perhaps the east has a more easy relationship between body and soul. my mom who was raised in very christian circumstances, have said to me that their separation between body and soul was one of the things that emotionally drew her away from it..

btw, got the story of the sea-squirt from Rodolfo Llinas.. profound guy.. who's talking about "movement".. a real gem.. interview :)

not to mention that his face during the interview is like a whole book in itself xD

smart squid, mollusks are pretty awesome.

very interesting person and interview, have to read his book some time.


one interesting thing about the muscle knots, or "tension" if it isn't that severe, is that while there are stretching exercises to alleviate the tension; since muscles are controlled through the somatic nervous system, alleviating the tension should be a simple matter of stopping the continuous work you are doing to keep those muscles tense. but it isn't as simple as that. it is as if you have created an autonomous mental construct that is keeping them tense.

maybe that's a skill we have, to create more or less autonomous constructs to take care of stuff for us, to not have to do everything consciously. everything is fine when we create these constructs with care, like a construct that enables walking almost automatically, the construct and our conscious mind form sort of a symbiotic relationship. but when we create these constructs accidentally or through ignorance or whatever, the construct doesn't have a relationship with the conscious mind and becomes almost kind of an independent entity (demon!). for example the construct that is upholding that muscle knot is just doing its' job, and doing it as good as it can, it just doesn't know you don't want it to.

A demon indeed!

I thought a while back that growing up feels exactly like that tensing of the brain that you feel after caffeine high. like a billion knots has curled up in your brain, shutting out all creative and flowing thoughts.

It's also interesting that you mention it. In a sense this is anticipated by eastern practices where the body and mind are so much closer. So i'm taking these tai chi lessons now, and with each movement you start to feel how these subconscious elements play into the most elementary things! :)

You might have heard about it, but there is this phenomena called "phantom limbs" where after limb is severed, it remains as a virtual phantom for the person. That is, the body map of the person doesn't change with the external physical removal. So you have patients reporting these strange qualities in, say, their phantom hand, since for instance the fist is clenching up to a knot so tense that it is actually painful for the patient. So they have this real pain in a hand that only remains as part of a virtual body-map.

If you haven't heard of that you're in for another gem of a person. Vilayanur S. Ramachandran. You can pretty much look up anything by him, and i guarantee quality. x)

it's pretty obvious you missed this, regarding facial expressions: http://h-80.h1.hostworks.com.ru/newspics/steven_seagal_emo.jpg

hahaha

and keanu reves

or so they say.. *glances around suspiciously from side to side*

I don't think you should over-rate talent in any domain; even such fields were people are said, and maybe even say themselves, that they have divine inspiration, or extreme "given" intuition. I'm not sure i know of ANY the top poet that wasn't extremely well read and knowledgeable both in their craft and in general. Even people with prodigious skill at very young ages also need to accompany this with prodigious amounts of work (practice and highly conscious self-reflection) over at least a decade before becoming true masters..

It's not necessarily talent, just a tendency. We're on quake site, do you believe that people need a tendency to play QL better than others? Or is it just a matter of practice? I believe the first, there have been so many people putting time in quake 3 and QL, and it wasn't very helpful to them. I think some kind of tendency towards one or another thing plays a great part in it, to the point of it being impossible to catch up by other means. Have seen lots of examples of it in life, some people don't even try but excel at something naturally, others try hard and keep lagging behind. Reading people isn't much different. It's something we all are trying to do anyway, and when somebody writes a book on it, it can't be but a crude attempt to put the process into words, imho =)

I think you're missing out a lot by this way of thinking.

You're ignoring that we're all basically raised in the same home. If you look at differences across cultures and times you see how big of a contribution culture makes. People run faster and faster each year.

Sure you have talented people in each generation, insofar as they excel above their peers according to say, a bell curve distribution. Even in general intelligence that between identical twins raised apart is akin to r=0.8, you still have to somehow allow for the "flynn effect" - that since the early 1920 or so when they started measuring intelligence, it has gone up by like 30 points. You can view this in multiple ways, but i think along the lines Flynn himself has recently done. We're blind to the effect of the outside effect because most of us more or less share the same environment (that is, even twins raised apart).

Now all of this. is just to say. xD that. the work the man is doing is in its initial stages, and who knows what kind of super-human lie-detectors humans will become with the kinds of training that he develops? we are all super-human with respect to mathematics with respect to people who don't/didn't have the tools we have at our disposal..

even the psychological jargon that has trickled down from various psychologists have immeasurable effect upon the ways in which people view themselves and how their ability to cope with things has changed; how new diseases come about.. (not to say stupid ideas can't also be endorsed and make us all more stupid and corrupted in many ways, e.g. some argue bulimia and anorexia are modern, emergent, culture-specific..)

speaking of culture-specific psychopathologies (anorexia etc)

http://foundfootagefest.com/videos/dance-workout-barbie xD

A lot got written in the thread, so I'll just lump replies to excerpts of all posts.

I have a belief - presumably because i see something others do not - that facial expressions reveal more than we think.. and just because of this am i interested in it as a field for fruitful inquiry.

What else do they reveal, do you speak about subconscious stuff?

i have an uncanny ability to recognize in myself an emotion triggering an expression i've seen before..

I noticed the same. Once you've talked with some guy, you can suddenly find yourself mimicking some of his expressions. I picked up a strange way to look around from my gf, with a kind of expression in her eyes that I couldn't decypher, it puzzled me, but I just found myself doing it for no apparent reason. Mostly such things go unnoticed, but that's food for thought. Must be the way we learnt to express ourselves since childhood, from imitating parents.

I wonder how emotions are connected to physical imitation, how do we know that this or that expression is tied to this or that emotion? Actually maybe our emotions aren't completely the same at all, just superficially the same. Even if you start discussing with people what's the difference between different shades of the same word, you can see that they put different meaning to the shades of those words.

so now i understand that people actually fail to see the fake smiles pervading talk-shows and model magazines etc. i still can't quite come to grips with that fact.. since most people are blind to this dissonance, everyone else has to put up with it xD\
Maybe it's movie-culture. In past there were no movies, and people couldn't go to theatre that frequently. Now culture is pervaded by fake behaviors, maybe we forgot how to tell them from real ones out of trying to believe what we see on screen. But I think there's more to it. It's hard to tell something just by a smile alone, and I noticed that for me it's hard to judge static pictures. But if the guy is in front of you, not at the picture, then it's a whole different matter. Even if you don't know what you're seeing, you kind of take in more, you can tell that he's lying or smiling fakely from something else, rather than his smile alone. Maybe eyes-expression plays a big part in this, but I think it's more of a mixture of everything. Eyes, lips, posture, what his hands are doing, etc. And then you kind of "become" him for an instant and "feel" what he should feel (imitation again), and suddenly you come up with feeling of fakeness, you know that you'd be lying if you copied him. At least that's how I thought about my own process of detecting the feeling of others, you keep stepping into another person's shoes. Online that's different, not enough to step into shoes, not even static pictures can help.

i was shattered when i saw/realized (and we're all in denial about how alike we are other people) how poorly my mom could understand my expressions..

With my mom it was alike, but with a quirk. In my school years I was astonished at how she could detect emotions in me that nobody else could, not even closest friends. But with time that changed, and now it's like with your mom, she can't tell what I feel, not even emotions that are strong and kind of obvious. So I think it's not static, somebody's closeness in interpreting you can change overtime, and maybe your conclusion that at one given time your mom couldn't decypher your facial expressions => nobody else would be able to, wasn't entirely correct? =)

there's no science to back up your claim that this guy just emoted like a bolly-wood actor, or that this new kind of expression is catching on, and speculating on what it means....

There's no truth here, for everybody his own understanding is truth. So you may define emotions a little differently, it's just hard to uncover, because they have something in common anyway. You can define a lot of things differently. That doesn't mean that others don't recognize some facial expression, they might be just interpreting it in a totally different way.
Recently I was browsing one woman's diary, and she has an obsession with dolls, not normal kiddy dolls but dolls that can be painted and such. She put up a lot of pix of them, and even from the discussion I saw that I frequently judged the expression on the dolls' faces differently than others. I would look up and check it again, and yeah you could see something like that if you try on the doll's face, but if they didn't say it then I would see a different expression. It was so strange =)
Maybe what we see is kind of ruled by our desires and expectations (at least in an environment with not enough feedback, like looking at dolls' pix). There's room for error.

you've thought that people could see this. what does it entail that they do not? think back to looks you gave people in class, how superficially everything has been interpreted...
Yeah, in class I once tried to give one girl a reproaching look for "stealing" my studybook for herself, and she mistook it for pleading to give it back. I was shocked. Maybe because of the posture, I was in no position to look threateningly or reproachfully. But the gap of our difference in judging the same look was outstanding. I've been thinking after that how there must be some sort of objective truth about looks shared by the majority, and you just need to tap into it to make less errors...

And about talent. Yep Flynn effect is certainly an interesting thing. And yeah I agree that you can observe it even in quake games. There's just so much unknown... Nobody really knows what makes people better, cultural environment, genes, whatever. We can only theorize about it.

I just don't believe that practice is so important, in either 2001 or 2002 there was a fatality interview out there and he said he pracced for 7-8 hours per day. I thought wow! And then he didn't place top 3 in the qualifier and couldn't go to WCG. If it's only about practice, then does it mean that those three others pracced more than 7-8 hours per day? =)

observing and copying as much as possible from other victorious players you will learn more than by grinding it out day after day without having any internal/external reflexion of what is going on.

I think everybody imitates what they saw in the demos. Still doesn't help them to reach the same skill level.

right now some people by accident - or by experience in similar activities - pick up the 'right' way to learn how to play quake. the majority has no idea what they are doing wrong.
most players never even get to the point of analyzing their failures and even if they did they'd have no idea on how to improve except accumulating even more mindless playing hours.

Honestly, you don't give enough credit to people! =) They do analyze and all that, there's no mindless playing, it's just that sometimes you know your shortcomings but don't know how to fix them. Or you know how, but it doesn't work for unknown reason. Or sometimes you can't really understand what went wrong. The way you put it, it's a difference in knowledge, and some people chance upon it, and some don't. That's the same as to say that they've got talent, or some tendency, something that makes them understand the game better =)

I think people dislike the notion of natural talent because it makes them feel inferior to others =). But I hope you aren't arguing on those grounds. We're not born exactly equal, and it would be boring if we would.

There's more to practice than time invested, I've always got the impression Fatal1ty considers practice to just play duels against people over and over for hours on end.

Yeah maybe, I don't know how he pracced. =) But he invented the practice practice practice slogan and then disproved its value by his own example, I find it quite funny. Of course, maybe he never quite believed in it and thought that he was the talented one among many others who pracced a lot, but was too polite to mention that detail. =)

What else do they reveal, do you speak about subconscious stuff?

It's like they have their own autonomy. Like you can look in a kid and say, "oh, he has the smile of his father, and laughter of his grandmother" or some things it's often the case that you can see, "oh he has the emotes of that rapper, or has a twitch that reveals something about the way his brain works".. For instance, without a moment of reflection we can tell someone with downssyndrom from someone else. But i don't want to confine this information to the genes, or syndromes or crystallized states. Because it carries meaning it extends beyond; e.g. the girls who give "the look", the kind of attitude of whatever+feminism+whoyouthinkyouare, there's a whole philosophy in that mode of expression, it just wouldn't happen unless they had some ties to *that* way of thinking..

how do we know that this or that expression is tied to this or that emotion?

Here i don't want to be dogmatic, but even less do i want to be skeptical. I often feel that i know what kind of meaning an avocal song has, and as i argued below, the symbol and its meaning is closer in facial expressions than pretty much anything else. A smile is undeniable, irrefutable. Because the fine-grained details of it is not conscious at all, there is almost no room to fake it, or make up your own. The best method an actor has, is to become the person they are portraying. So of course people put different things into an expression, but i believe in relation to all other such skeptical thoughts between the symbol and the meaning, the face is perhaps what comes the closest. And if someone sees something else in a doll etc. it's often a lack on their part, *an error*, to get into the expression.

Statically, perhaps there's more room, but in terms of animated expression, you're almost at the point where you must think the thoughts and be aware of the same things, to get the same expression. And for all skepticism, i'd argue this is a profound area where truth about meaning is so close to its symbol, that the miracle of directness should be the focus.

your mom couldn't decypher your facial expressions => nobody else would be able to, wasn't entirely correct?

well yes, it was mostly a revelation that not *all* could see, but really, once that belief fell, gradually everything became more relaxed. i was probably delusional most of my primary school years, i would always "give signs" to see if someone else was out there and was listening. i would tap my pen in a certain rythm and see if people responded, i'd turn my head in particular ways, always try to notice if anyone else would play this "under the general awareness communication game", and sometimes i thought i'd get replies etc. but most of it was probably in my head... but i did get "class flirt" award, so.. maybe not all of it; but that was the thing i was doing in class... looking to see who could catch these subtle things..


Honestly, you don't give enough credit to people!

I didn't write that part! :D see #92 I know *exactly* :p the amount of talent the players have, as i practiced a lot for a while, and saw the different attitudes people had on the "painkiller 2005 world tour", and how everything came together in the game..

but it's interesting that you noticed the same thing about knowing when you do an expression other people are doing.. but what i felt at those moments was that i had the same thought they had. i had not only copied a handful of facial muscles set to occur in some order, i had copied a whole thought that entailed that order of expressions! :D (at least that's a much more interesting conclusion) :P

also interesting, came to my mind now, is analysis of eye movements, where the direction of the gaze indicates something about what kinds of thinking a person is doing like this. which is principally geared towards the "detecting lies" but is really much more than that as it's framed generally..

i don't think these "static" theories can account for too much. and i'm not even sure where *this* particular info comes from. but even if you discover some sort of "face-syntax" the meaning won't be only in the static parts, and it's probably not reducible to them either - so you can't deduce frame by frame what a sequence of eye-movements mean.. suddenly you have the "roll-eyes" which is more or less "emergent" and inexplicable from those charted in that pic xD

however!

that is not to say that what is emergent there in those expressions are random or mere formal symbol! that we can't reduce a given expression to some set of genes or culture-invariant emotion doesn't mean it's not a necessary consequence of some internal thought..

i've often thought of faces as "solutions" to a set of rules that your genes and environ has let you play. some people do this or that thing, but it's often a result as a problem that they have.. like if you're constantly depressed an has to put on a happy face, time will reveal a certain solution to this problem, or if you're happy and nervous and so on, or if you laugh a certain akward way.. and the ways people respond to you feeds back into it.

my point is just that, while they want to reduce to basic culture-invariant emotions, this is not necessary to establish a set of expressions as "innate", in the sense of necessarily reflecting a state of mind.. "innateness" can be a solution to a problem. a problem that has never existed before can have a unique and universal solution.

you don't have to be able to reduce it for it to be universal and necessary. that is, "that look" of feminist whatever-girl is a solution to a set of problem; it's not that it's *just* constructed by culture, as if this makes it some "just mere phenomena" that could be otherwise..

that's why highly unique emotions that i've seen only once before in an expression, equally can be said by me - dogmatically - to be equal to that of my emotions now that i have *this* expression. because you feel so deeply that it *has to be*; and this *has to be* is like the flavor of a necessary solution in the form of a face, of a state of mind.

some philosophy there, if you didn't mind xD

when i think about it - this "has to be" is extremely powerful.

it's like when you watch a movie, and everything is okay, and you're going along, watching.. and then suddenly a moment of truth, an experiment.. something is about to happen, and you know it can go two ways, if it goes this way, you were right _all along_ and if it goes the other way everything falls into pieces..

this kind of "has to be" that can come down to the tiniest thing, even with a movie of extreme length.. you have an interpretation, but in the end it can come down to this subtle distinction that is made or omitted..

this kind of "has to be" is poorly understood when the case in question is a-verbal.. that someone in a movie gives a hug in that moment can make all the difference whether i like the movie or not.

this is not because there are some rules about "give a hug, if x, and y.." it's just because a complex of problems and interactions arise, and you know what perfection means. and you feel the quality is right there in front of your eyes if this last piece falls into place..

the same with music, a disharmony .. that lasts and lasts.. and you wait for it, wait for it.. nothing is determined, your interpretation in a state of suspension..

e.g. if i was to invoke God now, your whole idea of who i am, and what i'm saying might fall to pieces.. it's this balance that we're always on, and that in the future might redeem what came before it, as a resolution in music, or hug in emotional conflict, or certain change of colors in a movie-scene...

it's the solution. and well. i don't think we dare to understand this concept quite yet, as it's not very open to verbal inspection - we can only point to it. but in the realm of faces, and necessity, and as far as my knowledge that *he must have had this thought* because *it is coherent, beautiful, makes sense, is perfect* etc.. is a very very powerful contributer to knowledge.. but it is extremely hard to investigate, and psychology no doubt fears this kind of analysis in want of being "scientific".

but it is extremely hard to investigate, and psychology no doubt fears this kind of analysis in want of being "scientific"
It's not really the realm of psychology per se. More like that of philosophy. After all, we do tend to view emotions as static states of mind, to change it an overhaul is needed. But your idea is interesting, I never thought of them that way.

Although I would still doubt that this "solution" of yours is equal to that of others. To take your example with a feminist look, if you're not a woman you probably put different overtones into it, slightly negative. That is, you would feel what she is supposed to feel in your opinion, but your own emotions about the subject of feminism would be mixed with her feelings in your look. Even contradicting emotions can coexist, so I don't see why it would be impossible, and then all that is much less precise.

The same with basic emotions that you think she must feel. The feminist look would be about you pretending to be a woman, which you can't be, so you can only imagine how a man would feel in her situation. You can't really "be" neither the suject of that situation, nor you can "feel" the situation itself in truth, there are too many connections and associations that you're not aware. And then it's pretty inaccurate, although you may think that it's accurate and that you feel the same and think the same thoughts. It's only true to some degree.

I wouldn't say i could imitate "that look". i'm saying; if i one day caught myself having that look, and that sequence of movements, it's highly likely that it was the same thing. the same thought.

now it's easy to point out how no two thoughts are alike. even things with external reference points are unique to each person "apple", and so on carries a certain vagueness. or, i smile now and i smile now (2 sec later) and it's not the same! and degrees and blabla etc.

the solution way of thinking was to point out that maybe like in other meaningful mediums, the connection between dots can make sense or not; so when you see insufficient information, you can still draw accurate conclusions..

i.e. when you see a sequence of patterns in a face, you can reconstruct what that thought had to be. there's a feeling you don't understand certain expressions, and then reconstruction is impossible. there are too many subconscious elements. thoughts are structured and nonrandom in their details - they are limited by thought-syntax etc. the reason we can communicate at all is because we can infer what the other person is thinking by these hints of hints called words

and this feeling that it makes sense can be very powerful to understand the meaning, and identity of meaning. it's easy to construct a sentence that seems to make sense and then suddenly break it down by adding another sentence that turns it upside down, or corrupts it to insanity etc. this and similar arguments are in poor taste.

that a sentence does seem to make sense, regardless of the fact that it might flip around by context or vagueness, is an argument for the fact that i understand it. (defending a tautology \o/) i just argue that this "ahh" can be so much more powerful and intimate with a face in that moment you recognize identity. and that it is more powerful an interesting idea.

in any case, another interesting bit of thought on emotion springs to mind. i remember hearing a lecture series on emotions a few years back by a philosopher named Solomon. his main claim seemed to be that emotions are not to be thought of as static, but as ways of interacting and being in the world..

found review/summary of a book of his on emotion here.. might be interesting to skim through :)

Solomon criticises anthropological applications of Jamesian theories for assuming a clear distinction between a culture-independent physiological component of emotion and its diverse cultural interpretations. Again resisting the idea that emotions can be broken down into parts, Solomon suggests that cultural interpretation of an emotion is partly constitutive of what that emotion is: “An emotion is a system of concepts, beliefs, attitudes, and desires, virtually all of which are context-bound, historically developed, and culture-specific” (p.87). The structure of one’s judgments is bound up with cultural interpretation and, because emotions are systems of judgments, they will be cultural through and through. So the idea of a physiological core and a cultural overlay of interpretation gives way to a more holistic construal.

xD

watch this video and then consider this analogy;

the dots stand in relation to the dancing
as the face stands to the thoughts

also see reply above that i made to fragerr, if you care to read it xD

i really should be studying lol (always when i go to esr,) :p

i once again have no idea what cplains is smoking... but here's my take on talent:

in general i'd dismiss the widely accepted belief that talent is what differentiates people in their activities.
in some form - especially in the more physical sports - there's a certain absolute skill 'ceiling' that is connected to one's genes (muscle fiber distribution etc.) but let's face the truth: we're far away from reaching that point in quake.

to my knowledge there's no organized hands-on teaching for quake anywhere in the world. that would be the first step to establish to be able to understand what makes some people so much better than others. in my opinion what jibo said in his last interview is very interesting: i'd say by simply observing and copying as much as possible from other victorious players you will learn more than by grinding it out day after day without having any internal/external reflexion of what is going on.

right now some people by accident - or by experience in similar activities - pick up the 'right' way to learn how to play quake. the majority has no idea what they are doing wrong.
most players never even get to the point of analyzing their failures and even if they did they'd have no idea on how to improve except accumulating even more mindless playing hours.

for quake to become accepted as a competitive activity we'd first need a whole different way of introducing people to the competitive aspect of the game.

note: you talking about a game

note: you talking about a forum

hi my friends.. today i understood that esr is not so cool anymore like it sometimes was.. time ago it was fun to argue with another ppl but right now.. i dont see any opponents for me here..its just boring to see these wanna be trools trying to answer to me with their low skill level.. maybe i start writing again in some years to see new blood but right now esr is boring and no fun for me anymore..going to silent mode..cu guys and w8 till ur king comes back

i think u r the only human of 500 users who was thinking its truth.. very sad dude.. next time when i speak to u i will remember ur low lvl.. one more time,sorry

you didn't get it. take care.

sad

retarded clown. cheering up the masses. yay.

i just use my own personal experience to in a sort of roundabout way get to the conclusions i have.

for instance, my whole view on talent is extremely shaped by my experience as a gamer. and this was one of the reasons i went into gaming in the first place; i was good at so many things and i wondered what it took to become really good.

the whole reason i brought up the flynn effect is because that point is exactly what is most poorly understood about talent. IQ is like the talent of all talents, and it has been studied seriously for a century now by psychologists..

the fact that a paradox of that magnitude can show up in such a scrutinized area reveals a most general flaw. in relation to gaming the flaw is as follows,

we forget the environment around which the talent develops; it's a thousand times easier to pick up information on method that has accumulated over time than develop your own methods.. what a random person learns in quake3 now from a year of playing, is immeasurably more than a year of playing from its inception.

where is this knowledge stored? in the way people play the game, the small tricks they do, the way they aim, .. etc. in a game this is pretty obvious, in a large cultural setting such things and nuances are more fleeting yet equally affecting..

so what is theory? well, what it can be is a look into the future. if you're a mathematician and discover an introduction-level book sent back in time you'd be invaluable; if you're were a painkiller gamer and could see how people played a year hence from its inception you'd get a tremendous head-start; even better, if a player is sent back to practice with you. (a small group of people can race ahead into the "future", without any one of them being some otherworldly talent)

and this aspect goes all the way up;

as in the flynn effect as argued by flynn, how we structure thoughts, and the logics in the way our thoughts go

and down;

as in the effects where people who are not used to perspective drawings won't see the depth when you draw a cube on paper. (this last point was recently given to me when a father of a friend of mine pointed out, with a certain air of bewilderment, just how much we took this moving around in a 3D-game for granted. and now that i mentioned it, come to think of it, when q3 came out, when my mom tried it, she could hardly move, and kept trying to avoid crashing into walls etc. ----------- sooooooo already our generation has incredible incredible tremendous talent in visual processing, that already would block people born before 1980 or to become good in these games)


SO we try to restrict talent and confine it, yet... it can be so conditioned from where you wouldn't even guess

and that was just one aspect.

i totally agree with most of what you said.

the fact that the best players often stumble upon methods that are brilliant i agree with.. they naturally do the best thing, without even necessarily knowing how or why themselves. (this was also true for the people able to detect lies in that tournament of 20000 people, they seemed more or less to just stumble on the right way )..

of course there's much more to it than that, players at least in quake etc. must be extremely reflexive and it takes a lot of working memory and intelligence to be able to get anywhere - method or not.

the first step for you is to exercise strafejumping in real life
now go outside and practice! :P

p.s.: keep rocketjumping for a later time, when you got more skill

think of all the cool stuff

you know when you're jumping around

in say some defrag map, and you discover

this awesome thing that you can do, without losing health, say

and consider people falling from planes onto like a snow-slope,

and brushing it off like no big deal, or bouncing of wires whatever

all the things you do in GTA and mario-world, that would nearly

be possible in real life with our physics, if only we HAD MORE LIVES

presupposes thinking

oh snap

xD

DO it, Luke! :P

luke
became
fluke luke
when he
tried to survive
a nuke

yeah, I just finished AvP 3, on my home home I was thinking this evening what if I could climb on walls and do all cool things aliens do
think I would definitively be a killer =)))))))))

(((((((=

"Stanford researcher finds that experiences with avatars, including personalized images of ourselves, can change our view of reality and the way we act in the real world."

http://www.physorg.com/news186342108.html

"The bottom line is that we have to have more education in society, particularly showing students stereotypes that exist in media and why they exist."
wrong at so many levels

that makes me understand something

actually i remembered i read an e-article about genuine smiles, and at the end was attached a test to measure how you did, and i did 19/20 or so and was surprised to find people only did 11 or so on average. so i tested my mom and she got like 10, and it deeply shook me...

so now i understand that people actually fail to see the fake smiles pervading talk-shows and model magazines etc. i still can't quite come to grips with that fact.. since most people are blind to this dissonance, everyone else has to put up with it xD

i've always been curious as to if it's possible to learn pitch-perception.. i'm pretty bad at this atm, and don't know if i'll ever take the time to try to learn it, but it's deffo an interesting topic for study

i mean, it's pretty amazing what one can learn - especially when one is young. and this perspective that we "all" live in the same home, so to speak, means that science and psychology in particular is currently glossing over a lot of things (e.g. attributing to genes what is a fixed, yet highly complex interaction with culture)..

a big problem these days is that e.g. this facial expression thing immediately becomes

A) a newage subject where you have these degenerate beings who suck blood of the ignorant, and just waste time

B) a product that is only available for the few, or for businesses etc. so that they can know whether their clients are "trust worthy" etc.

C) a tool for police and agencies that want to interrogate and so on..

Looking for trying to improve "pitch perception" or "detecting lying" or "speed reading" whatever the thing may be.. they are usually in these boundaries where you can't tell whether it's legit science or not. insofar as it is published sober article, it's more about the effect; and this is usually only used to feed into A,B,C where the application is concerned x)

I heard Dracula was only a human in the beginning

ur sentence is severely underdetermined by the amount of meanings i can give it, but i can guess :c

obvious joke is obvious :)

and of course it has something to do with sucking blood, that's why I tried to show a positive aspect on the matter

..



xD

I hate fake smiles, taking photos of people posing with a fake empty smile just seems silly to me.

i'm telling you, people can't see them

i was shattered when i saw/realized (and we're all in denial about how alike we are other people) how poorly my mom could understand my expressions..

luckily that realization freed me from a kind of shyness where i thought people could see what i was thinking xD .. come to think of it, that's a real syndrome, egocentric.. paranoid.. pathological to the extent that it's exaggerated,

but those pictures are undeniably full of fake smiles, and i know i can see them, and if you can too then highfive :D (and you are now cursed to notice how many people can't tell the difference)

this idea of seeing something others can't see is so strange

especially in this realm, because you can't justify it

there's no science to back up your claim that this guy just emoted like a bolly-wood actor, or that this new kind of expression is catching on, and speculating on what it means....

you're just stuck there, with your own musings, and if you're lucky you see some hints that others notice too, but for the most part you just fire away in the dark

and how much of it IS really ghosty unreality? it's interesting to note how many brilliant people at the start of the century believed in paranormal and occult mystical phenomena... i guess anyone trying to expand their horizons into uncertain territory must accept some mistakes along the speculative road xD

I've always had the feeling that I don't "feel"/"think"/"see" the same things as other people but it's pretty hard to know for sure, it's like asking someone born totally blind to describe sight.

even more than not knowing i think there's an extreme tendency to assume and rationalize when you notice that people differ from yourself

i've seen this in several cases; and it's interesting when you hear about musicians, how they had tunes playing in their head well into their teens before they realized it was not a universal thing "i thought everyone" - we assume this.. i've heard stories of people with synesthesia not realizing that other people don't see numbers as colored before they are adults and so on! x)

often a deficiency can be glossed over by a skill also, so you'll never know that people are superior in ways you can't "see".. (i suspect a deficiency with respect to language (spelling) and (related) some kind of fine-grained auditory ability to hear speech)

Yeah, I'd not put much thought into it, I figured maybe other people just thought it looked good. Obviously not being able to tell the difference makes a whole lot of sense and would explain why the smiles look so fake anyway, they've no idea what makes a smile a smile.

damn man,

just take a step back and think about this for a moment.

your whole life,

your whole life,

you've thought that people could see this. what does it entail that they do not? think back to looks you gave people in class, how superficially everything has been interpreted...

think how missing this fact, this obvious fact about the world, went unnoticed, of all the people you talked to, they seeing you in another way, making inferences either not at all or through tone of voice or posture or how pale your skin is..

how this is just one obvious difference more or less randomly stumbled upon; how you rationalized it for so long, how you said, well, "everyone can see", "they just don't care", "it's just how it is", "they're just bad actors"...

well, my world usually stands on its head for a week or so after such discoveries.. there's just so many implications.. and you start to notice it.. it's not that it wasn't there, it was just that it wasn't available to you - it wasn't an issue, it was obviously "just so" for so long.

/force-end xD

Yeah, it's funny, I was told by someone once that during secondary school I came across as "arrogant". I didn't really understand why but after I thought about it, it explained a lot of experiences.

Perhaps I (we?) just have much more subtle ways of expressing things that a much smaller number pick up on, I've often found it easier to "get across" thoughts in a conversation in text even when you're actually lacking so much information.

If true it would explain a lot of little moments that stick in your mind where the others person reactions made no sense given the manner in which you acted.

Maybe this is why I can't stand V for Vendetta (film obviously) but other people seem to love it. Everything about the film to me felt so contrived and fake, from Natalie Portman's woeful accent to the dialogue and acting (e.g. the "big brother" guy felt totally nonthreatening)

hahaha, have you noticed,

the smilies

obviously when there's as little information as ":)" you can project whatever into it, but increasingly now we see smilies that impress upon you everything about it, and some of them are just plain retarded

http://media.photobucket.com/image/smily/look...smily3.gif
http://www.skjerpogsonersvei.com/Smily.jpg

and you think, yeah okay, "they're just silly!" - (and notice how the brain reaches for justifications) and people would agree to it, but there's a difference; these are indefensibly bad.. "we" store these kinds of things in the "silly" folder, instead of admitting that they would be impossible in a world where people recognized their objective ugly, retarded nature xD

That first one is supposed to be goofy?

I'm just going to kill myself I think...

lol, where/how/why did you dig these up?....

just searched "smily" on google..

to make a point of the fact that, like some people don't see anything wrong with shit comedians, some people can't tell the difference between a good and bad smily.. and this is not justifiable by some "personal taste" they just.. simply.. can not see how it is "dissonant"..

http://www.ludiques.net/images/smilies.gif

the relation to the empty looks on front-page covers is obvious to those who have eyes

OH OH OH !!

_THIS_

QED

anyway,

hindsight and reflection can only do so much

what you find is that ability to notice is now stronger

(like the difference between looking back on a dream and being lucid)

so i'll just say.. next time you walk on by, check out those faces on the front-page covers xD

and the emptiness,

above all,

those girls people like,

...

I was going to use the term "soulless" but didn't want to set you off on another tangent...

I reckon in the past most people could tell the difference, that's why when photos first appeared people thought it stole your soul and wouldn't smile. They could see something wasn't "right" about taking photos and "smiling" but it's become such a norm that it's no longer true.

I kinda like those creepy non-smiling old black and white photos myself.

Well there's a lot of culture specific.

It all comes back to what talent is. I think "we" who absorb a lot of information from faces, can easily fall into norms just because of this. We see our western emotions and we put a lot into it. While faces are very close to the "soul" - the prevalence of ...

oh this issue towers above me.

I've no idea.. There's so much. But let me just say. The soul-less is a stereotype we have. And we have particular expressions associated with it. This is a generalization based on *our* culture. Sure it has roots in truth, but the Chinese for instance seem to have a certain Godless stereotype that also employ a sort of blank expression.

So while "we", the talented, might perceive certain things, a risk comes attached to it. This kind of talent involves some serious abstractions, and the inexact nature of it almost compels us not to speak of it at all..

but you will be doomed to notice it - lol.

btw, that's one of the things i endlessly enjoy about seeing movies from "elsewhere", that they have different facial expressions - and in them contained other emotions.. and it's another world, and it's wonderful to experience that degree of otherworldliness - that it's still possible in our age is incredible..

and i don't want anyone who has read anything

about culture-relativism blabla to come here

and in some intellectual way challenge

because this is from my own experience

that i'm talking here, it's no high minded abstraction

trying to prove a point, it's just - simple..

reasoning from the things that i've seen, so...

there.

Did you know that Orientals find it difficult to tell the difference between some "expressions" that only differ largely by the mouth?

Which is why "Western" smilies include both "eyes" and a "mouth" whereas the "Eastern" ones focus almost totally on the "eyes"!

course i knew it,

i know everything :p

but seriously, one thing i've thought about in relation to those studies is whether they are symmetric. not that they aren't bad at recognizing stuff like that; but the psychologists already have certain labels - a set of emotions that go through - that they test for. so now they test fear, and the appropriate response is so and so, and now they test anger, and now the appropriate response is so and so.. and they say "ah, they can't do this!" "they focus the wrong place"

they can say, we focus on both, and they only on the eyes, but relative to what? the difficulties here are tremendous.. it's a whole world-view sneaking up behind these unsuspecting psychologists.

i don't doubt that they try to make it even, but i've seen a lot of asian movies and the skill in acting can reach extreme heights (see 2046).. and the nuances are often different. so i'm not sure they are able to track this objectively.

if they gave someone a smile like the ones i linked to above, to someone in particular as examples of "joy" and "whateverthefuck" it would obviously be biased towards someone who _only_ respond to these exaggerated retarded expressions. It's not the case that more is always easier, and so on.

i don't rule out differences, for instance, i don't think japanese people - because of language or culture or whatever karaoke or genetics - are very good at singing. and this is just, a statement such as, "in general they are no good at that kind of thing".. and this could be true for east asians in regard to the general category "facial expressions", but as things stand now, and with the evidence from these psychologists i'm hesitant to draw that conclusion. i don't trust psychologists enough for that.

but there's probably going to be more studies, a lot more studies, in the future, and it will be interesting to see what results we find. all these inter-cultural/racial scientific topics are interesting, and though in this case i'm hesitant to draw conclusions, in general the view that "we're all equal" is hogwash xD

other studies have shown how fleeting such modes of seeing the world can be... how subtle stimuli can nudge a person in this or that direction.. so you have someone half-asian, and you can trigger the two different worlds by a certain kind of music or the language spoken in advance, for instance; or more radically, just have them over on holiday and see what happens.. xD

I live with a Japanese girl! (Though I never see her)

Also, mostly completely unrelated, babies cry in the same "pattern" as their parents language!

aha, but you see, i know that too! x)

my gf is chinese :D

here's another funny thing though, how anime and culture has a feedback loop, so i notice her friend-circle etc. sometimes mimic the characters in an anime, and this all leaks into their whole emotive vocabulary regardless.. and i imagine in a place like japan, where anime is so widely absorbed, it's obvious that the voice-actors themselves are influenced by the previous generation, and so on. so the distinction between how people talk in reality and how people talk in the anime closes in...

what's particularly funny about this is that the artificial constraints of the anime medium is exported into the real world where such constraints aren't necessary.. and this i notice myself, besides the small "lols" and "omg" you hear in real life, you actually see people approximating expressions like ^.^ ..

so the circle goes from trying to approximate an emotion in an alien medium, and you wind up with some strange composite of an imagined facial expression and its online context and exaggeratedness, and eventually, when you are in real life, you will try to bring this virtual thing into a real body-linguistic realtime expression, and it's so obvious!! (at least to me)

it's like when i tried in vain in gym-class to speed jump.. (did you ever have that urge?) or take screenshot irl? these happen with facial expressions and what we call "emotes" too.. whatever emotions that emerge from the behaviors that we exhibit here, will get morphed into some mutant in real life, that will reinforce and get absorbed back again and so on..

but aside from all theory, i've seen attempts at ^.^ and ^^: and t_t and even :> and especially :p in real life ALREADY

did you ever hear a group of japanese teens talk among themselves? (i rest my case.)

Can't say I have, I've not even had a conversation with this Japanese girl...

Ugh, it's the worst thing ever hearing someone say OMG, LOL or making a ^.^ face, it increasingly happens all the time too. Though I myself have never attempted a speed jump or to take a screenshot (serious?) I'm sure it's quite normal behaviour!

I think you probably just explained the results of that facial expression study in my previous post given how the mouth in anime is basically a small circle or a giant "D" shaped grin...

that's actually a separate study! hrhr, the psychologists are all over the place :P

(did i see also a norwegian student doing his phd on this subject? hmm!)

and screenshot.. for sure. i played some mmorpg's back in the day.. was obsessed with taking screenshots. i still take screenshots when watching movies. maybe 3-4 on average each movie x)

to more people bring cameras everywhere the more resistant i am to the concept, and i generally don't like the idea of pictures any more..

Never understood this need people have to take pictures of everything (except for purposes of say education etc.)

well, it's cool usually, as souvenir or art,

but people increasingly substitute recording an experience with the experience itself

btw; another movie with some serious acting suzhou river (chinese), (the girl)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvKjNfYjJ9g

heh its like 1% of talent and 99% of hard work

How much hard work did you put into that comment? xD

12.5 seconds but i probaly should type this 1 online in 3 replys

:D

100% believe

Ekman

Pol

lies?

eyes

fires

building

block

rock

sock

muffin

cake

the game

"brain is like muscle.. if u dont train it then it goes afk.."

yes ))

whatever you did to your brain, was not good.

good schmood

exactly.

yay. i'm not usually very exact :D

also,

"u r first human on internet who copy paste my words.. now im proud.. thx for this feeling ! :P"

epic quotes up in this ma

god u r dumb

yh8

fragerr you're fugly.
jonesy is fat.
i'm heartless.

i agree with everything this person says

Anti-troll

ups, wrong reply and wrong thread
even wrong site =[

no but http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm

sadly its in english

+for bashing on indigo-children

xD

[del]

Oh, and there is always the people idiocy. You know the well known word, that if you treat a kid like a problem, you could transform him into one. Only difference from reality is for many people this is not resuming over their chilhood, and their dependency on other people's opinion is more a matter of intelligence than empathy.

I think I will read this in bits and pieces over the coming weeks.

never works fine for me

wow how did I miss epic thread!?

I art ful dodger

\o/

Scientology is right! Depression doesn't exist and psychology is a banch of crooks. All hail TOM CRUISE!

i think google is evil for featuring SHAYTARDS on youtube

i hate freud im sorry

who is freud? some autor of psychology books? btw its Pol Ekman

you never heard of Sigmund Freud?

if i ask then it seems that no

things aren't always what they seem on esr :D

he's the most famous psychologist.. i don't think he's very interesting, at least now.. but he has had a really big impact.. <:

"things aren't always what they seem on esr :D"

hah :D

<:

lol

If i allow myself to think a bit jungian i feel as if jungian thoughts are fresh and exciting in japan (source, random movies).. iz like the exotic new buddhism over here over here! ;)

Kinda hate this buddhism orientation on western people, it's not like they know anything, it's more like "oh, sounds cool, buddhists looks kinda smart, I want in". In my opinion any abstract belief which goes beyond individual experience is pure heresy.
Won't go into further debates on this matter because I hate sacrificing good ideas/thoughts due to poor english skills.

also people with shit theories have shit experiences

they go through these amazing feelings of religious dimensions
and all they saw were ufo'men like them they did see in that shitty movie

fraud?

hahaha

Beam me up Xenu.

Xaero can rail you.

up in the ass.

:D

Fuck off Katie Holmes.