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
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.
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 on‐street 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)