Regumika
Well-known member
EveWasFramed said:Nightwing said:...but unfortunately it's not got any real practical uses.
That's your OPINION.
From my personal EXPERIENCE (and I've been around for quite a number of years) the information is fairly accurate and probably useful for a lot of people. It does have practical use. People shouldn't scoff at something just because they think someone is using practical information for profit.
If you don't mind, Eve, I would like to expand on that. Nightwing, from what I have gathered.. the 'journalist' you spoke of was reporting regarding a fact, a rule, a law. What the study mentioned in the OP used was most likely observation. Of course, this kind of thing does not have a rule. Everyone is different, but there are behaviors that are more common and therefore quite reliable. You can't claim observations as laws though, they are just very good guidelines. But just because it's only 90% accurate doesn't mean it's all wrong.
Let me give an example of getting punched in the face, for no reason or warning. What are the common reactions? Fight back in anger, fight back for justice, frozen in surprise, cower in fear, or probably the rarest - laugh and walk away. Now if there was a study on that, you can study on why the person wanted to punch you in the first place, or you can study on the reactions. But it's all observation. Human beings are not 100% predictable. You can be almost predictable, but not 100%. So in these cases.. it IS safe to say it's wrong, but not all of it.
So.. the whole Body language.. Yes, it's wrong. 10% of it? but it's still ~90% accurate.
Oh, and people can act. some better than others. So take it with a grain of salt.
Human beings.... /smh