All posts by Mike Zonta

“New AI can guess whether you’re gay or straight from a photograph” by Sam Levin

An illustrated depiction of facial analysis technology similar to that used in the experiment.
 An illustrated depiction of facial analysis technology similar to that used in the experiment. Illustration: Alamy

Bogart on being professional



Humphrey Bogart as newspaper editor Ed Hutchinson talking with William Self playing Bellamy, the journalism student, in the movie Deadline U.S.A.

Ed Hutchinson:  Newspaperman is the best
profession in the world.  You know
what a profession is?

Student:  It's a skilled job. 

Ed Hutchinson:  Yeah, so's repairing watches. Nope.  A profession is a performance for public good.  That's why newspaper work is a profession. It may not be the oldest profession, but it's the best.

“Understanding Our End Game” by Suzanne Deakins

What does she mean by that? A fundamental question presented by anybody who reads. Words are both a gift to us and a curse. From the Little Prince:  “For words are a source of misunderstanding.”  I find language fascinating. My bookshelves are filled with works on language, mind, and our existence with the use of language.

We live in a world built with words. The very words we use forms our consciousness, and our consciousness plays out in our life. In every philosophy and religion the use of words is paramount to evoke concepts of a spiritual life or pathway one can follow to find nirvana or land of milk and honey. If your religious words are ones that say your God is a punishing God you will see occurrences in every day life as punishment or concepts put forth to test your faith and belief. For instance a statement by a far right commentator, said (to paraphrase) It is more likely that God punished Houston (with hurricane Harvey) for a Lesbian Mayor than a climate change problem occurring.

A person’s use of language is a doorway into their mind. As we write and speak we form relationships with words and ideas. These word relationships depict the thinking and perceptions of the mind. Thus language of any one group of people shows what is important to them, how they view life in a philosophical manner. When I lived in China I had a great deal of trouble learning how to relate the ideas of yesterday and remembering. Part of this problem was because Chinese philosophy holds the concept that all life is NOW. How can you remember what is happening now? The Chinese use of time in language is much different than the western concept. When my college students visited the USA and Canada they came back asking for help on understanding the western use of time as compared to theirs. The main tenant of faith in China is Buddhism, which says all is happening in this moment, much different from the concept of past, present, and future. This also explains the Chinese students problem with tenses in English and German.

The English language is Germanic at its base. There is a kind of precision that allows us to accomplish great mechanical and engineering feats. Engineering students in China and else where must learn English or German in order to function in engineering. This same idea applies to allopathic medicine. The Latin terminology is related more precisely in English or German. Our language allows us to change words to fit our perception and to use words from other languages. For instance houseboat can be changed into boathouse. Both terms are appropriate. This switching of terms only happens in English and Germans.

Why is all of this important? Because we cannot expect to understand what our adversaries are trying to say or what is happening in our own unconscious mind until we understand how language works with perception. Noam Chomsky says that language is inherent in our genome. We are born with the urge to communicate the pictures we see in our minds. Those of us who study language know that there are three levels of meanings to any word or perception we express. The first is the base meaning, the second our family meaning, and third the meaning given to a word by our tribe or society where we live. Each meaning brings with it an emotional perception. It is our emotional perception of words that bogs us down in mediating or understanding “the other.”

Words such as hate, prejudice, and alien are all laden with many meanings. How can we eliminate the hate around us unless we understand what those who hate mean or are saying. The more we understand the language of others and the meanings they give to the words they use the easier it becomes to negotiate and mediate with them.

Presently we are at war with words and perceptions. We are finding ourselves at an impasse with “ the other side.” Our ammunition is words and understanding how the mind works. Violence will not change perceptions but words can. In a very large sense our end game is not to destroy “the other” but to win our game by using words and ideas that are irrefutable or axiomatic in nature.

How can you use this information? Stay observant to the language you use and that of others. Ask yourself what you mean by the words you use. Ask what you think “the other” is meaning by the words they use. Don’t assume you are speaking the same language of meanings. Examine the territory when someone brings you information or a piece of gossip. By trying to understand and interpret the language of the other you gain insiders knowledge of their end game.

Language is not a gift but an inherent right we are born with. Communication is so important that we slap the butts of newborn babies. This is so they will cry and announce their being to the world. Only with the first cry is the child considered born.

Suzanne Deakins H.W.M. Is a Mentor in The Prosperos and teaches the technique of Translation that helps us decode our language and consciousness. She is also, a publisher (One Spirit Press and The Q Press) and author. Her books may be found on amazon.com. suzannedeak@gmail.com

“Self-report captures 27 distinct categories of emotion bridged by continuous gradients” by Alan S. Cowena and Dacher Keltnera

Edited by Joseph E. LeDoux, New York University, New York, NY, and approved August 7, 2017 (received for review February 9, 2017) (pnas.org)

 Significance

Claims about how reported emotional experiences are geometrically organized within a semantic space have shaped the study of emotion. Using statistical methods to analyze reports of emotional states elicited by 2,185 emotionally evocative short videos with richly varying situational content, we uncovered 27 varieties of reported emotional experience. Reported experience is better captured by categories such as “amusement” than by ratings of widely measured affective dimensions such as valence and arousal. Although categories are found to organize dimensional appraisals in a coherent and powerful fashion, many categories are linked by smooth gradients, contrary to discrete theories. Our results comprise an approximation of a geometric structure of reported emotional experience.

Abstract

Emotions are centered in subjective experiences that people represent, in part, with hundreds, if not thousands, of semantic terms. Claims about the distribution of reported emotional states and the boundaries between emotion categories—that is, the geometric organization of the semantic space of emotion—have sparked intense debate. Here we introduce a conceptual framework to analyze reported emotional states elicited by 2,185 short videos, examining the richest array of reported emotional experiences studied to date and the extent to which reported experiences of emotion are structured by discrete and dimensional geometries. Across self-report methods, we find that the videos reliably elicit 27 distinct varieties of reported emotional experience. Further analyses revealed that categorical labels such as amusement better capture reports of subjective experience than commonly measured affective dimensions (e.g., valence and arousal). Although reported emotional experiences are represented within a semantic space best captured by categorical labels, the boundaries between categories of emotion are fuzzy rather than discrete. By analyzing the distribution of reported emotional states we uncover gradients of emotion—from anxiety to fear to horror to disgust, calmness to aesthetic appreciation to awe, and others—that correspond to smooth variation in affective dimensions such as valence and dominance. Reported emotional states occupy a complex, high-dimensional categorical space. In addition, our library of videos and an interactive map of the emotional states they elicit (https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/emogifs/map.html) are made available to advance the science of emotion.

Footnotes

“7 People Whose Words Changed the Course of History” by Stephen Johnson

September 6, 2017 (bigthink.com)

A speech is more than a set of spoken words. It’s a combination of the speaker, the context, the language, and these things working together can make it far greater than the sum of its parts. In that vein, we compiled some of the greatest public speakers of all time, people whose words changed the course of societies and defined eras.

Winston Churchill 

When Paris fell to the Nazis on June 14, 1940, England began to steel itself for the brunt of the Axis powers on the Western front. Winston Churchill, who had taken over as prime minister just a month prior, delivered his famous “Our Finest Hour” to a country bracing itself for full-scale attack. In 1953, Churchill was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, in part for his speeches, which he wrote himself.

In his history of World War II entitled “The Storm of War,” Andrew Roberts writes:

“Winston Churchill managed to combine the most magnificent use of English — usually short words, Anglo-Saxon words, Shakespearean. And also this incredibly powerful delivery. And he did it at a time when the world was in such peril from Nazism, that every word mattered.”

John F. Kennedy

Few speeches are as oft quoted as John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address, which he spent months writing. Kennedy’s ability to speak as if he was having an authentic conversation with an audience, as opposed to lecturing to them, is one quality that made him such a compelling communicator.

Socrates

Standing accused of crimes including corrupting the youth of Athens, Socrates had a choice: defer and apologize to his accusers for his alleged crimes, or reformulate their scattered accusations into proper legal form (thereby embarrassing his accusers) and deliver an exhaustive defense of the pursuit of truth, apologizing for nothing. He chose the latter and was sentenced to death. Part of Socrates’ “Apology” includes:

How you have felt, O men of Athens, at hearing the speeches of my accusers, I cannot tell; but I know that their persuasive words almost made me forget who I was – such was the effect of them; and yet they have hardly spoken a word of truth. But many as their falsehoods were, there was one of them which quite amazed me; – I mean when they told you to be upon your guard, and not to let yourselves be deceived by the force of my eloquence.

Adolf Hitler

Hitler was well aware that mastering the art of public speaking was crucial to his political career. He wrote all of his speeches himself, sometimes editing them more than five times. He practiced his facial expressions and gestures, and he was adept at interweaving metaphor and abstract ideas into his speeches about political policy.

Martin Luther King Jr.

The strong musicality of Martin Luther King Jr.’s rhetoric is perhaps just as recognizable as the words “not be judged on the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Martin Luther King drew inspiration from Shakespeare, the bible, his own past speeches, and numerous civil rights thinkers to write his “I Have a Dream” speech, one of the most famous of all time.

James Baldwin

Until his death in 1987, James Baldwin pushed the conversation about race in America forward with his carefully intense social criticism. He traveled extensively throughout his life, saying that “Once you find yourself in another civilization, you’re forced to examine your own.”

Mister Rogers

Mister (Fred) Rogers spent his life communicating soft-spoken yet direct messages of practical advice to children, ultimately earning him a Peabody Award and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Rogers was an expert in using rhetoric to effectively communicate with any audience, not just children, a quality best evidenced in his appearance before a senate committee to save his show’s funding in 1969.

“Educators must counter falsehoods by shining light on facts” by Janet Napolitano

September 1, 2017 (SFChronicle.com)

Janet Napolitano, president of the University of California, speaks during a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on July 29, 2015 in Washington, DC. Photo: Astrid Riecken, Getty Images

Photo: Astrid Riecken, Getty Images

Janet Napolitano, president of the University of California, speaks during a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on July 29, 2015 in Washington, DC.

The acts of violence in Charlottesville represented an assault on the very foundations of our democracy, and an affront to all people who believe the strength of our future as a nation hinges upon our ability to become a more tolerant nation, a nation that fully respects and includes all Americans, in all of our diversity.

An equally enduring threat to American democracy is the “myth of many sides” — the myth that all sides of an argument have equal value.

This is a unique time of false equivalencies, when real news is labeled fake news and fake news is spun as the truth. So, the role of members of the academic community as sources of facts and context is more important now than ever. Public participation — public engagement — is a responsibility we in the academic world can and must embrace. All of us must do more to counteract misinformation and outright bigotry.

Princeton history professor Kevin Kruse recently shared examples of false equivalencies in history, and suggested that educators invite their students to find others. Among the examples he cited were Govs. Earl Long of Louisiana and Orval Faubus of Arkansas, who likened the NAACP to White Citizen Councils opposing the integration of public schools after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Brown vs. Board of Education decision in the 1950s.

Conservative intellectual William F. Buckley Jr., the founding editor of the National Review, once described moral equivalence in these words: “To say that the CIA and KGB engage in similar practices is the equivalent of saying that the man who pushes an old lady into the path of a hurtling bus is not to be distinguished from the man who pushes an old lady out of the path of a hurtling bus: on the grounds that, after all, in both cases someone is pushing old ladies around.”

Speech not rooted in facts is proliferating. It is increasingly difficult for the public to distinguish fact from fiction. And falsehoods undercut the role of science in society, as well as fact-based policy analysis.

We see the negative impact on public policy when the findings of climate science are denied, just as the denial of the connection between tobacco and lung disease delayed policies in the past that could have saved lives. And false equivalencies feed false expectations when we’re told that coal mining jobs will somehow reappear if we rewrite our environmental laws, rather than preparing workers for careers in alternative energy.

Pluralism is supposed to provide a solid foundation for a strong democracy. But false equivalencies are corrupting the underpinnings of democracy — eroding faith in our public institutions.

Those of us in the academic community share a responsibility to guard against falsehoods and false equivalencies. The ideologies of white nationalists and neo-Nazis do not represent the truth by any measure. There is no place in American democracy for white supremacy. Period. But because there will always be a place in America for freedom of expression, even when it’s hateful, we must counter the hate and falsehoods by shining a light on the facts.

Truth telling, of course, is the essence of both teaching and learning. Within the University of California community of students, faculty and staff, we can draw on academic expertise and shared values to speak out against intolerance. That might require only an email or a letter, published commentary or a call to an elected official. Whether it’s a professor illuminating forgotten episodes of our past, or students peacefully expressing themselves, it’s important that we muster the collective will to participate fully in the public square.

Janet Napolitano is president of the University of California. This commentary is adapted from a speech to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association in San Francisco on Thursday, Aug. 31.

Shelley Berman (February 3, 1925 – September 1, 2017)

Mr. Berman as a misanthrope in a 1961 episode of “The Twilight Zone” in which, getting his wish, everyone ends up just like him. CreditCBS, via Photofest (New York Times)

Sheldon Leonard Berman (February 3, 1925 – September 1, 2017) was an American comedian, actor, writer, teacher, lecturer and poet. In his comedic career, Berman was awarded three gold records and he won the first Grammy Award for a spoken comedy recording in 1959. Wikipedia

Consciousness, sexuality, androgyny, futurism, space, the arts, science, astrology, democracy, humor, books, movies and more