Danioover9000

UPDATE!!! They have recovered the Titan, and apparently there are human remains: Don't know yet what conditions are the remains are or like. Couple of days experts were saying that when the implosion happened all 5 would have been cooked or tomato past from the immense pressure and implosion.

@StarStruck ChatGPT 4.

@Majed @StarStruck Sure, but that doesn't excuse Tate's webcam girls and pimping tactics, tax evasion and having a very sexist and misogynistic view. Yes, Pat's got better character than Andrew Tate and better morality, which is kinda sad to see him appearing to run cover stories for the Tates especially after that BBC interview. How about you both stop posting in a low consciousness manner first, instead of telling me what and how to write my own posts? Thanks.

@Majed I would say, based on developmental factors like SD stages of development, cognitive and moral development, personality types/traits, 9 stages of ego development, states and modes of being and becoming, other lines of development in one's life and societal domains, ideological beliefs indoctrinated, groomed and gaslight by upbringing and culture, and self biases and preferences, Pat's character is more developed than Andrew's especially in stage blue and orange. Andrew too immature and manipulative compared to Pat, even though Pat does manipulate he's more a solid in his blue and orange values more than Andrew Tate.

@StarStruck And Andrew Tate, don't forget the traffic police man. However, him running covers and excuses for Andrew is suspect though. I like how he does his interviews, even if he's deeply biased and can't think of the bigger picture.

@ItsNick The blind leading the blind. I don't think Patrick even FEELS shame or embarrassment for these kinds of behaviours, it'll take something very serious for him to stop being this immature.

@Ajax Yes, there could be correlation between medication use, like anti depressants, and lower range of emotional outputs and expressions. Same bald guy you've linked also did a body language analysis on Michael Jackson, and did bring up that when analyzing people with strong medication, and those that did facial constructive surgeries and Botox injections and so on, that typically these medical preventions can interfere to some extent the normal expressions of a person's face. Chronic depression, insomnia, and deep apathy related emotions on a daily can effect not just the range of facial expressions but general body expressions. Also a factor is socialization, or the lack of, and maybe I'm wrong here, the infrequent use of one's mirrors to see one's face, or the infrequent visualization of a face in our mind. That and many other factors could combine up to give that level of resting bitch face or that level of not caring. For Brian Cox I don't think it's medication related, could be a factor, but I'd bet it's deeply psychological, and related to his ego being identified as and constructed as a scientist and rationalist. In fact, typically with very hardcore atheists and rationalists and skeptics, not just Brian Cox, for example maybe Richard Dawkins types they are so deeply identified with the left brain and the logical being and role that deep in their psyche there's a much larger gap of walls between rational and emotions, and rational is over valued in these types of personalities. There's too much head space activity with little to very little heart space activity, so what you'd expect to be some normal ranges of emotions and facial and body expressions tend to be much more lower and much more suppressed. Although with him I do sense some emotional leaks in his tonality especially when talking of his interest, it just FEELS, and people like him, that there's this thick dam constructed that really suppresses that range of expressions and emotions. Also, thanks for sharing this guy! I was thinking of sharing, until I forgot to and thought I'm missing another body language channel to include, and he's pretty good too.

Nice range of body language and tonality, and interesting interview setting, will be reviewing later: Plus this clip too:

@Leo Gura Yes, I mostly agree, with every start of a hobby or work, there needs to be love and passion to help lubricate the friction that is boredom and tediousness. IMO obvious but not so with Buddhists and spiritualists??

@Danioover9000 Imma first analyze this rattle snake guys takes, and determine if he is a deceptive snake or defensively coiled, no pun intended: 1. Heavy emphasis and appealing to logos throughout the video, and some ethos and least pathos(guy covering a debate and argument of capitalism and communism, with a strange hairstyle and weird plain T-shirt? Come on, the guys debating at least make better appeals to authority and pathos by trying to look the part, but you just look poor and strange). Lots of hand emphasis and activity and around the face in the intro, although IMO the intro is misleading because in this debate there's not a clear dunk or clear victor, just two debaters and the rattle snake reviewer here, who are all ignorant of the developmental factors like SD stages of development, cognitive and moral development, personality types/traits, states of consciousness, 9 stages of ego development, other lines of development in one's life domains and societal domains, ideological beliefs indoctrinated from upbringing and culture, and self biases and preferences from which these debates and arguments serve to protect and defend each egos' biases and ideas and SURVIVAL, which is why ALL HUMAN BEINGS are DEEPLY BIASED, and use logic and reasoning and appeals to such to disingenuously look and appear superior to the other. Because if true that LOGIC and OBJECTIVITY are infallible, then I couldn't lie and bend and invent numbers and statistics up in my English presentation class back when I was in high school, I wouldn't and couldn't lie with logic, yet I pulled it off, and given how liars and manipulators use alibis to defend themselves, guilty or not, and the detectives using logic to, in good faith or not, try to get a confession, already I intuitively grasped the limits and corruptions of logic. 2. In the debate itself, Hasan's posture remains consistent, mostly crossed leg, left leg pointing to mod and debater, usually legs point away as non verbal defensiveness, left hand mostly rests on left knee, for bracing and applying some tension later on when he feels defensive, and mostly stays leaning onto the chair, with subtle variations, tonality is also consistent with sometimes spiking in louder volume for emphasis and for ethos appealing, more empathy seeking and softer, slight confidence and assertiveness but I'm picking more supplicative tone, appealing to the humanity more than to the logic. The capitalist debater here, in contrast, mostly maintains upright sitting, or leans forwards with elbows resting on knees, forwards more to audience than to Hasan or mod, more assertive and somewhat aggressive, and commanding. Briefly, moderator also appears generally closed off, but look ant his legs: crossed over, with his right leg pointing to Hasan and away from the capitalist debater, non verbally agreeing with Hasan over the other, and at least more comfortable with Hasan over the other, very interesting. 3. 1:44 - 1:47, IMO I don't like this part. Firstly, it's an edited jump clip, so Rattlesnake guy here made a cut and jumped to this part. Capitalist guy upright sitting, with commanding and authoritative tone, and right hand emphasizing by bobbing up and down or bouncing, with this 'okay' symbol of the index and thumb together with middle, ring and pinky fingers upright but together not spread, whilst saying "JUST because someone gets rich-" and WAGGING his right index at Hasan followed by "Does not mean someone gets POOR(wagging ends with sudden whip downwards with index, emphasizing POOR". I don't like wagging fingers because this body language sign is more of an aggressive non-verbal rejection and dismissal of another's point, reserved mostly as some condescending way of saying no to children whilst belittling them, which I and the body language analysist community don't recommend wagging a finger, side to side towards a person, or vertically at a person, and ESPECIALLY pointing at a person because subconsciously a pointing finger reminds use of spears or swords or weapons that are dangerous and can damage and pierce us. Whether his wagging is intentionally to belittle and reject Hasan or he's subconsciously ready to fight I'm not sure. Overall consistent expressive and emphasizing right hand per word choices and still authoritative tonality, before he switches to holding the mike with right and left hand takes over, expressive towards Hasan and Mod. This bit, at 2:14 to 2:16, capital guy goes " You know what?(left hand emphasis vertically) I DON'T HAVE TO CALL YOURSELVES SOCIALISTS Bernie Sanders( left hand emphasizes again, palms now turn upwards and more open, fingers more pointing to mods and Hasan) calls himself SOCIALIST." This part camera zooms in by Rattlesnake's decision which is a bit suspect, Hasan give very quick, tonality and influx very light at the end of "Yeah!" followed by a quick eyebrow raise which typically non verbals for surprise, social approval seeking or emphasis on what's said, IMO probably surprise he's agreeing while capital guys says "And we SHOULD REJECT SOCIALISM", and second "Yeah." is a quick shoulder shrugging mostly from his left, his left arm which is bracing against his closed, crossed off upper left leg, quick nods too, as if Hasan agrees with that second part, and finally before the jump cut mod was facing capital guy, but turns to Hasan with a smirking or contempt smile on his left side of face, not sure what this could mean. Reason this part I am sensitive of is because this zoom in and jump cut is mostly by Rattle snake guy's choice, as if he want s the audience to think Hasan is agreeing with capital guy's points, as if Hasan is a hypocrite, when in fact he's agreeing specifically with the prior word choices and points capital guy brought up with Bernie Sanders calling himself a socialist, and not with the rejection of socialism point, which is disingenuous from this YouTuber IMO.

Another interesting video to analyze the body language, tonality, non verbals, and framing of the situation:

@Intraplanetary What I know is that I have a heart, mind, soul, and know enough that finding your passion first is important, then it becomes easier to dedicate more time into honing your skills, because there's alignment with that passion, heart, mind and soul. I at least know my own perspective, but unfortunately your POV is strange to me, like why do you risk more boredom and tediousness by over committing into one craft too early, without knowing or feeling if this one area in life, in career, the skills, is actually making you happy and fulfilled in life? It's like you're a robot to me, on the other end of the spectrum. I don't know, but you do you, maybe your mistakes are to MY advantage, and might benefit me in the long run, make my life much easier.?

@Princess Arabia OP is a she? Probably OP did read your post but chose not to respond for whatever reason. I'm probably dealing with one of those logical types of personalities or something, maybe, I don't know. I just intuit that passion is a pretty important emotion, and the discovery of what makes a person passionate is where that person then can justify dedicating most of their free time into mastery and harder work and training into the field they discover is very interesting to them. The other way around is possible, but more difficult, and actually can trigger more tedious and boredom feelings much earlier, which, if the person has not enough will power or passion, cannot overcome and might just surrender to a more mediocre life. I just think that life is already difficult, or sometimes very difficult, so emotions are important, and discipline too, to get through life, and passion is several of those emotions that can fuel that drive.

@Intraplanetary I'm sorry I hurt your feel feels, but even some users in YOUR thread are agreeing with me over you because they intuitively get which order is important here: FINDING PASSION first, then DEDICATION. It's like if Robert Green here is over emphasizing the discipline and hard work ethic and dry logical and logistics of mastery that comes later over passion, passion that sparks that fuels the liveliness of seeking and the journey to mastery, he's overlooking HOW IMPORTANT PASSION IS for MASTERY, the thing he's DEDICATED to talking about, like he's LOVING JUST TALKING about MASTERY yet FORGETTING how IMPORTANT PASSION IS! It's like talking about sex and pornography, and the speaker ignores the passions and lusty feelings and joys and the sexual visions of a sexy life of having proper sex, and only focuses on one sexual technique and the mechanical-robotic-business-transactional-like-nature of pornography, like using one finger. Nobody cares enough to master the one finger technique if NOBODY is encouraged to find what makes them passionate deep inside in themselves, to seek and find that passion to improve their sex lives, yogic sex positions, and so on. It's a big journey that needs a spark, that needs MOTIVATION, that needs LONGING, that needs AMBITION AND DRIVE, that NEEDS DESIRE! And that spark is PASSION! Something this robot in this video LACKS because he ONLY LOVES TALKING ABOUT MASTERY AND NOT PASSION!! HE'S A SEELOUT OF REASON AND LOGIC AND BETRAYS THE EMOTIONAL AND INTUITIVE, THAT WHICH IS IMPORTANT FIRST BEFORE LOGIC!!! And YES! It's in a spectrum, but the order of importance here is find that which makes you passionate FIRST, then dedicate time and energy and other resources. FIND WHAT MAKES YOU PASSIONATE FIRST. That's the proper order.

Also, not just appeals to pathos and ethos as frequent, but of all the appeals and fallacies, appeals to logos is the most dangerous IMO as it's considered widely acceptable in consensus reality that LOGOS can't be coopted by ego or FEELINGS..

@Ajax IMO, based on developmental factors like Spiral Dynamics stages of development, cognitive and moral development, personality types/traits, 9 stages of ego development, states of being and becoming, other lines of development in life to societal domains, ideological beliefs indoctrinated in upbringing and culture, and self biases and other biases I'd rather get judged and assessed based on BOTH my actions, speeches and my character, not one over the other. Yes, it's okay to give constructive critique or general more of an attacking critic of a person's actions here when they break laws or are immoral and harm and are dangerous to other people's well beings, but so is critiquing the person himself or herself as well, the stem from which these questionable actions com from too. I'd be careful with heavily appealing to logos, to being objective, using reason and logic, and being fair and impartial. These appeals are disingenuous because these appeals are used by the ego mind to justify and defend it's egoic takes and biases against other egos trying to threaten it's own SURVIVAL. Like the term 'facts over feelings.', this doesn't mean FACTS ARE SUPERIOR TO FEELINGS, BUT RATHER FEELINGS ARE SUPERIOR TO FACTS, THAT FACTS ARE PARTIAL AND FEELINGS ARE TOTAL, that feelings and the ego coopt and use facts all the time to defend itself or attack other biases. Even if there's a problem with irrationality, that irrationality is the foundation of the UNIVERSE, and for the most part that irrationality is the longest time spent under evolution, from which we only recently discovered logic around the time of Aristotle, or Plato. That's just about 1,500 years ago the western society, or the Greek philosophers have discovered and formulized logic into some format, that later on gets refined during the renaissance and the industrial Era. Also this point of irrationality severing communications isn't quite true, as animals that are far more irrational can still communicate with it's own family, and even to other animal species. Even crazy humans can communicate despite the cognitive differences or challenges. The main problem with some, not all not all not all but some, Trump supporters, is like they're very similar to victims of con artists or scammers, or victims of hostage takers and terrorists. They'll suffer all kinds of cognitive dissonance and biases, like Stockholm syndrome, survivor's guilt and other cognitive twists that makes the perpetrators appear heroic or meaningful in the victim's minds. HOW CAN WE HAVE A RATIONAL DISCOURSE WITH SOME PEOPLE LIKE THESE? So, there's a list of methods that are feminine and are slow and circular, and then there's some masculine ways of being direct and blunt, like telling them directly that they're victims of a con and scam, that Daddy Trump mind slayed your mind into an emotional state that allows him to win you're vote. Each feminine and masculine approaches may have their pros and cons, but for some the masculine approach is the best way to shake up a victim's mind into facing actual reality, and not be in this circle of lies it tells itself just to avoid admitting that it was conned and scammed and to not face the feelings of shame. Sometimes telling the truth directly is the only way to get some of these people to wake up, sometimes too much sugar coating isn't good.

@Intraplanetary Says the ego mind? Again don't trust that ego mind too much, nor in another person like Robert Green who you have no idea of and limited experiences with, just seems like a lot of appeals to pathos and ethos and some logos. Robert Green is both right and wrong about passion, his assumptions of finding passion is bad is bad advice itself, but in regards to dedicating time and deliberate practice he's partly right, but partly wrong in his starting assumptions. most human beings still need to explore and find out more of what they're passionate about, learn more about themselves before over committing to some field. Are you replying to this user?: @zurew Also, it's PASSION /=/ MOTIVATION, not passion != motivation, unless it's semantically and syntax similar?

@Intraplanetary Why do you think it's so good to not follow your passions in this short video, and trust this person in giving a vision to you over your heart and ability to create a vision for your own life? Are you always trying to look for exceptional feelings, even when working or doing hobbies, or even now as you're reading my post? Why is it a fact that 'we' have to face boredom and tediousness? When you've said 'we', are you referring more to yourself instead of me or the readers because how do you know I'm as bored or tedious feelings as you have? and why appeal to band wagon and inclusivity here when you're the only one feeling the boredom and tediousness and venerating Robert Green here? Are all these conditioned only when doing some work, like you can only feel bored or tedious when doing work but not hobbies or games or other recreational activities?

Another great analysis of Megan:

@ryandesreu The three classic taboos to never talk about in public or work and should only be private or with trusted friends and family: Sex, religion and politics, for they are emotionally charged as hell to discourse with strangers. What I don't like in this situations, with every mobile filming, always is the case the conflict in the footage is after 1-2 minutes of it happening, so we don't know if trump supporter here was actually instigating or not to wind up the shop clerk, we don't know who actually started it. I definitely agree that shop clerk SHOULD'VE stayed calm, be mindful of the triggering label on his shirt, be mindful of how he's feeling and thinking and immediately become calmer instead of frustrated, slow breaths, let go of thoughts of Donald Trump being racist or xenophobic or whatever, now's not that time, to vent, now's just me being a clerk, served the trump supporter much more quickly than other customers to get him outta the store fast and not make a scene, as I typically do with people I hate or dislike strongly, just ASAP do the business, strict business with them so hopefully they leave quickly, ignore all small talk attempts and BE ONLY BUSINESS LIKE. Maybe that's too stage orange attitude, but that attitude can help A LOT when dealing with people a person doesn't like, for the most part.

@ryandesreu You're welcome, although I gave a lot of jumbled up answers I'm close enough. Now that I think about it, since this incident is in a restaurant or some fast food joint, I do think the refund is possible as long as you have the bill or receipt for the order, in which case yes she should've refunded his order straight away and be sorry and not have lost her calm and scolded him. I'll also say a security guard here would've helped a little bit here and the other employees who are more calm would've and maybe should've interjected here. Maybe the mask and the annoying breath and sweating from it and her inexperience with handling disgruntled and angry customers is probably why she didn't handle the situation well.

@Ajax I agree, just don't get mind slayed by Donald Trump and con artists like him and we're all good.

@ryandesreu I could see more signs here and there, but based on what I'm seeing from the film (which BTW the footage is in the middle of the conflict so no clear definitive claim of which party did start and escalate the situation first) the female employee failed to remain and maintain calm, and control her tone of voice and have a more softer tone, but it's harder to discern here her face because of her mask on. So it starts with him saying "Why YOU can't do no refund?" this is direct question to HER, and her response "I asked my manager from-and this is an ORDER FROM MY OWNER-WE can't do no REFUND. ALL WE CAN DO IS GIVE YOU THE REFUND AND(inaudible the last bits of her sentence)" with quick head shakes and I think she's also sanitizing her hands, either as a self soothing gesture to try and relieve the building stress, a distraction or just to clean her hands but it can be all that. Here I don't know enough if there's an actually policy in this work place for a refund of a defective product, but don't they do refunds typically? Also this seems like it's during Covid lockdowns so maybe that's adding to this issue on top. When he said "I don't want the FOOD-I DON'T WANNA WAIT-I DON'T HAVE TIME TO WAIT ON THE FOOD AGAIN!" and she replies with a dead panned "Okay...", based on tone of voice she has given up being civil and is preparing to lash back, like there's this tone of apathy coming on, all the while rubbing hands still, like a calm before the storm moment. Then the guy, with wide active arms emphasizes her OKAY with "OKAY, so NOW WHAT DO WE DO?!" and he places his hands on table, leans to her as she's telling him off, and this is the part that spikes the escalation. Her tone now gets energized and matches his tone and slightly more aggressive, her hands now more active and emphasizing her "IT'S EITHER YOU GET YOUR FOOD REMADE-OR GO ABOUT YOUR DAY!(This part of her statement her hands swings and over emphasizes and karate chops to her left in a dismissive manner, to also refer to her manager I assume.) AND STOP YELLING AT MY OTHER MANAGER. BECAUSE-THAT'S-NO!-THAT'S UNCALLED FOR-(Around this part he lifts from him leaning on table, leans to his left, quick glance of that table of contents, signaling what he's about to do. Also She's shaking her head quickly here emphasizing his uncalled for behavior which to me she's partly right here, YET the customer is always right in most cases, and when there's a disgruntled customer the employees have to handle with extra care or they end up escalating like this).". I guess, from the limited camera angle I have as I can't see his facial expressions, or other body language signs from his front but I can hear his tonality and partly see other signs of building anger. Same with her handling, even though I can see her front she's wearing a mask, and her hands were rubbing each other for sanitization which may also be defensive and for soothing. Can't comment on the other male employees, maybe they could've interjected here but I have the feeling the Bystander effect is effecting them, and they're indecisive and don't have deescalation training down, in fact seems like none of them do. I feel like in these situations is were a security guard or a nearby police would've helped deescalate the situation, as from the limited footage I can tell he's just after the refund, and is getting more frustrated here I don't know if that's possible or not based on their work policies, but he kind of dug he's own mess by pressuring them that he doesn't have all day or the time, he's only for the refund which straight away my advice would be to just give the customer the refund and adjust your body language to an apologetic one in tone as well, sub communicate you don't want to fight and be generally sorry for the inconvenience. I mean it may be different there than in here because when me and my Dad went to this ice cream shop, he already paid for a pair of mister whipies, and the employee operating the machine found that there's little to no ice cream left, something wrong with the machine or whatever, and they quickly were apologetic and offered the money back, gave their series of excuses and we generally didn't fuss or were too frustrated as they're straight away apologetic. If they behaved like the cashier here was, I could see how it'll piss me off and my Dad more and further increase tensions, like we can't get refunds over ice creams??? Again I'd give the refund here but if it's against work policies then...they kind of shot themselves in the foot here. Am I correct in my interpretation and close? And what is the three mistakes you're alluding to here?

@Ajax True to some extent, from my POV, depending on certain word choices within a topic, tonality, micro expressions on face, the eye brows and muscular tensions around face, head, neck shoulders, non verbal leaks in the arms and hands, and even down to their feet I can already pick up so many subconscious clues and ticks in reaction to what the other twin said or the other interviewer said. I haven't said this in my analysis, but also worth factoring is how they use their humour, and irony, to also soften and disguise intent. Like with the Zuby podcast video, and the PBD video, when Keith or Kevin I don't know told that moment when they lost a lot of followers for that short video, I already seen that video here: And if you compare what they said here to what they're saying in podcasts, that's omitting parts of a truth you've said, which if you look closely in the Zubby video, when Kevin(the black shirt, arms typically crossed, I've noticed Kevin doing this posture far more than Keith) and Keith was eyeing him, and you can briefly see tension around lips and mouth, that subconscious part of him worrying if Kevin would tell the WHOLE truth and not PART of the truth, because again that video, and the last two statements of prompting the audience to imagine the twins wearing the maga hat plus the 'MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN' line was actually what caused that downfall, and not the current narrative from Keith/Kevin of them overreacting to them saying that he shouldn't assault the 'kids'(mind you, the 'kid' was a very tall white teenager) for wearing a hat. Sorry, but there's much more going on in that 54 second video than you're letting on. If I haven't clarified then, I was a fan of the Hodge twins for some time, so I've already soaked in their mannerisms and what they do really mean when they were old content makers, based on my observing them implicitly for entertainment and comedy, until they became too political and I moved on to other things. So, in this sense I've already got a rich collection of visuals and tells and mannerisms in my mind of the Twins that it's enough to intuitively feel if one was defensive/lying or not.

Another interesting take by James Cameron, will be analyzing his body language: