Michael Brady writes: > There is practically no intelligent public political > discourse in the U.S. that relies on sound and moving images. > For what it's worth: I find a moving face "tells" me a great deal about some characteristics of the speaker. As a snotty smart-ass in college, I used to amuse my mates by pointing out someone talking across the room, and I'd estimate her "IQ". Now, screw IQ; today I can give a long speech about its inadequacies as a measure, but sometimes a mate would use my declaration about a woman as the pretext to approach her, and my estimate was regularly within three or four points of some test she'd recently had. "Dynamic physiognomy!" I'd bawl grandiloquently. "Can't do it from a still photograph, but show me a moving face, and I'll score 'em."
'Regularly' does not entail "always". Still, I'm not alone in making certain judgments from facial conduct. "I don't trust him." "Bogus." "He's lying right now." -- pronouncements I've heard uttered by people who couldn't even know what the person was saying -- and yet, often their call turned out to be right. This is especially so when the person is under pressure. As Tolstoy almost said, "Happy faces are all alike; unhappy faces. . ." Meantime, Michael also mentions, "good 25-year old double-malt Scotch." Spoken like a true teetotaler! Eade's attempt to concoct the new term for their blend of two malts in a certain way has run into a lot of sarcastic disdain. ************** New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)
