Reading People's Emotions


by Kazza_765
Tags: emotions, people, reading
atyy
atyy is offline
#37
May16-09, 04:06 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 8,006
Quote Quote by zoobyshoe View Post
Do you know the story "The President's Speech" in The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat?
No. What's the story?
russ_watters
russ_watters is offline
#38
May16-09, 08:39 AM
Mentor
P: 22,001
Quote Quote by SDetection View Post
I sense something and then suddenly look in a certain direction and there is someone staring at me. When the starer is caught off guard, he/she suddenly turns his/her face away to avoid being caught staring, and that actually proves the intention. It happens so quickly, It's like a reflex on my part followed instantly by a reflex on part of the starer. Also those people were not in my sight. I know that all people can do that but how could this happen?.
It is called "being on alert". You are actively looking for something that exists and therefore you find it.
Redbelly98
Redbelly98 is offline
#39
May16-09, 09:04 AM
Mentor
Redbelly98's Avatar
P: 11,989
Or a person could be much taller than average, or have an unusual hairstyle, or have something about them that attracts stares fairly often.

Impossible-to-answer followup question: how often does one get stared at without even realizing it?
zoobyshoe
zoobyshoe is offline
#40
May16-09, 11:15 AM
zoobyshoe's Avatar
P: 5,616
Quote Quote by atyy View Post
No. What's the story?
I'm not going to spoil it.
junglebeast
junglebeast is offline
#41
May16-09, 01:15 PM
P: 462
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
Then you should go and get tested. Let us know when the results are published.

For that matter, you should take Randi's challenge and win a million bucks.
Seriously, SDetection, why are you wasting your time here? Go claim your prize.
SDetection
SDetection is offline
#42
May16-09, 11:39 PM
P: 98
Quote Quote by zoobyshoe View Post
I'd say 80% of the time a person is in a public place they are the object of "people watching". Personally I do this all the time: observe people. Anyone who seems positioned so they can't directly see me is a better target: you can stare longer. It doesn't surprise me you catch someone staring at you so often. People are fascinated by people.
Yes staring happens mostly in public places because of course no one will stare at you when you're alone in your room. Also in normal situations, it's unlikely for someone who knows you very well to stare at you.
But I guess you mean that I detect staring just because people stare at me from all directions most of the time?...
Well, this could be true if I don't sense the direction of the starer, but I do. I don't just look around and accidentally catch someone staring at me, and I did it even when I thought I'm alone. I even tried once not to look when I sensed staring but I got very anxious and uncomfortable and finally had to look in the direction of the starer. After that I was mentally relieved because that ended the staring. You can't do anything when someone is staring at you, you just can't....

Also it's not a normal look, it's a sudden, unexpected and mostly atomic turn of my head in a certain direction. Everything happens almost unconsciously, it's like when you respond to someone who is calling your name from behind. If you're expecting that call, you can prevent yourself from responding but it's going to be uncomfortable for you. And I think in the short time of a sudden, fast and atomic turn, people can detect the location of starers by more precision than the senses of hearing, sight and smell combined claim.

There was no good reason for me to suddenly look in the directions of the starers. Many times it was nearly impossible for me to know that there is someone staring at me because the starers were at a long distance from me. But my sudden and unexpected turn of my head in their direction caught them off guard. they thought I could see them and suddenly they tried to hide and that visually revealed their position. their lame attempt to hide the intention actually proved the opposite.

Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
Then you should go and get tested. Let us know when the results are published.
Hi, I want to tell you the story behind my previous thread:
I was discussing this phenomenon at James Randi's forums. In the beginning everyone was nice and helping and then some people suggested protocols for testing me. But when I proved that these protocols allow James Randi to cheat, everybody got mad at me!. I don't know why that happened, after all he is a magician not a scientist!.
After explaining how this detection happens someone tried to mock me by posting this video and then sarcastically asked me if this is the sudden turn of the head that I meant. I didn't figure it out in the beginning but I noticed that it's actually a sudden and unexpected turn followed by a sharp gaze at the camera. I then found the original video which led me to this one, this video (notice the chipmunk's hands at 0:04) and this (notice the gecko's tail at 0:25).
It's ironic that people who tried to mock me are the most ones who actually helped me!.

Without watching the videos, a simple statistical analysis on the thousands of comments which these videos are getting at YouTube, will reveal that they contain the same phenomenon. One of the people who posted the videos tried to explain the animal's behavior and came up with this funny explanation:
Dude did you actually record this? what happened to that poor squirel?
hi hellsingiscool,
the original footage is from a Japanese children's program i think. It's bee around for a while. I think the prairie dog was play a sound of another prairie dog and he turns to look.
they have like a distinctive bark noise.
Although this could be a very good explanation for the animals behavior, it's not the case in the videos. People who were holding the cameras, were not aware of anything regarding this phenomenon, and they were not trying to make the animals look at the camera.

These videos were not proof for me but I'm sure they refer to the same phenomenon that happened to me thousands of times. I just wanted some unaffected opinions regarding the animals behavior before posting my own experiments at that thread.

Surveys show that many people experience this phenomenon, and there have been many experiments to prove it. Sometimes the subjects were not aware of the test but in all of these experiments the starers were always aware of it. From my experiments, these are not the right conditions because the starers are the ones who shouldn't be aware of any testing regarding this phenomenon. Staring simply can't be simulated in the lab...

Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
For that matter, you should take Randi's challenge and win a million bucks.
I don't think James Randi wants to test me for this if he doesn't want to lose his money and reputation. But I'm willing to do it without any money and also join his foundation, it will surely undo any bad reputation to the skeptics community, after all I'm a skeptic too, and I'm sure there is a scientific explanation for this phenomenon. But if he rejected my offers I will just have to sue him. I guess it's somewhat my fault, I should have been making fool of myself and making up foolish things regarding my claim, skeptics like that . But they kept throwing simple protocols at me. Those protocols simply will make me fail and I had to prove them wrong, and that blew my cover. My problem now is that in order to qualify for the challenge I must have a media profile first. But frankly I think all the challenges and the awards are just publicity stunts!...

Quote Quote by junglebeast View Post
Seriously, SDetection, why are you wasting your time here? Go claim your prize.
But I must also design a controlled test first, as James Randi will not do it for me.

Quote Quote by russ_watters View Post
It is called "being on alert". You are actively looking for something that exists and therefore you find it.
Yeah but I didn't get any misses when I suddenly looked in a certain direction after I sensed the staring. Also I do look around all the time when I don't sense anything and yet I didn't catch any staring.

Quote Quote by Redbelly98 View Post
Or a person could be much taller than average, or have an unusual hairstyle, or have something about them that attracts stares fairly often.
Yes, people tend to stare at me because I look somehow different and this is why I got so many hits. But I'm sure it happens to all of us by a certain degree. Also I detected people who were about to physically attack me.

Quote Quote by Redbelly98 View Post
Impossible-to-answer followup question: how often does one get stared at without even realizing it?
This is a very good question but does it matter if there are false negatives when there are no false positives?. I mean sometimes you don't hear someone that is calling your name and that doesn't prove that you don't have sense of hearing. We're not perfect, all of our normal senses fail us sometimes...

I'm sure there is some kind of unconventional mechanism regarding this phenomenon, but what could it be!. What do you think of the controlled test that could prove this detection ability?.
zoobyshoe
zoobyshoe is offline
#43
May17-09, 01:03 AM
zoobyshoe's Avatar
P: 5,616
Quote Quote by SDetection View Post
Also I detected people who were about to physically attack me.
Tell us this story.
Ivan Seeking
Ivan Seeking is offline
#44
May18-09, 12:52 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,493
Quote Quote by SDetection View Post
Although this could be a very good explanation for the animals behavior, it's not the case in the videos. People who were holding the cameras, were not aware of anything regarding this phenomenon, and they were not trying to make the animals look at the camera.
The videos tell us absolutely nothing. That is why I locked the thread. If you continue to make a point of this, I will delete everything.

These videos were not proof for me but I'm sure they refer to the same phenomenon that happened to me thousands of times. I just wanted some unaffected opinions regarding the animals behavior before posting my own experiments at that thread.
You have no way to know what happened in the video. You are drawing conclusions based on nothing.

Surveys show that many people experience this phenomenon,
It shows that many people think they experience this.

and there have been many experiments to prove it.
You need to post a reference to a paper in an appropriate journal in order to make this claim. The journal must be found Here, in the master journal list. See the lower right corner of the page. What you are citing is not qualified for discussion here.

I don't think James Randi wants to test me for this if he doesn't want to lose his money and reputation.
If you are to make this claim, then you need to post proof that you applied but were rejected.

after all I'm a skeptic too,
I see no evidence to support that.

and I'm sure there is a scientific explanation for this phenomenon. But if he rejected my offers I will just have to sue him. I guess it's somewhat my fault, I should have been making fool of myself and making up foolish things regarding my claim, skeptics like that . But they kept throwing simple protocols at me. Those protocols simply will make me fail and I had to prove them wrong, and that blew my cover. My problem now is that in order to qualify for the challenge I must have a media profile first. But frankly I think all the challenges and the awards are just publicity stunts!...

But I must also design a controlled test first, as James Randi will not do it for me.
Please quote and link the information that makes this clear. I am no Randi fan, but you will have to back up each claim that you make with proof.

Here is the problem that I have with your claims here. You are claiming a repeatable phenomenon. That can be tested, so we don't need to take your word for it. You could go to a university and find someone that will allow you to demonstrate your claim.

You can return and make your claims when you have credible scientific evidence. Until then, I am suspending any further discussion of it. You are only allowed to post the evidence and information requested.
SDetection
SDetection is offline
#45
May19-09, 07:02 AM
P: 98
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
The videos tell us absolutely nothing.
The videos only refer to a behavior that can happen normally and can have normal explanations. And I did say that it's the same behavior that happens when someone calls your name from behind. Sometimes you can be so close to your ideas that you don't see things clearly, and all I wanted is a second opinion about my analysis not the videos themselves.

Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
That is why I locked the thread. If you continue to make a point of this, I will delete everything.
Fine with me, in fact I don't have much more to say about the videos but I wished that you deleted my previous thread instead of locking it without any discussion.

Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
You have no way to know what happened in the video. You are drawing conclusions based on nothing.
But this is actually my claim: animals (including humans) can do that. I'm not referencing the videos as scientific evidence.

Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
It shows that many people think they experience this.
But what is the difference?:
Quote Quote by Skeptical Inquirer magazine
Unquestionably the most vocal supporter of this claim is the British biologist Rupert Sheldrake who, in chapter four of his book Seven Experiments That Could Change the World: A Do-It-Yourself Guide To Revolutionary Science (Riverhead Books, New York, 1995), argues that not only do our minds "extend beyond the body" but also suggests, "If our minds reach out and 'touch' what we are looking at then we may affect what we look at just by looking at it. If we look at another person, for example, we may affect him or her by doing so" (107). Sheldrake, moreover, insists that the sense of being stared at is not only very "well known" but in informal surveys in both Europe and America, "I have found that about 80 percent of the people I have asked claimed to have experienced it themselves." Sheldrake also notes it is accepted as a premise in countless works of fiction and it plays an important part in the relationship of people with animals and their pets.

It is, therefore, of considerable importance and significance to determine if such "mental influence," independent of other possible material means of human-to-human communication, does exist.

Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
You need to post a reference to a paper in an appropriate journal in order to make this claim. The journal must be found Here, in the master journal list. See the lower right corner of the page. What you are citing is not qualified for discussion here.
I'm sorry, Why should experiments that failed to prove or explain anything be published in this journal?, as I'm not a scientist.


Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
If you are to make this claim, then you need to post proof that you applied but were rejected.
But why should I provide proof for what I think could happen while it conforms to the common sense?. Also the situation at James Randi's forums is not promising. most people there, including his forum managers, say that Randi will refuse to test me. Here is a summary of the discussion (I'm sorry, I don't want any referrals to this thread at their forums that might jeopardize my application):
let me tell you a little bit about the Invisible Dragon.

Me: There's a dragon in my garage.
You: Cool! Could you show me a picture of it?
Me: Sorry, but no. It's invisible. But there really is a dragon in my garage.
You: Invisible, huh? What about IR?
Me: Sorry, it emits a magical kind of heat the doesn't show up on IR scopes.
You: Perhaps you could throw some flour into the garage? Surely some of it would stick to the dragon, or at least reveal its shape and footprints.
Me: Good idea! Only it's not really a very large dragon, so I probably wouldn't be able to catch it with the flour. Oh, and it's constantly levitating, so putting flour on the floor shouldn't show any footprints, sorry.
You: What about hitting the garage with a wide-angle spray from a fire hose?
Me: Ah, terrific! Only...the garage is too big to be completely covered by the spray and the dragon would just move out of the way as we panned it back and forth.
You: Multiple fire hoses?
Me: It might work, but the dragon is also telepathic. It could sense where we were going to play the hoses and move out of the way. Plus, I don't want that much water damage in my garage, sorry!
You: So there isn't any way to really prove that the dragon is there, is there?
Me: But it is there. Didn't I tell you that?

What's going on here is that the claim starts out simple, but as you try to brainstorm ideas for ways to actually test my claim, the claim starts to get more and more complex. Ultimately, the claim is untestable.

I am suggesting that your description of your ability to detect staring is turning out to be absolutely no different from my claim of a dragon in my garage.
Hi, I think the analogy here is wrong in regard to my claim .Here is my version of it :

Me: Dragons come to me in my garage.

skeptic: Cool! Could you show one to me?.

Me: Sorry, but no. they're invisible, i myself can't see them. But i can really sense when there is one in my garage.

skeptic : Invisible, huh? What about IR?.

Me :No, there is no scientific method to measure their existence but I'm sure there will be one in the future.

skeptic: but if you don't see them,how are you being so sure they're there ?.

Me:The Dragons somehow subconsciously transmit their existence to me by some kind of telepathic mean ,and when I receive this signal I shout at one of them saying "INVISIBLE DRAGON".at the same moment when i do that ,the Dragon will be trying to run and the whole house will be just like going down, it's like an earthquake.

skeptic: Yea, but there is confirmation bias here, you do speak loudly in your garage all the time and there would be no effect.

Me: True, but I've never shouted "INVISIBLE DRAGON" in my garage when I didn't sense the Dragons.

skeptic: Yea..but there is a possibility that when you shout "INVISIBLE DRAGON" and there will be no effect.also there could be an actual earthquake at the same moment.

Me: True, this is possible, but I can do this many times.

skeptic: You seem to be delusional here , how about I get you an elephant from behind, and you shout when you sense it ?.

Me: No, I only can do that with those invisible Dragons and I've never tested it with elephants.

skeptic: But this makes your claim untestable.

Me: Why? .The same moment I shout "INVISIBLE DRAGON" there will be an earthquake.

skeptic: Yea right ... How about you tell your Dragon to come to my lab,so we can test your claim ?.

Me: No, I can't order the dragons to do anything , they come and go by their wish ,they're afraid of humans, and they don't want anyone to know about their existence. Also even if one of the dragons came to me in the lab, it will not be caught off guard and won't try to escape, the dragon will be prepared and will not do anything that can actually prove its existence.

skeptic: OK, how many times you can do this in your garage ?.

Me: I can do it thousand times.

skeptic: hmmm...But how about if there are also thousand actual earthquakes at the same moment ?.

Me: What! ... I'm hanging myself in my the garage.

Maybe it's not perfect but it's pretty close
There is no actual difference between my analogy and yours: both are untestable scenarios.

By "untestable" I mean, of course, a test in which all other possibilities that could explain your claim are controlled for -- in other words, the test rules them out. So the only possible explanation is that what you claim is actually happening.

However, your own analogy points to a scenario in which these types of controls are impossible. Therefore, it is an analogy of an untestable scenario; the end result is exactly the same as my scenario, which is also an untestable scenario.

So, in conclusion, you are stating that your claim is untestable.

The only protocol you have suggested does not provide the necessary controls to rule out other explanations for what you are experiencing, leaving only your explanation. Therefore, it is unsuitable.

Because it is unsuitable, you have to come up with a better protocol. Kindly stop pointing to that protocol as evidence that you have a protocol. It is not an acceptable protocol, therefore you do not have an acceptable protocol.

A number of protocols have been proposed that have pretty good controls
Many people there are so obsessed with the confirmation bias that they're actually biased to the disconfirmation!.

Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
I see no evidence to support that.
Well, I'm a believer in science (implied by my previous post), my god is the evolution of my species and my definition of skepticism is: not to accept anything without proof but also not to reject anything that can be proved. Does this make a good skeptic?.

Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
Please quote and link the information that makes this clear. I am no Randi fan, but you will have to back up each claim that you make with proof.
I heard him say that in a video at YouTube. I don't have the link now but I'm searching for it.

Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
Here is the problem that I have with your claims here. You are claiming a repeatable phenomenon. That can be tested, so we don't need to take your word for it. You could go to a university and find someone that will allow you to demonstrate your claim.
I still can't find anyone at home who are willing to test me, but are you willing to accept a test that is done in a public place?. I mean can a test be controlled in a public place?.

Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
You can return and make your claims when you have credible scientific evidence. Until then, I am suspending any further discussion of it. You are only allowed to post the evidence and information requested.
There is no reason for me to be here if I have this evidence because this is exactly why I'm here. I want some opinions about the controlled test that should be accepted as credible scientific evidence, and also the one that James Randi should accept. I'm not here to prove anything and I don't have much more to say about my claim.

I must say that I'm confused. I can almost say that this is a peer-reviewed journal, not a public forum that allows its members to discuss their opinions that are at least backed by logical evidence or the common sense. After all this is the S&D forum, right?.
Ivan Seeking
Ivan Seeking is offline
#46
May19-09, 11:23 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,493
Quote Quote by SDetection View Post
I must say that I'm confused. I can almost say that this is a peer-reviewed journal, not a public forum that allows its members to discuss their opinions that are at least backed by logical evidence or the common sense. After all this is the S&D forum, right?.
I told you the problem: You are making a claim of a repeatable phenomenon. So, no, this is not a place to make claims that cannot be supported.
Ivan Seeking
Ivan Seeking is offline
#47
May19-09, 08:04 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,493
You have been allowed to share your story, but any repeatable phenomenon can be properly tested and the information published. That is a job for science and journals and there is no need to duplicate the effort. It is also far beyond the scope of this forum. Here, for perspective, we discuss and explore claims that are more difficult to test or quantify.
Ivan Seeking
Ivan Seeking is offline
#48
May20-09, 12:34 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,493
Anyone who believes they have so-called paranormal abilities that can be demonstrated on demand, could try contacting the SSE.

The Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) is a professional organization of scientists and scholars who study unusual and unexplained phenomena. Subjects often cross mainstream boundaries, such as consciousness, ufos, and alternative medicine, yet often have profound implications for human knowledge and technology. All topics amenable to scientific inquiry are welcome...
http://www.scientificexploration.org/

Note however that the Journal of the SSE is not found in our master journal list, so it is not acceptable here as a scientific reference. It may be used as anecdotal evidence.
SDetection
SDetection is offline
#49
May21-09, 12:40 PM
P: 98
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
You have been allowed to share your story, but any repeatable phenomenon can be properly tested and the information published. That is a job for science and journals and there is no need to duplicate the effort. It is also far beyond the scope of this forum. Here, for perspective, we discuss and explore claims that are more difficult to test or quantify.
Yes but it's hard to get the scientific attention for this phenomenon because of the prejudgment. But passing the skeptics will be a major step in getting the researchers attention.

I just want to say something: It's not repeatable by the obvious meaning.
Because in normal everyday life no one will stare at something without having a strong interest in doing so, it's certainly a matter of the brain not the eyes. So, I can't make this phenomenon happen literally "on demand".
In my suggested protocol which is in a public place, neither me nor the testers are aware of the starers, and these are not aware of anything. So, no one knows where or when a hit will happen.
It's impossible for the testers to count any misses, and there is a rare possibility of fake false positives. Also, on the testers demand, there will be simulated detections on my part to eliminate the possibility of tester's confirmation bias in case most people stare at me most of the time.

I don't know what this kind of test can be called but I'm sure it can prove, beyond doubt, that this phenomenon actually has no known conventional explanation. But, until now, no one seems to agree with me, and most people at the JREF forums say that this protocol is inappropriate and will be rejected, I still don't know why. They wanted something like this simple and the first suggested protocol:
How's this:

You sit in a chair. Another person sits or stands behind you. There is a light in front of you, which both of you can see.

When the light comes on, the person behind you flips a coin. If it comes up heads, he stares at you. If tails, he stares at something else. You write down whether you think he is staring at you or not. The person behind you writes down whether he actually stared at you.

Repeat many times. Start with ten and work up from there.

At the end of the test, compare notes.
I can't do that!. If it was that easy it would have been proved already!.

It's easy for me to test myself, but because the testers can't measure this sense nor simulate people's intentions, testing this is not easy as you think.

Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
Anyone who believes they have so-called paranormal abilities that can be demonstrated on demand, could try contacting the SSE.
It seems that you checked the discussion. Well, I didn't tell them that everyone can do that, and I used words like 'paranormal' or 'telepathy' because that what they expect to hear from a claimant. I pretended the ignorance sometimes and used Poe's Law. I don't believe in everything I said there.

Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
http://www.scientificexploration.org/

Note however that the Journal of the SSE is not found in our master journal list, so it is not acceptable here as a scientific reference. It may be used as anecdotal evidence.
OK, thanks . I wish I was a scientist or have the resources to do the research by myself.
Ivan Seeking
Ivan Seeking is offline
#50
May21-09, 01:55 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,493
Quote Quote by SDetection View Post
Yes but it's hard to get the scientific attention for this phenomenon because of the prejudgment. But passing the skeptics will be a major step in getting the researchers attention.
No it won't. I will make this as clear as I can without issuing a citation. You are done. Any further responses about your claim will be deleted and a citation issued.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
NASA develops 'mind-reading' [nerve signal reading] system Computing & Technology 12
Emotions are evil? General Discussion 21
Monitoring people's emotions and abilities Computing & Technology 0
We can analize are feelings General Discussion 1
People's titles. Forum Feedback & Announcements 1