I must have skipped this post when it first came by, but upon reading it
I wanted to alert folks here to an interesting project at NYU called the
Green Dot project.
http://movement.nyu.edu/GreenDot/
My posting here is in response to Vlad's references to Anne Coulter's
(apparently) highly effective body language.
I met Green Dot project member Peggy Hackney of the Integrated Movement
Studies ( http://www.imsmovement.com/index.php/faculty/ ) program when I
was seeking to understand how to analyze human posture for collaborative
decision making systems. She is an expert in Bartlieneff and Laban
Motion Analysis.
What is interesting (or at least relevant) to Vlad's analysis of Anne
Coulter here is that the Green Dot system might very well be trainable
on the mannerisms Anne Coulter (apparently, as I don't know I've ever
seen her in action) uses to say that someone's work or words is "a piece
of shit" and perhaps find more of the same.
In my general interest in what kinds of tools might let the unwashed
masses (like myself) see through the charades of politicians and pundits
alike, I'm intrigued.
- Steve
On 10/15/10 2:06 PM, Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote:
To the Group and Glen,
"Saying someone's work is a piece of shit..."
Very profound I think, let me explain. Lately I have been watching a lot of
American News and one character seems to show up repeatedly for unknown
reasons. Anne Coulter.
I find her discussions and arguments illogical and without any point that
makes sense. She often fails to complete a sentence. I am however fascinated
with the character she portrays.
I muted my television one evening for whatever reason and focused on the
scrolling banner. Then I noticed Miss Coulter and her animated body
language. She would repeat certain gestures in highly structured manner.
Inevitably she would make a "Stinky Face" whenever the opposition stopped
talking.(For that matter she made them regularly while the opposition was
talking) The Camera moved quickly to capture the "Stinky Face" then a flip
of the hair and a down ward eye cast and a bit of a snear. I was fascinated.
She defeated her opponent in a debate simply by making "Stinky Faces" and
never making sense verbally. She would drown out her opponents at other
times when the camera was focused on the opposition, so they could not be
heard and then with a coup de grace she would make that "Stinky face" again
followed by the Haughty aristocratic look of contempt. She debates with body
gestures to control the camera angle.That is all that represents a
victory.Simply to have the camera aimed at her.
Anne Coulter wins debates before a camera by Body gestures. Indeed she is
repeatedly "Saying someone's work is a piece of shit" without uttering a
word. It works! You can defeat any statement by "Saying someone's work is a
piece of shit" It is not a last resort but the first tool and now that I
watch political debates without sound, I realize why Americans are acting
like idiots. Everyone one debates sub vocally by condemning eachother
"Saying someone's work is a piece of shit"
Television has ruined discourse, thank god for the mute button. I love
watching Anne Coulter I swear we could analyze her body gestures and come to
some fascinating conclusions about the superior communication style she is
hailed as representing. "Saying someone's work is a piece of shit" is the
new standard.
So in the realm of this chat group we are devoid of the "Stinky Face Weapon"
so we are left with actually writing it down for everyone to see what we
mean. If someone handed me a piece of meat on the veldt and another made
that face I might not actually enjoy the gift.
Debates are becoming increasingly unruly and that women's show the Veiw is
simply the lowest form of human discourse I have ever witnessed. I just mute
it and have a great chuckle at what is really becoming the defining
attribute of modern communication skills.
I have been fascinated by a similarity of body gestures of Muslim clerics
versus American fundamentalist preachers. I have not worked out those
details but will let you know what I learn.
So just what does it mean to be "Credible" when it can be dismantled as
easily as making a "Stinky Face" or "Saying someone's work is a piece of
shit"? Credibility is very fragile and delicate.
Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky
Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology)
120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd.
Winnipeg, Manitoba
CANADA R2J 3R2
(204) 2548321 Phone/Fax
vbur...@shaw.ca
-----Original Message-----
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of glen e. p. ropella
Sent: October 14, 2010 4:56 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Case for a Literary Education (re 10 Best...)
lrudo...@meganet.net wrote circa 10/14/2010 10:31 AM:
Having
myself come to the conclusion that _The American
Scholar_ was a piece of shit (during at least
part of Epstein's tenure as editor), I have
good reason to conclude that he's not a very
good editor, pretty good reason (I think)
to discount what he has to say about the value
of a "literary education", and very good reason
(independent of such discounting) to conclude
that his taste and mine differ a great deal.
Saying someone's work is a piece of shit is entirely different from
saying someone's taste is different from yours or accusing the subject
of a non sequitur. The former isn't the slightest bit constructive and,
indeed, is destructive and petulant. The latter is, at least, somewhat
respectful in the sense that it helps the reader know that, if they like
Lee's work, then they may not like Joseph's work, indeed Joseph's work
might be a waste of time for that person. And it's always helpful to
know where your time might be wasted. I suppose the former is _useful_
in the sense that it decreases Lee's credibility (because he calls
things he dislikes "shit") and may, in fact, make Joseph's work more
attractive.
I'm fascinated with our tendency to fling insults back and forth at each
other, especially in these times of extreme political partisanship.
Because this discussion is about credibility, I'll say that it would be
interesting to study the extent to which "attack" or "negative"
political ads lower the credibility of their target versus when (beyond
what threshold) they actually lower the credibility of the supposed
beneficiary. Does anyone know of any studies that target that sort of
"blowback"?
Here in Oregon, we're seeing lots of political attack ads. For the most
part, to me, they increase the credibility of the attacked and decrease
the credibility of the attacker, just as Lee's empty comment piques my
curiosity in Joseph's work. The more others insult the target and make
empty comments or call them names, the more I tend to think they had
something valuable to say and their opponents are just "lashing out"
with no real justification for their own position. Those expositions
that avoid empty rhetoric and try to pinpoint, specifically, a
distinction between the attacker and the attacked, increase the
credibility of the attacker and decrease the credibility of the attacked.
In any case, it's an interesting dynamic.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
