<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.7" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Life-Size Faces</title>
	<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/05/06/life-size-faces/</link>
	<description>Self-Experimentation, Scientific Method, the Shangri-La Diet, etc.</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 07:40:47 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: seth</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/05/06/life-size-faces/#comment-235931</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2008 05:00:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/05/06/life-size-faces/#comment-235931</guid>
					<description>The mirror is about 1.0-1.5 feet away -- making the face appear to be twice that distant. I don't consciously measure it, I just try to make the face appear the proper distance for a conversation. 

I don't understand the question "what if this predates language?" Could you make more explicit what the question is?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The mirror is about 1.0-1.5 feet away &#8212; making the face appear to be twice that distant. I don&#8217;t consciously measure it, I just try to make the face appear the proper distance for a conversation. </p>
<p>I don&#8217;t understand the question &#8220;what if this predates language?&#8221; Could you make more explicit what the question is?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Tim</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/05/06/life-size-faces/#comment-235795</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:47:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/05/06/life-size-faces/#comment-235795</guid>
					<description>Can you be more specific about your mirror distances?  I ask because mirrors have some properties that may not be obvious.  You say that your face in the mirror is exactly life-sized.  Actually, your own face in the mirror is exactly half life-sized.  This means that if you stand three feet away, it would be like having a conversation with someone six feet away (makes sense, as the light is traveling six feet).

Another question I have about your post is you theorize this effect is because people used to chat with their neighbors shortly after waking.  What if this predates language?  I can't imagine 30-60 minutes of non-verbal communication to start your stone age day, but in any case stone age chatting was probably different than our chatting, and perhaps there's something to that.

Great blog!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can you be more specific about your mirror distances?  I ask because mirrors have some properties that may not be obvious.  You say that your face in the mirror is exactly life-sized.  Actually, your own face in the mirror is exactly half life-sized.  This means that if you stand three feet away, it would be like having a conversation with someone six feet away (makes sense, as the light is traveling six feet).</p>
<p>Another question I have about your post is you theorize this effect is because people used to chat with their neighbors shortly after waking.  What if this predates language?  I can&#8217;t imagine 30-60 minutes of non-verbal communication to start your stone age day, but in any case stone age chatting was probably different than our chatting, and perhaps there&#8217;s something to that.</p>
<p>Great blog!
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: seth</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/05/06/life-size-faces/#comment-16944</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2007 16:10:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/05/06/life-size-faces/#comment-16944</guid>
					<description>I don't know. I've never tried them. They might fail because of what is called "rapid adaptation"  in the nervous system -- an example of which is the way the second sip of orange juice tastes quite different from the first. I do wonder if I would get better results looking at several faces, not just mine, over the course of an hour. But I haven't yet tested that possibility.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t know. I&#8217;ve never tried them. They might fail because of what is called &#8220;rapid adaptation&#8221;  in the nervous system &#8212; an example of which is the way the second sip of orange juice tastes quite different from the first. I do wonder if I would get better results looking at several faces, not just mine, over the course of an hour. But I haven&#8217;t yet tested that possibility.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Johnny Ingles</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/05/06/life-size-faces/#comment-16940</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:55:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/05/06/life-size-faces/#comment-16940</guid>
					<description>What about photographic portraits, would they work?  Or does the face have to be moving?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What about photographic portraits, would they work?  Or does the face have to be moving?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: seth</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/05/06/life-size-faces/#comment-11951</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2007 15:39:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/05/06/life-size-faces/#comment-11951</guid>
					<description>I'll be a little surprised if still photos work, but I haven't tested them. 

In one experiment I did I compared sound + video of faces with sound alone -- the sound alone did nothing. I think hearing voices can reduce feelings of loneliness but that is quite different than the faces effect.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ll be a little surprised if still photos work, but I haven&#8217;t tested them. </p>
<p>In one experiment I did I compared sound + video of faces with sound alone &#8212; the sound alone did nothing. I think hearing voices can reduce feelings of loneliness but that is quite different than the faces effect.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: dilys</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/05/06/life-size-faces/#comment-11937</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2007 13:06:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/05/06/life-size-faces/#comment-11937</guid>
					<description>I entered the Eastern Orthodox church a while ago, and the "wallpaper" of large icons, often faces, sometimes whole figures -- in most churches distinguishes this tradition. One practice is to gaze at icons while praying. At what point of "reality" (obviously mirrors and videos are effective) in terms of stylization and motion do you think the cut-off might be for this phenomenon to be at work (not of course that I'm making a reductive suggestion that this is &lt;i&gt;all&lt;/i&gt; there is going on)?

As to collective religious wisdom, I seem to remember also that there were studies that Catholic monks who engaged frequently in Gregorian chant were healthier, less depressed, and needed less sleep, than monks where there was less chant. I don't suppose you have undertaken any experiments with sonorous humming... :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I entered the Eastern Orthodox church a while ago, and the &#8220;wallpaper&#8221; of large icons, often faces, sometimes whole figures &#8212; in most churches distinguishes this tradition. One practice is to gaze at icons while praying. At what point of &#8220;reality&#8221; (obviously mirrors and videos are effective) in terms of stylization and motion do you think the cut-off might be for this phenomenon to be at work (not of course that I&#8217;m making a reductive suggestion that this is <i>all</i> there is going on)?</p>
<p>As to collective religious wisdom, I seem to remember also that there were studies that Catholic monks who engaged frequently in Gregorian chant were healthier, less depressed, and needed less sleep, than monks where there was less chant. I don&#8217;t suppose you have undertaken any experiments with sonorous humming&#8230; <img src='http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' />
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: seth</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/05/06/life-size-faces/#comment-11753</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 May 2007 15:16:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/05/06/life-size-faces/#comment-11753</guid>
					<description>The likelihood of such a study in the next few years is low. I for one would be interested in a list of the bloggers you found helpful.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The likelihood of such a study in the next few years is low. I for one would be interested in a list of the bloggers you found helpful.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: MorningPerson</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/05/06/life-size-faces/#comment-11631</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2007 23:08:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/05/06/life-size-faces/#comment-11631</guid>
					<description>I’ve been using the faces method for some time now, with significant (but not perfect) success.  I’ve found that the more directly the face looks at the camera the better results I get and that there is diminished efficacy when the face diverges even just 20 or 30 degrees from directly facing the camera.  I also found that a more interesting and compelling speaker gets better results, most likely because it causes me to focus more closely on the speaker’s face. 

I too have tried Booknotes, which worked, but I eventually ran out of interesting lectures in which the speaker was facing directly at the camera.  I also spent some time with You-Tube blogs (I also watched LucyinLA!) but found them unwieldy and impractical.  The videos are typically very short and even the bloggers that most often provide a lot of face time vary in the amount of direct face time each particular one of their videos provides.  Because of this, I ended up spending a lot of time looking for good videos, bouncing around among different videos and watching videos without a lot of good face time.  It was difficult to get a quality 30 or 40 minutes of face time every day.  However, if anybody wants, I can post a list of the bloggers that I found most helpful.

I am currently using The Teaching Company lecture series.  I’ve found that in some of the series the lecturers provide a more direct camera gaze for more of the time than in others and it is difficult to gauge before ordering how good a particular series will be.  It’s also worth mentioning, in case any of you decide to order from them, that their website provides information on how prevalent visual aides (charts, graphs, photos) are in each series.  The fewer visual aides the better, as they take away from direct face time. 

I asked The Teaching Company to post excerpts of their videos on their website (that way I can see which videos are better before ordering).  Maybe if enough people request it they will listen!

Janet: I was considering posting on Craigslist a while back but I decided that the post would sound pretty weird to most people who have never heard of the faces method and I would just attract a lot of strange characters (I live in NYC) as opposed to people with whom I would actually be able to have productive morning sessions.

Finally, I wish there were a group study of people who tried the faces technique, so that we could know the percentages of people that achieved positive results.  Seth, any thoughts on the likelihood of a study?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I’ve been using the faces method for some time now, with significant (but not perfect) success.  I’ve found that the more directly the face looks at the camera the better results I get and that there is diminished efficacy when the face diverges even just 20 or 30 degrees from directly facing the camera.  I also found that a more interesting and compelling speaker gets better results, most likely because it causes me to focus more closely on the speaker’s face. </p>
<p>I too have tried Booknotes, which worked, but I eventually ran out of interesting lectures in which the speaker was facing directly at the camera.  I also spent some time with You-Tube blogs (I also watched LucyinLA!) but found them unwieldy and impractical.  The videos are typically very short and even the bloggers that most often provide a lot of face time vary in the amount of direct face time each particular one of their videos provides.  Because of this, I ended up spending a lot of time looking for good videos, bouncing around among different videos and watching videos without a lot of good face time.  It was difficult to get a quality 30 or 40 minutes of face time every day.  However, if anybody wants, I can post a list of the bloggers that I found most helpful.</p>
<p>I am currently using The Teaching Company lecture series.  I’ve found that in some of the series the lecturers provide a more direct camera gaze for more of the time than in others and it is difficult to gauge before ordering how good a particular series will be.  It’s also worth mentioning, in case any of you decide to order from them, that their website provides information on how prevalent visual aides (charts, graphs, photos) are in each series.  The fewer visual aides the better, as they take away from direct face time. </p>
<p>I asked The Teaching Company to post excerpts of their videos on their website (that way I can see which videos are better before ordering).  Maybe if enough people request it they will listen!</p>
<p>Janet: I was considering posting on Craigslist a while back but I decided that the post would sound pretty weird to most people who have never heard of the faces method and I would just attract a lot of strange characters (I live in NYC) as opposed to people with whom I would actually be able to have productive morning sessions.</p>
<p>Finally, I wish there were a group study of people who tried the faces technique, so that we could know the percentages of people that achieved positive results.  Seth, any thoughts on the likelihood of a study?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: seth</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/05/06/life-size-faces/#comment-11177</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2007 02:00:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/05/06/life-size-faces/#comment-11177</guid>
					<description>Thanks for the alphaxp lite info. The faces need to be looking directly at you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the alphaxp lite info. The faces need to be looking directly at you.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: pdf23ds</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/05/06/life-size-faces/#comment-11151</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2007 23:31:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/05/06/life-size-faces/#comment-11151</guid>
					<description>Search for "alphaxp lite" to find a free program to make windows transparent. I'm going to try using that program with my web browser and a desktop background of a face to see if it helps. Do the faces need to be facing directly at you, or can they be at, say, a 45 degree angle from the camera?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Search for &#8220;alphaxp lite&#8221; to find a free program to make windows transparent. I&#8217;m going to try using that program with my web browser and a desktop background of a face to see if it helps. Do the faces need to be facing directly at you, or can they be at, say, a 45 degree angle from the camera?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
