Sunk cost fallacy: organization invests time, money and energy into something and doesn't want to let it go.
Normalcy bias: Life is going to continue as we currently know it. Tomorrow is going to be the same as today and yesterday. People hear about emergencies happening in other places but they don't expect it to happen to them, they expect business as usual forever. Causes people to seize up during emergencies or it prevents them to physically and mentally prepare for emergencies in the first place.
There are many studied examples of this, for instance evacuation efforts. When there is a wild fire, earthquakes, hurricanes. One study shows 70% of people suffer from normalcy bias. When the Pompeii volcano exploded, many people stood and watched. During the 9-11 attacks, one study suggested that it took people 6 minutes to react after feeling the plane crash. People stood around and talked, discussed what was going on. But even after being told to evacuate because there was a plane crash, many people refused or sought out other sources of information to confirm what they had heard. People interviewed since the attack reported being told everything was fine, there was no need to panic, they could slowly walk down the stairs, and it would just be a minor inconvenience in their day.
There was a 2001 study that suggested that when people are asked to leave in the anticipation of a disaster, most check with 4 or more sources of information before deciding what to do. Even when they are told the disaster is imminent and they are in immediate danger.
It has been used to described why so many jews refused to leave Germany and Austria under Nazi occupation until it was too late and they didn't have the option to. It can also be used to describe why so many in Ukranian didn't heed the warning about an impending Russian attack. Problems with Normalcy bias can be further complicated with ideas like 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf'. If we think about Ukraine, they had seen this happen before, they had seen Russia build up on the border and nothing happened. This further re-enforces Normalcy Bias. The idea is that bad things don't happen to me. Yet there are cycles throughout history.
Another example, there was a plane crash in 1977 on the runway in Spain. There was heavy fog. One plane didn't follow the directions for takeoff and crashed into another plane that was still taxiing on the runway. Everyone on the plane taking off died instantly in the impact, but for the plane that was taxiing, only one part of the plane was severely damaged, the rest of the plane was fine. However there was a fire that began. Half of the people unbuckled their seat belts, stood up and walked off the plane. The other half stayed on the plane and perished in the fire. And it was said from people who were interviewed that walked off the plane that the people around them just sat in a shocked silence as everything unfolded around them. All they had to do was unbuckle, get up, and walk off the plane. But Normalcy Bias took over, this idea that this isn't really happening, it's not happening to me or that someone else will take care of this, someone will come grab me and tell me what to do.
Confirmation Bias: The tendency to process information by looking for or interpreting information that is consistent with one's existing beliefs. There are two paths for this, assimilation and combination.
Assimilation: The process of using or tranforming the environment so it can be placed in pre-existing cognitive structures. For example: Your driving down the road with a three year old, and the child points at a cow and says 'doggie'. You correct the child by pointing at the cow and saying 'cow''. The child again says 'doggie'. It's the idea that we don't change our perspective or point of view to accommodate more information, we just adapt the information to fit our frame of mind.
Combination: Changing cognitive structures in order to accept something from the environment. People form opinions and then once those opinions are established, people have a difficult time processing information in a rational unbiased way. In other words I'm really only going to hear or accept information that aligns with the opinions I already have.
Let's look at something in the news....
Why is that?
A: It's efficient. We need to be able to process information quickly to protect ourselves from harm. So if every bit of information that came our way, if we were having to put a lot of energy into evaluating it, it wouldn't be super-efficient. Instead it's easier to immediately discount it if it's not in line with what we believe or we accept it. Also it protects our self image. We as people would like to believe that we are intelligent and well informed. So it's a shot to our self esteem if suddenly we are hearing something that proves that we are wrong.
Echo-Chambers: Putting ourselves in a place where we will hear echoed back to us our own beliefs. Huge reason for polarization. Reason we view some people as 'the others'.
What if you considered all tall people smart? Or what about doctors and patients?
Hyper-Normalization:“HyperNormalisation” is a word that was coined by a brilliant Russian historian who was writing about what it was like to live in the last years of the Soviet Union. What he said, which I thought was absolutely fascinating, was that in the 80s everyone from the top to the bottom of Soviet society knew that it wasn’t working, knew that it was corrupt, knew that the bosses were looting the system, know that the politicians had no alternative vision. And they knew that the bosses knew that they knew that. Everyone knew it was fake, but because no one had any alternative vision for a different kind of society, they just accepted this sense of total fakeness as normal. And this historian, Alexei Yurchak, coined the phrase “HyperNormalisation” to describe that feeling.
Well-Informed Futility Syndrome: Basically, the feeling that nothing can be done.
Parable of the starfishes washed up on the shore...
Frog in boiling water...
Emergent properties: Gold, water, pile of sand....
1. What do you know about the Declaration of Independence? Who wrote it? What philosophies did it grow out of?
The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence reads;
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ——
2. What are unalienable, or inalienable rights?
Do people have fundamental rights? Is there a law to nature? Are there certain rights that we have as human beings? What are they?
Natural Law in a nutshell forbids force or fraud to interfere with someone else's natural rights, and is aligned with the Non-Aggression principle.
Natural Law says our human rights come from the creator. Can someone still have fundamental rights even if they don't believe in God?
Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and once said, "my mind is my own God." He also edited the New Testament and created a slim book called 'The Moral Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth", nicknamed the Jefferson Bible.
Are some natural rights higher than others? For instance if a starving man steals a pie from a shopkeep to feed himself, is his right to live greater than a shopkeep's right to own a pie?
3. Aquinas said, 'Natural Law is like an onion.' What could he have meant?
4. Ever heard of the period of history known as the Enlightenment? Or the philosopher John Locke? John Stuart Mill? Jean-Jacques Rousseau?
Rousseau was quoted as stating, "Man was born free but everywhere he is in chains."
While the philosopher Hobbes said institutions of the state there would be, "No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
4. What were some reasons that the founders wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
What was the Stamp Act?
In a summary, the Stamp Act was part of the Intolerable Acts, where the King treated the Colonists harshly and regarded them as tax cattle, not deserving of representation.
Some smart students at the University of New jersey, which is now Princeton, did some math and figured out it was more expensive to enforce this Act than what was got for monies collected.
What are some reasons that the King may have continued to enforce it?
6. With treatise like the Declaration of Independence, fiery rhetoric like Patrick Henry's "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" speech and copious pamphlets distributed asserting Natural Rights; the Colonists fought a Revolution in 1776.
It's the summer of 1787 there's a constitutional convention in Philadelphia. The supreme law of the land was written in secret, much of what we know about it comes from James Madison, the scrivener. It is from James Madison's notes that courts often look when interpreting the Constitution and the Bill of rights, both of which he wrote. Some of the convention took notes, but Madison's are the most complete, released after his death.
The 1st Amendment to the Constitution states,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
What is the most important word in that sentence?
(It's a trick question 😏)
Hint: Why does the Amendment use the words 'the people' instead of 'the citizens'?
7. How many Amendments can you remember?
8. We talked about the Stamp Act, which Amendments came from that over reach by the King?
The Constitution was somewhat based on common law that grew out of the Magna Carte in Britain. (Which meant British people living in Britain had more rights than the Colonists.)
Can you see any reference to Biblical law in the 6th and 8th Amendment?
If Congress repeals the First Amendment, do we still have the right to free speech?
If Alabama repeals the law against murder, can someone be charged for murder?
9. Let's look again at the 9th and 10th Amendment:
The 9th Amendment says,
" The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
What does that mean? Is it like an onion?
10. The 10th Amendment states,
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People."
What is the purpose of the 10th Amendment?
11. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives us the Enumerated Powers, here's a summary of the Federal Government's roles:
To lay and collect taxes; pay debts and borrow money; regulate commerce; coin money; establish post offices; protect patents and copyrights; establish lower courts; declare war; and raise and support an Army and Navy.
Why did the Founding Fathers want a limited Federal Government?
12. Two true stories to illustrate the importance of checks and balances:
President John Adams was afraid that the French would cut off his head like they did Louie the 16th. The requirement to become a citizen was living in America for one year and farming 5 Acres, unless you were French then it took 14 years. In 1798, fearing that a war with France was eminent, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. The ACT said anyone who uses words to characterize the President or Congress or government untruthfully shall face fines or 2 years in jail. This coming from the same generation who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
John Adams was getting fat and his wife knitted him long flowing purple robes, he then attached golden applets to the robe, looking like some purple military royal blob. One day while walking down the street, a congressman from Vermont named Matthew Lions said, " good morning your pomposity," as Adams passed. A week later Lions brings the press with him and this time Adams is walking down the street with his wife when Lions says, "good morning your rotundity."
Under the Alien and Sedition Acts he is tried in Boston even though it happened in Washington (in the Declaration of Independence one of the grievances against the King is being taken to far away lands to await trial) and is convicted. He runs for office from his jail cell and wins. Jefferson is now president and he pardons him and seven others that were charged under this act. Lions is given back his 480 acres of land.
Another story is
No one knows how the War of 1812 started, either Britain and Canada invaded to try to take us back or we invaded Canada and Britain showed up to try and show us our place. Either way it was a mess. There were platoon squirmishes. The White House even burned down.
There was fighting all over the country and in Upper Marlboro Maryland a platoon of British soldiers marches in and captures five American militia men. The British take their guns and holds them hostage and says unless the town surrenders they will be hanged at dawn. The mayor of the town orchestrates the capture of five drunken British soldiers in the middle of the night and announces they will be hanged at dawn.
Mayor Tom Hodges then unarmed and unaccompanied walks into the headquarters of the British platoon and says to the captain "I'll make you a deal..."
The soldiers are freed and months later the war is over. There's a great celebration. Mayor Tom hodges, the Grand Marshal of the ceremony, gives a tremendous speech with big Applause. As he walks off the stage he's met by two officials. One gives him an indictment and the other puts him in shackles.
The mayor is charged with treason and providing Aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime for returning the enemy's soldiers. Two weeks later there's a trial. The judge was the guy who introduced the mayor at the parade, Jury was at the parade, prosecutor was at the parade. The prosecutor stands up and says the indictment comes from washington, we all think the mayor is a good guy, but let's face it he did do what the indictment says, he committed treason.
The defense says the mayor's a great guy, he saved human life. Judge says to the jury I've never said this before, but gentleman we reserved a room in the tavern across the street, after you finished the meal, The Tavern keeper has prepared his best bottle of ale, and after you finish the ale you are too deliberate on the mayor's fate.
The jury Foreman raises his hand and stands and says we don't have to deliberate, we'll take the ale but we've already come to a decision, the verdict is not guilty.
This is the first example and published opinion of jury nullification in American history, a bunch of farmers in Upper Marlboro Maryland saying this is positivism run amok.
That's the good side but here's the bad side, the justice department has a policy with treason (there have only been seven successful prosecutions), the president has to sign off on the trees in charge. Who was the tyrant President who signed it?
Answer, James Madison.
The scribe who wrote the Constitution in the Bill of Rights
1. Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson and later edited by the committee of 5; John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston. It grew out of an ancient tradition going back to Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas. and ideas of the enlightenment, primarily John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Stuart Mill, and contributors such as Voltaire, Hume, Hobbes, Kant.
2. Block's Law Dictionary defines Inalienable as: Not subject to alienation ; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another, such as rivers and public highways, and certain personal rights; e. g., liberty. Inalienable rights is defined as: the term given to the fundamental rights accorded to all people.
Natural Law Theory started with Aristotle, a pagan, who said it comes from KNOWLEDGE and EXPERIENCE and it is with our senses that we can tell good from evil when we look at it. Then Augustine, a Roman Catholic Saint, said it is from REVELATION that we know right and wrong, through the teachings of Jesus Christ. After that, Aquinas proposed it was REASON. In order to reason we need to be able to exercise certain freedoms, like the freedom of thought, speech, publication, travel, privacy; rights that couldn't exist if we didn't have the natural law. Aquinas rejects arguments of revelation for reason, it matters not if someone is religious to understand the argument.
The opposite of Natural Law is Positivism, which says as long as the lawmaker follows their own procedure in making laws and it's for the public's good, whatever they write down on paper is law.
3. Like an onion, the more you peel it, the more you find. This concept was explored by Francisco Suarez, Bartolome de Las Casas, Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone.
4. It was thought during the Enlightenment that human reasoning could discover truths about the world, religion, and politics and could be used to improve the lives of humankind. Skepticism, everything was to be subjected to testing and rational analysis. Religious tolerance and the idea that individuals should be free from coercion in their personal lives and consciences were also Enlightenment ideas.
John Locke believed that the origin of natural law comes from our humanity, the right to develop one's personality, right to self-defense (whether it be robber or tyrant), right to keep government off your property, the right to be left alone; all of these come our humanity. John Stuart Mill strove for truth above all else.
5. The Stamp Act said every letter, book, pamphlet, Financial or legal document was required to have the King's stamp. Had to get it at a British office vendor in town. How did the King and Parliament 3,000 miles away know you had the stamp on every piece of paper in your house? The answer, the Writs of Assistance Act, this piece of legislation permitted British agents to appear before a secret Court in London and the secret Court, which only heard the government side, would issue a general warrant and the general warrant said search wherever you want and seize whatever you find, so it wouldn't be uncommon for a colonist to hear a knock on the door and a polite British gentleman would hand you the general warrant and behind him a slew of British soldiers would rush in ostensibly looking for the stamp. There they might help themselves to alcohol if you couldn't prove you paid the tax on it, help themselves to Furniture if they thought you bought it from the island and you couldn't prove you didn't pay the King his tax on it. They might even help themselves to the house, which is why we have the 3rd Amendment.
The reason that King George III continued to enforce the tax was either he was an idiot or the purpose of the tax was not to generate money, the purpose of the tax could have been to remind the Colonists that the King was still their King and he, through his agents, could set foot in their house and cross their threshold without any suspicion, any probable cause, without any evidence of a crime, just on the basis of a general warrant. The Stamp Act was rescinded a year later,. The secret Court kept meeting until the King was overthrown.
6. There is the idea out there that only 3% of the people living in the Colonies actually fought in the American Revolution. Also it has been said that the Colonies were divided. A third for the war, third against, third indifferent.
The most important word in the First Amendment is "the". Hours were spent arguing over this article. In Madisonian terms this acknowledges the pre-existence of this right. Meaning the Bill of Rights doesn't give you this right, it recognizes that you already have it. The government's job is to protect it.
7. The Original 10 Amendments summarized:
1st Amendment - think as you wish, develop your personality as you see fit, say what you think, publish what you want, assemble or don't.
2nd Amendment - right to keep and bear arms / right for self defense.
3rd Amendment - your right to keep soldiers off your property during wartime.
4th Amendment - the right to be left alone / the right to privacy.
5th Amendment - being charged for the same crime twice, can't be a witness against yourself, cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Also public domain.
6th Amendment - right to a speedy and public trial, right to face your accusers, can call witnesses, right to have assistance of counsel for defense.
7th Amendment - right to civil jury trial, right to not be tried twice.
8th Amendment - no excessive bail required, excessive fines imposed, no cruel and unusual punishment.
9th Amendment - "the enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
10th Amendment - "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People."
8. Effects of the STAMP ACT:
Not only can warrants only be issued by judges, not only can It only be issued for probable cause sworn to the judge under oath, but it says the warrant is issued only for person of the house to be searched and thing to be seized. This eradicating general warrants.
9. 9th Amendment says people have other natural rights that are not written down here. Each one of them doesn't have to be written down, because we know them in our hearts. Madison wrote it.
10. Any powers not given to the Federal government are rights reserved to the States.
11. The Statesmen that wrote the Constitution of the Bill of Rights, conceived of America as a republic. Based on natural law, and many of them regarded democracy as potential mob rule.
With positivism you can vote in or out any government you want. Hitler was democratically elected, but there's no backstop of checks and balances on government without a republic.
12. One possible conclusion is power obviously looks different on the outside than from the inside looking out. Checks and balances are important even when applied to the founding fathers.
In this country we used to have something called the Fairness Doctrine. The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints.
Paraphrased: issued by the FCC in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to give equal time for differing views on television and radio. That was until members of the Reagan administration abolished it in 1985.
"Lawmakers became concerned that the monopoly audience control of the three main networks, NBC, ABC and CBS, could misuse their broadcast licenses to set a biased public agenda.
The Fairness Doctrine mandated broadcast networks devote time to contrasting views on issues of public importance. Congress backed the policy in 1954 and by the 1970s the FCC called the doctrine the “single most important requirement of operation in the public interest – the sine quanon for grant of a renewal of license.
The Supreme Court upheld the doctrine. In 1969’s Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, journalist Fred Cook sued a Pennsylvania Christian Crusade radio program after a radio host attacked him on air. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld Cook's right to an on-air response under the Fairness Doctrine, arguing that nothing in the First Amendment gives a broadcast license holder the exclusive right to the airwaves they operate on.
The doctrine stayed in effect, and was enforced until the Reagan Administration. In 1985, under FCC Chairman, Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the FCC released a report stating that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment."
What do you think about the trustworthiness of this article?
What about the source? Does that make it more biased or less neutral? What are some reasons that striking down the requirement could be viewed as a good thing? What would Reagan's critics say?
Here's what the article goes on to say:
"Fowler began rolling the application of the doctrine back during Reagan's second term - despite complaints from some in the Administration that it was all that kept broadcast journalists from thoroughly lambasting Reagan's policies on air. In 1987, the FCC panel, under new chairman Dennis Patrick, repealed the Fairness Doctrine altogether with a 4-0 vote."
What could the results of this be? What do you think of the following video?
What can we tell about a writer's tone in a piece? What about word choice? The way information is presented, order of importance and what is left out? Something to consider moving on.
History is replete with distortion, exaggeration, myths, and selective editing.
This an interesting website for going down rabbit holes:
After skimming all 3 short articles, What is probably the truth?
Howard Zinn published a book in the 1980 called 'A People's History of the United States' in which many of history's sacred cows are lead up the ramp for stripping. people's History was most influential to an entire generation and has been used in many classrooms with millions of copies sold.
Here's an excerpt:
"What struck me as I began to study history was how nationalist fervor--inculcated from childhood on by pledges of allegiance, national anthems, flags waving and rhetoric blowing--permeated the educational systems of all countries, including our own. I wonder now how the foreign policies of the United States would look if we wiped out the national boundaries of the world, at least in our minds, and thought of all children everywhere as our own. Then we could never drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, or napalm on Vietnam, or wage war anywhere, because wars, especially in our time, are always wars against children, indeed our children."
Zi. Zinn goes on to say that Supreme Emperor Hiro was ready to surrender and that the dropping of the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary.
Some have refuted claims made in the book, including teachers at Stanford.
From Stanford Report,
"Wineburg, one of the world's top researchers in the field of history education, raises larger issues about how history should be taught.He says that Zinn's desire to cast a light on what he saw as historic injustice was a crusade built on secondary sources of questionable provenance, omission of exculpatory evidence, leading questions and shaky connections between evidence and conclusions."
What do you think about the expression 'history is written by the winners?'
Wineburg continues to say,
"Zinn roots his argument that the Japanese were prepared to surrender before the United States dropped the atomic bomb on a diplomatic cable from the Japanese to the Russians, supposedly signaling a willingness to capitulate. Wineburg writes that Zinn not only excludes the responses to the cable, but also that he fails in the later editions of the book to incorporate the vast new scholarship that emerged after the death of the Emperor Hirohito with the publication of memoirs and new availability of public records, all of which support the position of Japan's resolve to fight to the last.
History, Wineburg notes, is messy. And the most responsible thing for educators to do is to leave elbowroom for the mess. "History as truth, issued from the left or the right, abhors shades of gray," Wineburg writes, adding, "Such a history atrophies our tolerance for complexity. It makes us allergic to exceptions to the rule. Worst of all it depletes the moral courage we need to revise our beliefs in the face of new evidence.
"It insures ultimately that tomorrow we will think exactly as we thought yesterday – and the day before and the day before that."
What do you think the truth is? How much does it matter what actually happened? Why is it that things in the past seem less controversial? Can you think of anything in the far distant past that is still controversial? How long does something take to stop being inflammatory? Are there somethings that will always be polarizing? Would you agree that truth is in the middle or not always?
The way some people try to find the truth is ask themselves who stands to benefit, what would the motivation be, and who has the power to cover it up?
What about fact-checkers? While most people judge fact-checking to be for the greater good, there is even some controversy swirling around their neutrality.
From the American Thinker:
"In a court filing responding to a lawsuit filed by John Stossel claiming that he was defamed by a "fact check" Facebook used to label a video by him as "misleading," Meta's attorneysassert that the "fact check" was an "opinion," not an actual check of facts and declaration of facts. Under libel law, opinions are protected from liability for libel.
In America we have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which was ratified in 1791. Based on Natural Law, The Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution makes the argument that our rights come from the creator and government sole purpose is to protect those rights. Moreover, the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Is the Constitution outdated? Are all Amendments absolute? Is it okay to change them? Why would that be a gold or bad thing? Recently, companies have censored some topics on social media platforms, the argument was they are a company and they can do what they want, then Elon Musk bought Twitter and promised to make the algorithms public and reduce censorship. The argument became unrestricted free speech could lead the hate speech. What do you think of all this? If there is a line where do we draw it?
As long as the government didn't get involved in limiting speech there was no real conflict. Then the government got involved. To many the attempt to create a Disinformation Board reminded them of the Ministry of Truth from the novel 1984. Either because the Disinformation Board fell victim to misinformation or because it ran afoul of the 1st Amendment is up for debate but regardless it was put on pause.
Here Winston Smith reads from a banned book in Orwell's dystopian future world,
"The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from from ordinary hypocrisy: they are deliberate exercises in doublethink."
– George Orwell, 1984
What are some examples of fake news having serious consequences?
What of what we have read today is biased? How could it be less so?
Some recent studies have stated that the average person now has an attention span of less than 8 seconds. Less than that of a goldfish? Do you think that's accurate? Why would someone misrepresent those numbers?
And that's in the news, what about what we can see with our own eyes?!
It has been said that 80% of communication is non-verbal. And if you know the tricks to spot a liar or what's going on in the persons internal/subconscious world, we are less likely to get duped. Being able to 'read' a person is a very important skill to have. With that in mind we will look at clips and decide if the person is telling the truth or not. And/or what is happening in the person's inner world.
SOME BASIC BODY LANGUAGE CUES:
BASELINE: Everyone has a different emotional baseline. If someone twitches or fidgets we would probably assume they are nervous and lying but maybe they do that all the time, so they might do something different when stretching the truth.
ESL: This is an acronym for eye blocking, shrugging and lip concealing. When fibbing people have a hard time looking at someone directly or they blink a lot. Shrugging maybe hard to catch sometimes but it shows they are uncertain of something. And when people conceal their lips it could mean they are hiding something.
OPEN POSTURE vs. CLOSED POSTURE: Is the body open in a relaxed manner? Or is it closed, the arms folded, legs crossed? Is the person defensive? All of these tell tale signs show us what's happening on the inside.
Learning to decode body language is powerful and one of the most important nonverbal communication skills. Also good body language can make us look relaxed and approachable in conversation.
Now Bill Clinton is a master liar. So good in fact that many body language experts say that in the following, now famous, press conference he has actual convinced himself that he is telling the truth via semantics...
Sometimes the body language can be very obvious...
Here's one of the most ridiculous liars as of recent, Prince Andrew...
"A dingo ate my baby!" is a cry popularly attributed to Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton, as part of the 1980 death of Azaria Chamberlain case, at Uluru in the Northern Territory, Australia. The Chamberlain family had been camping near the rock when their nine-week-old daughter was taken from their tent by a dingo.
Professional cyclist Lance Armstrong was loved by the American public for his multiple Tour De France victories and his courageous battle against cancer. But in 2012, after years of denial by Armstrong, it was revealed that he was using performance-enhancing drugs during his Tour victories.Shortly thereafter, Armstrong was permanently banned from professional cycling.
Miley was all laughs when she told Cosmopolitan in 2013 that she had recently married boyfriend Liam Hemsworth in secret. This was later revealed to be a lie.
Watergate set the bar for a world leader telling lies when President Richard Nixon denied involvement in the snooping scandal, declaring, “I am not a crook,” in a nationally televised press conference. . Two journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein from The Washington Post exposed the ‘dirty tricks’ of the Nixon administration.
Answers to Clinton interview: 'Thank you Jim' blinking cluster above emotional baseline, called eye blocking, could be suppressing images from hippocampus, part of brain that stores images. No mirroring, Lehrer open legs, Clinton legs crossed arms folded. Nod of head followed by shaking head while saying no, doesn't go together 'that is not true'. Could be due to adrenaline spike. Then he starts to calm down. More rapid blinks. Trying to block out images. Answered a question that hasn't been asked. Hands go from linked position to hands being steepled, authority move, yet legs still crossed. Leg kicks out, Hypothalamus processes information and sends it to Amygdala for flight or flight or Cortex for rational/logical thinking. Amygdala will overpower Cortex if activated. Amygdala sends message to Hypothalamus which talks to pituitary gland to make adrenaline producing leg kick. Head comes down and there's lip compression; wants to say something but holding back and ends up answering a question that hasn't been asked. Sums up with generalities. Sales tactic like getting someone to say yes a lot. Clinton pulls on emotional heart strings at end.
We can start an essay with a shocking statistic, question to audience, quote or anecdote. Writing an Anecdote - can you think of a time where technology really impressed you? Or a time that tech tripped you out? (like how you'll be talking about something and then there's an advertisement for it on your phone)
Let's start with the Turin Test:
The Turing test, originally called the imitation game by Alan Turing in 1950, is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. Turing proposed that a human evaluator would judge natural language conversations between a human and a machine designed to generate human-like responses. The evaluator would be aware that one of the two partners in conversation is a machine, and all participants would be separated from one another. The conversation would be limited to a text-only channel such as a computer keyboard and screen so the result would not depend on the machine's ability to render words as speech. If the evaluator cannot reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine is said to have passed the test. The test results do not depend on the machine's ability to give correct answers to questions, only how closely its answers resemble those a human would give.
source: Wikipedia
In the 90's, in the early days of the internet, companies began experimenting with bots in chatrooms who would pretend to be long lost friends and casually mention that they just bought a new Ford truck and are very happy with the gas mileage and features.
Early into the talk or at the end it could be a good idea to foster discussion or have them take a test to truly immerse audience into the subject. What is an experiment that can be done on the class to have them guess if they are talking to a person or a AI chatbot?
Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, talks about this year's theme for their annual gathering in Davos, the 4th industrial revolution.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
