pony business

"By studying people’s reactions to a range of artificially-generated faces, Oosterhof and Todorov were able to identify a set of features that seemed to engender trust. Working from those findings, they were able to create a continuum: faces with high inner eyebrows and pronounced cheekbones struck people as trustworthy, faces with low inner eyebrows and shallow cheekbones untrustworthy."

~~~~~~~
http://socialcapital.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/would-i-lie-to-you-engineering-trust-with-your-face/
http://thrivingtoo.typepad.com/thriving_too/2008/08/faces-you-can-t.html
http://mindhacks.com/2008/08/19/judging-trustworthiness-in-the-face/
http://webscript.princeton.edu/~tlab/databases

Very interesting research.

In 2005, Todorov's lab garnered international headlines with a study published in Science demonstrating that quick facial judgments can accurately predict real-world election results.

Taking what they have learned over time -- namely that, rightly or wrongly, people make instant judgments about faces that guide them in how they feel about that person -- the scientists decided to search for a way to quantify and define exactly what it is about each person's face that conveys a sense they can be trusted or feared.

...Based on this data, the scientists found that humans make split-second judgments on faces on two major measures -- whether the person should be approached or avoided and whether the person is weak or strong.

[We noted in the last post that damage to the amygdala causes people to lose their ability to make the split second judgment whether to approach or avoid a person:

Humans with marked lesions of the amygdala, loose the affective meaning of the perception of an outside information, like the sight of a well known person. The subject knows, exactly, who the person is, but is not capable to decide whether he likes or dislikes him (or her). Limbic System: The Center of Emotions

Also see the study by Oosterhof and Toderov: "Although participants did not engage in explicit evaluation of the faces, the amygdala response changed as a function of face trustworthiness."]

Back to the Science Daily article from 2008:

From there, using a commercial software program that generates composites of human faces (based on laser scans of real subjects), the scientists asked another group of test subjects to look at 300 faces and rate them for trustworthiness, dominance and threat. Common features of both trustworthiness and dominance emerged. A trustworthy face, at its most extreme, has a U-shaped mouth and eyes that form an almost surprised look.

Notice the eyebrows.

http://www.underconsideration.com/wordit/tag/george%20w.%20bush

http://cdn3.hark.com/images/000/000/009/9/original.jpg

"more great news for Ron Paul fans" -- oh you bet...

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-04-26/politics/30051408_1_sarah-palin-ron-paul-fans-mike-huckabee

 WE HAVE A WINNER IN THE TRUSTWORTHY FACE GAMES.

"A trustworthy face, at its most extreme, has a U-shaped mouth and eyes that form an almost surprised look."

High inner eyebrows? CHECK.

Shallow indentation at the bridge of the nose? CHECK.

Pronounced cheekbones? CHECK.

Wide chin? CHECK.

U-shaped mouth? CHECK.

Eyes that form almost a surprised look? CHECK.

SEE: PROCESS OF ANALOGY

Over at Winter Patriot Community the discussion continues about Ron Paul in the comments. In one of our comments we note that Ron Paul does not elucidate his position on some very important details about the money supply, and who would issue the nation's money supply *AFTER* the Federal Reserve is ended, which Ron Paul supports (and so do we), should that come to pass. But what happens NEXT? This is the problem. What happens after the Fed? What replaces the Fed? WHO issues the money, and how, and by what mechanism?

How important is this detail? It makes all the difference in the world. It makes all the difference whether the banksters have another 100+ years to control our every transaction, and our children and grandchildren etc., starting from scratch; or whether we get a currency backed by the productivity of the people, and controlled by the people's fairly elected representatives (yeah that's another huge problem we know), as James has thoroughly and clearly explained in his post -- here it is again if you haven't read it yet.

It is impossible to overestimate how important this is, but Ron Paul has not made his position clear. There is a GAP in his position, and you can't just fill it in with whatever you *think* he *should* do, or *will* do, because you like him, because he has such a trustworthy face. Capice?

people who like rp will be inclined to fill in the blanks with a story they like. this is a very common way that people are manipulated. important information is omitted and people color in what *they* would do, what *they* want. only later do they find out they were wrong. and there is nothing more infuriating than when someone screws you and then says, hey i never told you i was going to buy you a fucking pony. and you realize they sure didn't say that. you just assumed you were getting a pony because he knew how much it meant to you, and there was so much sweet talk...

You can start to believe you are getting a pony when you get it in writing from the man that you are getting a pony, and you go to the stable and pick out the pony, and you see the fucking pony and give it a carrot, and you hold the pony's reins in your hand, and you have a couple hundred million angry friends with pitchforks who also want ponies, and who will pay extremely close attention to all this pony business.

And even then, you still can't believe you're getting the pony until your hero delivers the actual pony, and before a tragic, unforeseeable, regrettable fire burns the barn down the night before.

All you Ron Paul supporters, you need to check into this pony business right away. We can't say it any nicer. You've got to get the details down in writing, exactly how things will work *AFTER* the Fed, and it has to be an answer that cuts the bankers out once and for all. And it has to be public. Because if you don't do that, and something happens to Ron Paul, you have NOTHING. Nothing to wave around, nothing to enforce, nothing to justify, nothing to fight for, nothing to play Rule of Law with the people who invented the game. You have walked right into the trap, and you have taken everyone with you.

Just look at the whinging over the Palestinians getting into UNESCO -- a good example of how having some legitimacy, of being able to ENFORCE ACCOUNTABILITY, even just a little bit, makes their ears bleed.

And if Ron Paul doesn't give you this, you need to understand what that means. And don't say it's because he's afraid of getting whacked by the banksters, because we all already know that they will kill any leader who tries to do this thing that needs to be done. That is precisely WHY it needs to be explained clearly to the public, and put in writing, and committed to. Because if they dare to whack a leader who has gone public with the CORRECT SOLUTION, then they they are exposed for the murderous criminals we already know they are, but at least they would be exposed in front of everyone.

So, good luck with all that. Anyway, cheer up, we know how it feels. We thought we were getting a pony a few times in our life. We really, really believed it.

STILL NO PONY.

blog.ponyaday.com/