Search This Blog

Body Language Read of Andi Dorfman and Josh Murray



Shortly after their engagement aired on national television, Andi Dorfman, 27, and Josh Murray, 30, sported matching frowns during a July trip to NYC.  "They seem stressed here," observes Patti.  "There's very little connection between them."

Patti gives this couple a 2 on the Life & Style True Love Rating Scale.

But the twosome had a glow about them as they confidently strode through LAX.  Although Andi pulls away from him, "Josh doesn't mind," says Patti.  "He's holding his hand in a way that shows that he's supporting her unconditionally."

Patti gives this couple a 4 on the Life & Style True Love Rating Scale.

Patti Wood, MA, Certified Speaking Professional - The Body Language Expert. For more body language insights go to her website at www.PattiWood.net. Check out Patti's website for her new book "SNAP, Making the Most of First Impressions, Body Language and Charisma" at www.snapfirstimpressions.com. Also check out Patti's YouTube channel at http://youtube.com/user/bodylanguageexpert.

Body Language Read of Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner



The read of  them walking with all the space between them and her caring the suitcase purse. They are both upset, but I don't know if it is the relationship or the fact they are being photographed.  They aren't happy being together in the public eye in this photo. Look at his downward turned mouth and defiant up held chin, his furrowed brow and his left hand closest to her creates what is called a gesture cluster of suppressed anger.  Her lips are held in a "pretremble" about to cry position, her hand nearest him is held tight to her purse and her other is stuffed pushed down in her pocket and her head is turned away from him. These cues create a combination of suppressed tears of frustration.
Since they are not comforting each other through these negative emotions I rate them a 2 on Life & Style True Love Rating Scale.





 



This photo is so sweet. I love how far she is reaching to keep her hand and her head is lifting up on him I love how he is reaching and bending to put his arm around her in a "prekiss" position. And though he is looking and aware of  being watched his reach is natural rather than posed. ( Her other hand is touching her rear to "self comfort" in the stress of being watched and he is giving her the comfort she needs.  I give this couple a 4 on the Life & Style True Love Rating Scale.








Patti Wood, MA, Certified Speaking Professional - The Body Language Expert. For more body language insights go to her website at www.PattiWood.net. Check out Patti's website for her new book "SNAP, Making the Most of First Impressions, Body Language and Charisma" at www.snapfirstimpressions.com. Also check out Patti's YouTube channel at http://youtube.com/user/bodylanguageexpert.

Night and Day - Bradley & Suki



Something was amiss between Bradley Cooper, 39, and Suki Waterhouse, 22, as they strolled around NYC last year.  "He's not holding her hand and his lips look tense" in the May 2013 photo observes Patti.  "He's angry about something."

Patti gives this couple a 2 on the Life & Style True Love Rating Scale.

It was a stark contrast to their lovey-dovey London date on Sept. 16, 2014.  "The way he is holding her hand and the way that they are laughing in unison show a joyfulness and a connection between them."

Patti gives this couple a 4 1/2 on the Life & Style True Love Rating Scale.

Patti Wood, MA, Certified Speaking Professional - The Body Language Expert. For more body language insights go to her website at www.PattiWood.net. Check out Patti's website for her new book "SNAP, Making the Most of First Impressions, Body Language and Charisma" at www.snapfirstimpressions.com. Also check out Patti's YouTube channel at http://youtube.com/user/bodylanguageexpert.

Should You Pay to Get to Public Spaces?, Work Space and Territory

Private auctions of public parking spots are bad public policy. There is something wrong yet very interesting about how people compete for territory. When I go to the beach in Miami I often have an easy access through a gate requiring a hotel room key to get to the beach. Though it makes it easy for me, that access makes it harder for someone who is not paying $350 dollars a night to get to the ocean.

I think if you can’t equally compete for public space there is a problem. Here is an article about the problem with APPs that let only the rich and cell phone owners get the best access to space. 

By Emily Badger June 26  in the Washington post

Flickr user Charley Lhasa
Meet MonkeyParking, an app that's been offering drivers in Rome and San Francisco this dubious proposition: "make money every time that you are about to leave your on-street parking spot."
The app facilitates what's essentially an auction. Maybe you've got precious public curb space you're about to give up. No doubt frustrated drivers are circling for just such a prize. MonkeyParking pairs the two – with bids starting at $5 a spot. The app's creators argue that such a marketplaceoptimizes parking supply and cuts down on the congestion and pollution that come from so many cars circling the block.
But if something about this idea – a private auction of a public asset – seems... not quite right, you are not alone. San Francisco's city attorney earlier this week sent MonkeyParking a cease-and-desist letter, citing police code that makes it illegal to “enter into a lease, rental agreement or contract of any kind” for public parking spots.
City code everywhere is full of regulations that have not quite caught up to potentially beneficial innovation. This is not an example of that.
Technology has suddenly made it possible to monetize on a large all kinds of things: Airbnb wants to commodify your spare bedroom, Lyft your empty passenger seat, TaskRabbit your spare time, 1000 Tools your unused power drill, Leftover Swap your, well, leftovers.
But all of these platforms share an unquestionable – if not universally appealing – premise: The seller is offering something that's arguably his or hers to give. Not so with MonkeyParking and a handful of other apps that have sprung up around the same concept (San Francisco is also warning off two other apps, Sweetch and ParkModo).
By straying into private transactions over communal assets, these apps are likely to produce a number of unintended (not to mention unfair) consequences. They threaten to price the poor and the smartphone-less out of parking. They could undercut a city's efforts to manage parking supply through holistic pricing policy. And they're likely to produce parking squatters – people who will wait to give up a spot until they know they've got a buyer.
Jenny Xie at CityLab had a good backgrounder last month on how ParkingMonkey works, and the rationale of its founder, Paolo Dobrowolny, who no doubt foresaw such a legal bind. "He argues MonkeyParking doesn't broker parking spaces themselves," Xie wrote, "but rather the valuable information that somebody is just about to leave a spot."
San Francisco is obviously not buying the distinction. Here's the threat from city attorney Dennis Herrera in announcing the cease-and-desist:
It’s illegal, it puts drivers on the hook for $300 fines, and it creates a predatory private market for public parking spaces that San Franciscans will not tolerate. Worst of all, it encourages drivers to use their mobile devices unsafely—to engage in online bidding wars while driving. People are free to rent out their own private driveways and garage spaces should they choose to do so. But we will not abide businesses that hold hostage onstreet public parking spots for their own private profit.
Drivers who use the app face $300 fines. MonkeyParking, by encouraging them to do so, could face $2,500 civil penalties under the state's Unfair Competition Law. What's more, Herrera warns that every download, purchase and sale of a parking spot may constitute a separate violation. The city has asked Apple to remove the app from its store (although, as of this writing, it was still available for download).
If the real goal here is to optimize parking, it's worth noting that San Francisco already does a better, more innovative job at this than just about any city of America.



Emily Badger is a reporter for Wonkblog covering urban policy. She was previously a staff writer at The At


Patti Wood, MA, Certified Speaking Professional - The Body Language Expert. For more body language insights go to her website at www.PattiWood.net. Check out Patti's website for her new book "SNAP, Making the Most of First Impressions, Body Language and Charisma" at www.snapfirstimpressions.com. Also check out Patti's YouTube channel at http://youtube.com/user/bodylanguageexpert.

How Fighting Changed Men’s Faces. How Prehistoric Punch-ups Shaped How Humans Look Today



Men have evolved to take a punch in the face, Our male ancestors may have developed more robust brows, jaws, cheeks, and molars for protection during fights over mates, food, and other resources. Parts of the face that have become stronger are the ones that most frequently break when modern humans fight. It rather puts on its ear our notion that prehistoric men fought more than modern men. Here is the article.


New study suggests facial features evolved to protect our ancestors from injury


Monday 09 June 2014
Bare-knuckle fighting helped to shape the human face which evolution has designed to minimise the damage inflicted by a fast-moving fist, according to a radical new theory about how violence changed the way we looked compared to our ape-like ancestors.
The transition in facial structure from apes to early hominins had previously been explained largely by the need to chew on nuts and other hard foods that needed crushing which led to a robust jaw, large molar teeth, a prominent brow and strong cheek muscles.
However, scientists have devised another plausible explanation based on the need for the face to be buttressed against the impact of flying fists which had become a principal weapon in unarmed combat between competing males.
“We suggest that many of the facial features that characterise early hominins evolved to protect the face from injury during fighting with fists,” said David Carrier and Michael Morgan in a study published in the journal Biological Reviews.
The researchers analysed the facial bone structures of a number of hominins, such as an early human ancestor known as Australopithecus, and compared them to apes and modern man. They found that the parts of the face that changed most were the ones most likely to be damaged in a fist fight.
They also found that these changes in facial anatomy closely coincided with the ability of the early hominins to clench their fists and to use them as swinging clubs in a fight – a key tactical change from the biting and scratching preferred by fighting apes.





The stronger facial bones of the australopiths (second and third rows) appeared at the same time that our ancestors learned to clench their fists, before declining along with upper body strength.


“Compared to apes like chimps and gorillas, early hominins had very robust jaws, with large molar teeth and strong jaw muscles. They also have very stout cheek bones and brow ridges,” said David Carrier of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.
“The australopiths were characterised by a suite of traits that may have improved fighting ability, including hand proportions that allow formation of a fist, effectively turning the delicate musculoskeletal system of the hand into a club for striking,” Dr Carrier said.
“If indeed the evolution of our hand proportions were associated with selection for fighting behaviour you might expect the primary target, the face, to have undergone evolution to better protect it from injury when punched,” he said.
With his colleague Mike Morgan, a medical doctor at Utah University, Dr Carrier analysed the facial bones that were most likely to be fractured in fights between modern humans and found that these were the same bones that were most likely to have been changed during human evolution.
“When modern humans fight the face is the primary target. The bones of the face that suffer the highest rates of fracture from fights are the bones that show the greatest increase in robusticity during the evolution of early bipedal apes, the australopiths,” Dr Carrier said.
“These are also the bones that show the greatest difference between women and men in both australopiths and modern humans,” he said.
The gender differences in facial bones supports the view that they evolved to buttress the face against flying fists given that fights between males are more common than those between females.
“In other words, male and female faces are different because the parts of the skull that break in fights are bigger in males,” he said.
“In both apes and humans, males are much more violent than females and most male violence is directed at other males. Because males are the primary target of violence, one would expect more protective buttressing in males and that is what we find,” he added.
The large, thickly enamelled molar teeth of australopiths may have allowed the energy of an upward blow to the jaw, for instance, to be transferred from the lower jaw to the skull, allowing the energy to be absorbed with the help of jaw muscles, the scientists suggested.

“What our research has been showing is that many of the anatomical characters of great apes and our ancestors, the early hominins – such as bipedal posture, the proportions of our hands and the shape of our faces – do in fact improve fighting performance,” Dr Carrier said.


Patti Wood, MA, Certified Speaking Professional - The Body Language Expert. For more body language insights go to her website at www.PattiWood.net. Check out Patti's website for her new book "SNAP, Making the Most of First Impressions, Body Language and Charisma" at www.snapfirstimpressions.com. Also check out Patti's YouTube channel at http://youtube.com/user/bodylanguageexpert.