Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (78236)	2/27/2003 3:57:01 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>I thought to myself as I watched it that I could tell who made the better points by simply turning off the volume and watching the facial expressions.<< This doesn't work with lawyers, at least not the really top notch ones who are great at baffling with bullshit. Probably not with politicians or diplomats either. Unless you are very good at detecting facial expressions. The New Yorker had an in depth article about the research by Paul Ekman, a psychologist at UC San Francisco, who specializes in this field, 8/5/02. A few people are very good at this, but most people can only tell when someone is lying about 50% of the time. gladwell.com gladwell.com This bit about Clinton I thought was interesting: >>Ekman recalls the first time he saw Bill Clinton, during the 1992 Democratic primaries. "I was watching his facial expressions, and I said to my wife, 'This is Peck's Bad Boy,' " Ekman says. "This is a guy who wants to be caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and have us love him for it anyway. There was this expression that's one of his favorites. It's that hand-in-the-cookie-jar, love-me-Mommy-because-I'm-a-rascal look. It's A.U. twelve, fifteen, seventeen, and twenty-four, with an eye roll." Ekman paused, then reconstructed that particular sequence of expressions on his face. He contracted his zygomatic major, A.U. twelve, in a classic smile, then tugged the corners of his lips down with his triangularis, A.U. fifteen. He flexed the mentalis, A.U. seventeen, which raises the chin, slightly pressed his lips together in A.U. twenty- four, and finally rolled his eyes—and it was as if Slick Willie himself were suddenly in the room. "I knew someone who was on his communications staff. So I contacted him. I said, 'Look, Clinton's got this way of rolling his eyes along with a certain expression, and what it conveys is "I'm a bad boy." I don't think it's a good thing. I could teach him how not to do that in two to three hours.' And he said, 'Well, we can't take the risk that he's known to be seeing an expert on lying.' I think it's a great tragedy, because . . ." Ekman's voice trailed off. It was clear that he rather liked Clinton, and that he wanted Clinton's trademark expression to have been no more than a meaningless facial tic. Ekman shrugged. "Unfortunately, I guess, he needed to get caught—and he got caught."<<

To: carranza2 who wrote (78236)	2/27/2003 6:59:51 PM
From: paul_philp	Respond to of 281500

c2, Ignatieff was a lot more diplomatic than Schell, who kept interrupting him. Schell reminded me a bit of the posters on FADG who might agree with him. They firmly believe that Bush's policy is a disaster and we are headed was increasing chaos and terror attacks. They are becoming exasperated, shaking their heads in frustration as those who don't get it. I very much look like that when I speak about Canadian government foreign policy today, so I have some sympathy for their perdicament. Limited sympathy, of course, since I think they are very wrong but I know what it is like to be standing on the sidelines feeling like the train is headed for a cliff. Paul