No More Pencils

I just read an article entitled Invisible Smiles, reproduced in the 4 April issue of the Week. It reports on a study carried out at Kyoto University. The article says the report was published in the journal Royal Society Open Science.

The study compared the ability of young people in their 20s and people in the 70s to recognise facial expressions. In particular, the participants were shown a smile, an annoyed face, and a neutral face. The study showed that older people were good at recognising annoyed expressions but not smiles.

Younger people were better at recognising smiles. Older people found it harder to classify an expression as a smile or a neutral face.

The conclusion was that older people need to be more protective, so they hone their skill in recognising threats.

Well yes, possibly.

The faces the subjects were shown were real faces. The following quote is from the Invisible Smiles review at Royal Society Open Science. The review is under the title Older adults detect happy facial expressions less rapidly. And it was published 25 March 2020 by Akie Saito , Wataru Sato and Sakiko Yoshikawa

“Photographs of real faces displaying normal expressions and anti-expressions of anger and happiness served as target stimuli; neutral facial expressions served as distractor stimuli.”

Here’s another interpretation of the results: Perhaps the older people were wiser and more adept at seeing behind the smile.

Compare This To Estimating The Passage Of Time

It would be different if for example the older group were unable to judge the passage of time. Let’s say the older group were unable to estimate five minutes as accurately as the younger group. Unless one wants to be truly solipsist, we can all agree that the measurement of time is independent of interpretation. We can all verify how much time has passed by looking at a watch. In the absence of a timepiece we are all either good or bad at knowing how much time has passed.

But any study that depends on the interpretation of a facial expression depends on something else. It depends on the universality of agreement as to what the expression signifies. So let’s say an older age group of people see the facial expressions differently. What does it mean? It may mean that they are more able to discriminate facial expressions.

Happy Birthday sung twice is the length of time for which one should wash one hands after possible contact with the corona virus, the Prime Minister Boris Johnson suggested today.

He said that people should wash their hands with soap and water. He didn’t explain why that is effective, but it dissolves the lipid membrane of the virus and destroys it.

This follows the advice from the Government health advisors that one should wash ones hands for twenty seconds.

I imagine the Prime Minister or someone in his office realised that without a watch handy, people would have a poor idea of how long twenty seconds is. In contrast, we know how long to sing Happy Birthday twice. We just sing it. But how fast do we sing it? Well, if we imagine we are singing it to someone, we know how fast that is.

The Talmud

In the Talmud a question is asked as to how long one should allow a witness under oath to change the narrative of their evidence.

Should one believe them if they say something and then fifteen minutes later contradict what they said?

Peace Be With You, Teacher And Rabbi

The Talmud considered the question and decided the length of time for testimony to be accepted as continuous without alteration. They decided it should be the time it takes a person to say Peace be with you, teacher and rabbi.

if a witness takes longer than this then we question the truth of the testimony. We don’t automatically reject it, but it gives us cause to wonder. That change of testimony becomes part of the evidence.

The beauty of this is something we all recognise. That is that there is a speed and a cadence to the way that a person would say Peace be with you, teacher and rabbi. We would not rush the sentence, or if we did then we would say that is not the correct speed. And if we were to slow down to a crawl we would say that is not correct either.

Therefore, anyone can estimate the time without needing a watch or a timer. And it is something that can span all ages. Therefore we can always know how long a witness can take to correct his testimony.

To confuse things a little, another version gives a slightly shorter version, which is Peace be with you rabbi. I guess the decision might hinge on what testimony is being given and by whom.

I forgot the source of the decision. So I asked at the place I used to study – and received this reply.

The source is the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Makkos 6. The Talmud teaches that a witness can retract their testimony within tokh k’dei dibur (תוך כדי דיבור) or the space between what is said.

Happy Birthday Sung Twice

So, for washing one’s hands after possible contact with the corona virus, it’s Happy Birthday sung twice.

I wonder how the Prime Minister’s office came up with that particular piece of advice. And who specifically came up with it?

Was it Boris Johnson himself? He has a good educational background, so he may know about the Talmudic decision. Or it may be coincidence.

In conversation with friends recently I’ve been saying that the economic downturn could be the best thing that has happened for the chance to stop the destruction of the environment.

I want to take a moment to say that there is a tremendous danger in arguing that the reason to stop polluting the Earth is to prevent the kinds of catastrophe that global warming is likely to bring about. Of course that is a very potent reason.

But let us suppose that someone came up with a sky-scrubber that sat ten miles up in the atmosphere and pulled all the hydrocarbons and excess CO2 out of the system. Let us suppose it was up there, chugging away and cleaning up the mess. Would that be a reason to treat the Earth like a toilet and keep on pumping rubbish into it?

No it wouldn’t.

Treating The Earth With Respect

Treating the Earth with respect requires no more reason than a tree needs a reason to be there and to go on growing.

Having got that out of the way, I have been arguing that the economic downturn (a phrase I prefer to ‘going off a cliff’) presents the best opportunity we could hope for in order that responsible government would have the power to force big business to clean up its act.

And big business is more likely to be in a frame of mind to listen, quite apart from being weak and having to listen.

Psychologically, when you are running at 100 miles per hour, making money and the world is full of smiles, you are least likely to listen to that still small voice inside telling you that you are destroying everything around you.

But when things turn bad, you are more likely to listen.

Which brings me to the report by Reuters and the Wall Street Journal. President Obama is said to have required the automakers to build a ‘company of the future’ with clean and energy-efficient vehicles as a condition of giving financial aid.

The political administration would have had a much harder time bringing this about if everything business was doing well.

And this carries into every other field where government is strong. This decade could be just what is needed for the tipping point to tip the right way.