TEDTalks is a video podcast of the best talks and performances from TED conferences.  They feature the world’s leading thinkers and doers who give talks on their lives, their work, their revolutionary ideas & concepts in roughly 5 -20 minutes.

TEDTalks began as a simple attempt to share what happens at the TED Conference with the world. Under the slogan “ideas worth spreading,” talks were released online beginning in June 2006.  They rapidly attracted a global audience in the millions.  In April 2007, the entire TED website was re-engineered around TEDTalks, with the goal of giving everyone on-demand access to the world’s most inspiring voices.

Below is one such Talk, featuring Marco Tempest a renowned magician, who uses three iPods like magical props and  spins a clever, surprisingly heartfelt meditation on truth and lies, art and emotion.

 ”One of my favorite magicians is Carl Jermaine.  When asked about deception he said this, ‘magic is the only Honest profession.  A magician promises to deceive you and he does.’ ”  He goes on to state that Deception is a fundamental part of life. “We deceive to gain advantage and hide our weaknesses.  Art is a deception that creates real emotion.”  

Click here to view the embedded video.

News Medical. Net  just reported on research by Rebecca Riddell and colleagues suggesting that a single stereotyped pain expression during infancy does not exist.  The authors say that each facial expression is attached to a different type of distress.

They found 7 distinct facial expressions after vaccinations on infants from 2 months to 12 months, which could signal different types of pain and aid communication of distress to caregivers.

“We propose that these seven categories of expressions may have evolved to allow infants to communicate two crucial broad states to caregivers: level of distress and degree of regulation from distress,” write Riddell et al.

The researchers categorized babies’ facial expressions using the Facial Action Coding System for Infants and Young Children (BabyFACS).  According to this system, the authors found that the expression of the Red facial type (defined as cry, accompanied by oblique eyebrows) within 1 minute of a vaccination varied significantly according to age.   For example, 7.49% of 2-month-old babies showed the Red facial expression compared with 5.12% of 4-month olds, 9.51% of 6-month olds, and 18.87% of 12-month olds.

The Green facial type (horizontal mouth, closed eyes) changed significantly with age, with 2.49% of 2-month olds expressing it compared with 2.40% of 4-month olds, 2.51% of 6-month olds, and 0.00% of 12-month olds.

A quick note on a similar topic:  The Times of India has reported that the gene which determines human facial expressions has been identified.  Researchers used MRI scans to identify 5 genes that determine human facial expressions.

“These are exciting first results that mark the beginning of the genetic understanding of human facial morphology…Perhaps some time it will be possible to draw a phantom portrait of a person solely from his or her DNA left behind, which provides interesting applications such as in forensics.  We already can predict from DNA certain eye and hair colors with quite high accuracies,”  said Professor Manfred Kayser from the Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

What are your thoughts on the unveiling of  Facial Expression Genes ? 

Zheng Wang, Photo courtesy of Science Daily (taken by Kevin Fitzsimons)

 ScienceDaily reports on another way people avoid information that challenges their beliefs.   The 2008 study found that:

Partisan participants reacted strongly to ads featuring their favored candidate, but barely responded to ads featuring the rival candidate.  In comparison, people who didn’t favor one candidate over the other showed similar physiological response patterns and intensity to ads for both candidates.

“A lot of research has shown that, behaviorally, we tend to selectively expose ourselves to information that reinforces our existing opinions. But this study further suggests that even when exposed to information, our attention to what is presented is highly selective, as well.”  Says Zheng Wang, assistant professor of communication at Ohio State University and co-author of the study.

Participants were hooked up to electrodes that measured four physiological responses: heart rate, skin conductance  and muscle movements around the cheekbone and around the eyebrows.

While hooked up, each participant watched 12 campaign ads while their physiological reactions were recorded.  After watching the ads, they filled out measures of how positively and negatively they regarded the person represented in the campaign ad.

Simply put Wang states, “If people are exposed to information in ads regarding a candidate they oppose, they respond by basically tuning out, “  She goes on to point out, “At any one time, ad viewers’ reactions are affected not just by what they are seeing at that exact moment, but also by what came before in the ad.  The dynamical feedback model puts it all together to see how people react in a real-time, real-world way.”

The feedback model suggests that the positive feelings that viewers have are amplified as they watch an ad for their candidate.  But for opponents, the feedback effects actually seem to decrease their response over time as they watch the ad, that is, they tune out.

Do you tune out the ads for people you don’t support ?  Is this study Interesting or Insulting ?
Share your thoughts with the Humintell Community