Romantic Fiction, Reality Shaping and The Work

[seek10]

There are a few things about these books that I've noticed:

1) The authors talk about scents, smells quite a bit. It's very noticeable. The scent of perfume, hair, soap, bodies, etc.

These novels made me to pay attention to the smell ( particularly I go out for a walk) etc. Given that we are limited with human interactions, smelling other people is limited. This reminds me of G's self remembering through the senses - smell, touches , visual objects, thoughts and emotions etc.

2) A LOT of attention is given to reactions that are read from eyes.

It's something that I didn't paid much attention before but these novels made me to pay attention. It's a sort of fun looking, paying attention to eye colors, hair color etc.

It's this last thing that has me thinking. How many people can actually read such emotions in the eyes of another?

Well, I used to do it before trying to get impression by looking at the face and eyes etc. What I found out at that time, it is a guess what strangers feel , but no way to validate it. It also needs some time to spend in proper integration of the impressions after the interaction. I realized that my own programs of like "Reflective of other needs" can create additional stress, though when identified the program, it is not bad.

And how many people are actually any good at that when encountering a stranger or someone they do not know really well? ARE they reading emotions from eyes, or is it more likely that the author is trying to find a way to describe the unconscious reading of micro-expressions? You would have to be a highly trained psychological expert to do the kind of reading that many of the characters in these books are said to do.

For me biggest take away from the novels is validation of individual impressions (which were there forever) rather than looking them as right or wrong. There are many occasions in the meetings, I tend to express my opinions rather freely knowing it may not go well or i could be wrong too. These novels gives me ability to confess my mistakes or express my thought processes without feeling of "What others think of". This removes the typical guilt (when not expressed) and creates a safety in the interaction. It's one of the technique mentioned in "Crucial conversations".

Given that we are in remote world of working, seeing others eyes is difficult, but silences can give some impressions.

 

[Debra Lynn]

There are a few things about these books that I've noticed:

1) The authors talk about scents, smells quite a bit. It's very noticeable. The scent of perfume, hair, soap, bodies, etc.

2) A LOT of attention is given to reactions that are read from eyes.

It's this last thing that has me thinking. How many people can actually read such emotions in the eyes of another? And how many people are actually any good at that when encountering a stranger or someone they do not know really well? ARE they reading emotions from eyes, or is it more likely that the author is trying to find a way to describe the unconscious reading of micro-expressions? You would have to be a highly trained psychological expert to do the kind of reading that many of the characters in these books are said to do.

Anybody have any ideas on this? Any experiences?

As far as smells go I remembered hearing about how smells can help bring back forgotten memories and how that works in the brain. So becoming more sensitive to smells and other sensory input in our interactions with others seems like a good thing. And these books help bring our attention back to these details.

Why can smells unlock forgotten memories?

A familiar scent triggers childhood memories for our brain columnist, prompting him to wonder what is going on in his head.

www.bbc.com

 

[Mililea]

There are a few things about these books that I've noticed:

1) The authors talk about scents, smells quite a bit. It's very noticeable. The scent of perfume, hair, soap, bodies, etc.

2) A LOT of attention is given to reactions that are read from eyes.

It's this last thing that has me thinking. How many people can actually read such emotions in the eyes of another? And how many people are actually any good at that when encountering a stranger or someone they do not know really well? ARE they reading emotions from eyes, or is it more likely that the author is trying to find a way to describe the unconscious reading of micro-expressions? You would have to be a highly trained psychological expert to do the kind of reading that many of the characters in these books are said to do.

Anybody have any ideas on this? Any experiences?

I have enjoyed being an observer all my life and sometimes painfully feel how people are doing. In some situations I speak to people. But often I can't, because the situation doesn't always allow it.

I've also noticed that with the smells in the books and mostly it's the pure things that the protagonists are excited about or feel attracted to. They don't want artificial people covered in perfume but the pure essence of the self. In real life today, too, many people hide behind their masks, and I don't mean the medical ones. Even behind thick layers of make-up and trained facial expressions. This can be seen particularly well in Duck-Face selfies on social media. No one is real and just themselves anymore. Because everyone is far too afraid of criticism or thinks they are not enough. Maybe because of the "role models" in the mainstream media. Everyone is playing a show...
But that doesn't work in real love or even in real interpersonal relationships that have depth. I think it's important that you can just be yourself. That you are pure. Without any masks.

And when that gets lost in humanity, everyone just puts on a show for everyone else and no one can judge how people are really doing. I have the impression that it makes people lonely. Everyone is only looking out for themselves.
I don't think you have to be a psychological expert, but it's in our nature to feel it and see it. But most people don't look.

 

[whitecoast]

There are a few things about these books that I've noticed:

1) The authors talk about scents, smells quite a bit. It's very noticeable. The scent of perfume, hair, soap, bodies, etc.

2) A LOT of attention is given to reactions that are read from eyes.

It's this last thing that has me thinking. How many people can actually read such emotions in the eyes of another? And how many people are actually any good at that when encountering a stranger or someone they do not know really well? ARE they reading emotions from eyes, or is it more likely that the author is trying to find a way to describe the unconscious reading of micro-expressions? You would have to be a highly trained psychological expert to do the kind of reading that many of the characters in these books are said to do.

Anybody have any ideas on this? Any experiences?

What came to mind for me were some comments you had about a bust of Caesar, which you said resembled Ark in a lot of ways and so allowed you to read a lot more things into his facial expressions. Aside from that, a couple books I've read touch lightly on this topic more broadly. The first is a chapter on the eye beam (jargon term for this is "extramission") out of Human Energy Fields by Colin Ross, MD. I'm sure it's by no means the most exhaustive coverage of the subject, but here it is anyhow:

THE HUMAN EYEBEAM: A CRUCIAL EXPERIMENT IN THE NEW SCIENCE

Dear reader or, better still, dear lady reader, recall the bright, joyful eyes with which your child beams upon you when you bring him a new toy, and then let the physicist tell you that in reality nothing emerges from these eyes; in reality their only objectively detectable function is, continually to be hit by and to receive light quanta. In reality! A strange reality! Something seems to be missing in it.
-Erwin Schrodinger What Is Life? (1944)

If we prefer, we can think of the phenomenon of sight as the Greeks did, regarding the eye not as a kind of sensitive plate, but as the source of antennae or tentacles which stretch out and seize on the properties of the object it surveys.... For to say “light travels” reflects the nature of reality, in a way which “his eyes swept the horizon” does not, is to point to the fact that the latter remains at best a metaphor. The optical theory from which it came is dead. Questions like “What sort of brooms do eyes sweep with?” and, “What are the antennae made of?” can be asked only frivolously. The former does more: it can both take its place at the heart of a fruitful theory and suggest to us further questions, many of which can be given sense in a way which the questions suggested by “His eyes swept the horizon” never can.
-Stephen Toulmin The Philosophy of Science (1953)

Could an erroneous, ancient theory of visual perception still be a commonly held belief of children and adults at the end of the 20th century? A number of ancient philosophers, including Plato, Euclid, and Ptolemy, believed in what has been termed the extramission theory of visual perception. This extramission theory stressed that there were emanations from the eyes during the act of seeing. That is, essences or the like were thought to leave the eye during the act of visual perception. With advances in the sciences of optics and physiology, the extramission theory was replaced by what is called the intromission theory. This theory holds that there is only input to the visual system and that this information alone allows people to see. The extramission theory was ultimately put to rest in scientific and philosophical circles in the early 17th century, although informed opinion had generally dismissed extramission notions as early as the 13th century.
-Gerald Winer American Psychologist (1996)

The Schrodinger wave equation is used throughout quantum mechanics, and its originator is one of the great figures in the field, along with Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, Einstein and others. Einstein received his Nobel Prize for work on the particle nature of light and the photoelectric effect, not for his theory of relativity. In the above quotations, Schrodinger, Toulmin and Winer are stating the unanimous view of modern science concerning the human eyebeam: it doesn’t exist. Unlike most scientists, however, Schrodinger is willing to consider that something might be missing from the modern scientific model of the universe.

In psychology, the technical term for the eyebeam is extramission. Extramission involves something going out through your eye and interacting with the outside world. Intromission, on the other hand, involves light entering your eye and being detected by your retina. Extramission is an active process while intromission is passive (setting aside the active choice of where to look). Human visual perception, according to modern science, was fully described by the seventeenth-century English philosopher John Locke. According to Locke’s model of perception, the eye receives light passively and the processes involved are mechanistic and physiological. Since Locke, the science of human visual perception has involved filling in the details, but the basic model has not changed.

In his An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, published in 1690, Locke said that visual perception is passive: “in bare naked perception, the mind is, for the most part, only passive; and what it perceives, it cannot avoid perceiving.” The active component of visual perception, according to Locke, is the mind’s reaction to “bare perception” – this involves the interaction of ideas with the sensory perception. Locke also described the reception of photons by the retina, and stated, in antiquated vocabulary, that physical properties of the photons (their number and frequency in modern terms) determine the intensity and color perceived by the mind (p. 300-301):
...

A psychologist named Gerald Winer has published a series of articles in which he describes the results of surveys he has given to college undergraduates. He is very concerned that many college students believe in the reality of extramission. Winer sees this as a failure of science education, and calls for a greater effort to teach basic science to students. Winer, like virtually all other modern scientists, is absolutely certain that the human eyebeam does not exist. According to contemporary western science, the human eyebeam is “paranormal,” which means it lies outside science and cannot be studied with the scientific method.

The human eyebeam is the foundation of the evil eye belief. According to folklore in Italy and other countries, one can cast malevolent energy into other people by giving them the evil eye, by staring at them with evil intent. Virtually all, if not all, anthropologists, ethnographers, and folklorists agree with Gerald Winer that this is pure superstition. It has to be, within the Lockean model of human visual perception, which does not allow extramission.

One problem with Locke’s doctrine of extramission is the common and universal sense of being stared at. Everyone has had the experience of suddenly turning and locking eyes with someone looking directly at you; or, looking at someone and having them turn to look directly at you. Everyone knows this is not merely coincidence, peripheral perception of subliminal cues, or anything but a real experience, yet modern science says that there is no human eyebeam, therefore sensing someone else’s stare is impossible. The Lockean model forces scientists to deny the reality of common human experience. Modern science rejects and disallows two intertwined propositions:

1. Extramission is real.
2. Extramission is involved in visual perception.

It is possible, in principle, that the human eyebeam exists but is irrelevant to visual perception. It could exist but simply be accidental noise with no physiological function. Or, the eyebeam could be involved in perception in a targeting or focusing fashion, with no information back-transmitted to the person emitting the eyebeam. Finally, the eyebeam could be real, and it could gather meaningful information that is back-transmitted to the person. This would be like the sonar used by bats, except it would be EM radiation. Since bats use sound for navigation, it is perfectly possible that various species use the eyebeam for various purposes. Within the science of human energy fields, all of this can be investigated experimentally.

Based on the two propositions about extramission given above, research on the human eyebeam will be conducted in two stages: 1) demonstrating its existence and electrophysiological properties, and 2) investigating its function as a signaling and information-gathering system. An example of a possible biological function of sensitivity to eyebeams, in humans and other animals, is the interaction between hunter and prey. If a gazelle can sense the eyebeam of a lion and take evasive action, surely that skill will be selected for during evolution. The eyebeam of the lion could be sensed consciously or subliminally. Conversely, a hunter (or sniper) who noticed that too intense a stare at a target alerted or frightened the prey would learn not to fixate too intensely or for too long on the target. This skill would be selected for during the evolution of the predator species. The human eyebeam has been relegated to the domain of the “spiritual” – meaning superstition, magical thinking, the supernatural, or the paranormal. The science of human energy fields generates a competing hypothesis: the human eyebeam is objectively real, and measurable. Why do I make this prediction, and why is detection of the human eyebeam a crucial experiment in the new science? To arrive at this crucial experiment, I followed the sequence of steps outlined at the end of Chapter 2 (Table 2.1).

Direct Conscious Experience Of The Eyebeam

I have felt the human eyebeam many times, most intensely in Italy. For instance, I recall riding in a bus in Rome and seeing a gorgeous Italian woman walking along on the busy sidewalk. I stared at her intently. She walked along for five or ten feet while I stared at her, then turned without hesitation and looked directly into my eyes. We exchanged a signal of mutual recognition, she turned away, and the bus carried on past her. Another time I remember standing in a bus in Italy and feeling someone staring at my cheek. I could detect the eyebeam in a circular area about an inch in diameter on a specific location on my cheek. I turned, and saw that another passenger was looking directly at that spot, judging by her direction of gaze.

Yet another time I was hunting alone in the woods in Whiteshell Provincial Park in Manitoba, Canada in September, 1971. I suddenly felt a rabbit looking at me from behind. I consciously thought that a rabbit was staring at me, turned around, shot it with my 16-guage shotgun, and later ate it. I concluded that my increased sensitivity to the eyebeam was due to being outside the electromagnetic noise of the urban environment.

Not Dismissing This Experience As Invalid

Rather than telling myself that this was coincidence, auto-hypnotic illusion, subliminal auditory cueing, or some such phenomenon, I elected to regard my experience of eyebeams as real and valid. This was the essential second step in development of the new science. In the 1970’s I wrote at length about that I called the spiritual physics or, alternatively, the knowledge of spirit power. Most of this writing was never published at the time, including an essay on the human eyebeam I wrote at the University of Alberta during my pre-medical studies – I received my M.D. from there in 1981. I have collected these writings together in my books, Diary of An Intern and Other Short Stories, Northern Canada and Literary and Anthropological Studies. Regarding The Experiences As Scientifically Verifiable While in pre-med, in early 1976, I conducted an initial experiment to detect the human eyebeam. I borrowed a photomultiplier from my physics professor, who was a Professor of Biomedical Engineering, and tried to activate it by looking into it in a dark room that had only a dim red light such as one uses in a photo developing lab. All I got was background noise and I gave up. At the time, I had no idea what kind of energy the human eyebeam might be made out of, so I guessed that it might be photons in the visible spectrum.

Studying The Problem Carefully Through Reading And Thinking

During my medical school years from 1977 to 1981, and my psychiatry training from 1981 to 1985, I continued to read intermittently about anthropology, the philosophy of science, and other subject areas related to human eyebeams, but I never had time or energy to focus on the problem. I began to formulate the science of human energy fields in a more crystallized fashion in the early years of the twenty-first century, and I published two books describing the experiential foundation of the new science in 2004 – Songs For Two Children and Spirit Power Drawings. Besides organizing my unpublished writings for publication, I began to do talks at mental health conferences on the new science, plus I mentioned it briefly in other workshops that focused on my Trauma Model.

By 2006, I had outlined the new science in detail to a number of friends and colleagues and had started writing this book. I read the books in the bibliography in the period 2004 to 2008.

Designing The Experiments, Instruments And Predictions Of The Science

I arrived at the Human Eyebeam Detection System, for which I hope to receive a patent in 2009, through a series of additional steps. I continued to think about what kind of energy the human eyebeam might be composed of, and I narrowed it down to electromagnetic energy. I learned in medical school that the human brain generates an electromagnetic field that we measure as an EEG. When there is a sudden, severe, chaotic electrical storm in the brain, this is readily detectable on an EEG, and readily detectable behaviorally as a generalized seizure.

To take an EEG, electrodes are applied to the scalp, and good conduction is ensured by using a conducting paste under each electrode. The EEG reading proves that the field is transmitted through the skull. I then thought to myself that the field obviously doesn’t stop at the surface of the skin – it extends out into space. I learned by literature and internet searches that electrical engineers can detect a human EEG at three feet distance from the person, using sensitive electrodes and an electromagnetically insulated room. The insulated room is required to eliminate the background noise that would otherwise swamp out the EEG signal.

Unfortunately, I also learned by talking to a contractor that one of these rooms costs $250,000.00 to build. I continued with my thinking. I decided that the human eyebeam must be more intense than the general electromagnetic (EM) field of the brain because it does not have to pass through the skull. There must be some degree of signal attenuation due to the meninges, skull, scalp muscles and skin. Also, I thought, there may be some focusing of the brain EM field out through the eyes simply because of the internal geometry of the skull, but, more importantly, I thought there might be an increased amplitude to the eyebeam due to conscious focusing combined with signal transmission in reverse along the optic nerve and out through the eyeball.

I then said to myself that it would be possible to set an EEG electrode inside an EM-insulated room so that software connected to it was not activated by the general EM field passing through the skull and out into the room, but only by the higher-amplitude signal of the eyebeam. This would result in the electrode activating the software only when a person looked directly at it. What I had, then, was an on-off switch activated by looking at it from a distance. In principle, this on-off switch could be connected to any device on the planet, from garage door openers, to alarm clocks, to security systems, to weapons, to personal computers, to toys, to electric coffee pots.

The only hitch was the requirement for a $250,000.00 EM-insulated room to use the device. I solved this problem, at least for a range of applications, when I realized that the person didn’t have to be inside the room. The “room” could be the size of a pair of binoculars, and the person could look into it through apertures at one end, with the electrodes inside the room at the far end, connected to a computer. The computer could be miniaturized and the digital information could be downloaded via a wire, a memory stick or a wireless connection to a larger computer or computer network.

I now had the equivalent of a Ghost-Buster Box, except that it would be an Eyebeam Buster Box. I realized that I could challenge the magician and skeptic of the paranormal, James Randi, who offers a prize of $1 million to anyone who can objectively demonstrate the paranormal. I realized that the human eyebeam met his criteria for a paranormal phenomenon that lies outside science and defies the laws of known science. Randi specifies on his web page (www.randi.org) that a successful challenge does not depend on demonstrating the mechanism of the phenomenon, only the phenomenon itself. The human eyebeam qualifies because it is not permitted by modern science, and is regarded as paranormal.

I also thought about commercial applications of a Human Eyebeam Detection System. If one could set the electrodes in an EM-shielded box that was open at one end, and if the electrodes were sufficiently recessed and sensitive, then one should be able to use the system in an urban environment. If the electrical engineering problems could be overcome, then countless possible applications would follow. A quadriplegic or a baby could turn on a light or an alarm system by looking at a sensor upon awakening, without any need for an EM-insulated room.

In a hospital, an initial EEG could be taken by a nurse who handed a pair of EEG binoculars to a patient, either as a routine screen or after a seizure. This would be far cheaper than sending the person down to the EEG lab, especially in off-hours. The equipment would be particularly useful for distinguishing real epileptic seizures from pseudo-seizures – this differentiation is often difficult or impossible to make by observation. This is an application I am particularly interested in as a psychiatrist, because pseudo-seizures are not rare in survivors of childhood sexual abuse.

Perhaps the Human Eyebeam Detection System could be included in virtual reality goggles and could be used to provide a biofeedback signal, or information about arousal state, say, in someone with a fear of heights who rides up in a virtual glass elevator.

If a practical on-off switch was feasible, I thought, there was no end to the potential applications. The system could provide another level of security in vaults, classified spaces, or other locations.

The James Randi Educational Foundation Paranormal Challenge

Submitting a claim to the James Randi Educational Foundation paranormal challenge (www.randi.org) required some prior tinkering and experimentation. In December, 2007 I took a five-day neurofeedback course that provided the basics in how to apply electrodes to the scalp and use the hardware and software I had purchased from a manufacturer. The equipment I used was a Brain Master Atlantis II (www.brainmaster.com) that I purchased for less than $2000.00 and the course director was John Demos (2005), an experienced neurofeedback clinician. I also joined the International Society for Neurofeedback Research (www.isnr.org).

Once I had completed the course, I knew that human brainwaves are divided into several categories according to their frequency in Hertz, or cycles per second (we skimmed over this in medical school and in my psychiatry residency, but never studied it thoroughly). For neurofeedback purposes, the beta range is often subdivided into beta proper and SMR, as shown below, but the Brain Master software divides it into Lobeta, Beta and Hibeta: Hertz
Delta 1-4
Theta 4-8
Alpha 8-12
SMR* 12-15 (SMR = sensorimotor rhythm)
Beta 13-21
High Beta 20-32
Gamma 38-42

I learned about the distribution of different frequencies over the scalp, where to place electrodes, and the findings concerning depression, anxiety, attention deficit disorder and other psychiatric disorders. In some disorders, the amplitude in microvolts (µV) of a certain frequency band can be too high over a certain part of the scalp, while in another it can be too low. For instance, in depression there is often, but not always, too much alpha over the left hemisphere, while in anxiety disorders there can be too much beta over the anterior right hemisphere. None of these patterns occur in all cases and none is specific to any disorder, but when the classical pattern is present, neurofeedback training in that specific frequency band over that specific part of the skull can result in dramatic improvement in the anxiety or depression.

Since the human eyebeam does not exist in western science, however, there was no information about it in the course or the text book. I therefore had to build a Human Eyebeam Detection System by trial and error. After some initial efforts, I decided to use a pair of diving goggles from a sporting goods store as my EM-insulated “room.” I mounted an electrode on the inside of the mask in front of my right pupil, and fed the electrode wire out under the mask to the connector, which in turn fed the signal to the Atlantis II unit, which processed it and sent it to my laptop computer. For EM insulation I used layers of tin foil from a grocery store and wire mesh from a hobby and craft store, which I taped to the front of the right half of the goggles.

I spent hours fiddling with the equipment and taking test EEG’s of my own eyebeam until I got the system adjusted satisfactorily. I had learned in my neurofeedback course about “alpha blocking,” which is well recognized and validated in the EEG field. If you measure the alpha band with a person’s eyes open, you will get a certain amplitude, measured in micro-volts (µV). If you repeat the reading with the person’s eyes closed, however, the amplitude of the alpha waves goes up noticeably. In other words, opening your eyes blocks alpha.

By trial and error I discovered that a considerable degree of blocking for the human eyebeam occurs in the delta band, with the pattern reversed: delta amplitude goes up when you open your eyes. This can also be observed if you place an electrode on the scalp just above the right eye, in a location called Fp2 in the EEG literature. Delta blocking in the human eyebeam could, in principle be due to the delta being blocked by the eyelid when you close your eyes, but since reversed delta blocking also occurs at Fp2, the data prove that delta blocking in the eyebeam is a real difference in the brain and the eyebeam, not an artifact of the eyelid getting in the way.

The data from my initial experiments proved that the human eyebeam exists and has a greater intensity (amplitude in µV) than the general field emerging through the skull. The eyebeam is physiologically active in that it fluctuates with brain state (it exhibits reversed alpha blocking). In addition, the electrophysiology of the eyebeam differs from that of nearby brain: alpha blocking is reversed in the eyebeam and follows the same pattern as delta in the eyebeam (eyebeam amplitude goes up with eyes open at these two frequencies); at Fp2 conventional alpha blocking is observed (at Fp2, alpha goes up with eyes closed). This reversal of alpha blocking in the eyebeam compared to Fp2 is something that needs further study.

Typical numbers obtained with my equipment are: Table 6.1. Simultaneous Amplitude Readings (µv) of the Eyebeam and on the Scalp (Fp2) with Eyes Open and Closed

Table 6.1. Simultaneous Amplitude Readings (µv) of the Eyebeam and on the Scalp (Fp2) with Eyes Open and Closed


For these experiments, the ground electrode was on my right mastoid, the reference electrode for the eyebeam was on my right earlobe, and the reference electrode for Fp2 was on my left earlobe. This information is included for anyone wanting to replicate the findings using standard silver chloride electrodes. Data were obtained from 10-second assessment sessions.

I thought that an effective way to demonstrate the reality of the human eyebeam, for the James Randi challenge, would be to use the standard Brain Master neurofeedback software, and set the reward threshold for delta at, say, 20 µV for a training session (this would have to be determined by trial and error). The reward tone does not sound during assessment sessions, which are selected using the software. The most useful reward threshold value varies a bit from person to person, and must be determined by trial and error. The readings in Table 6.1 are average values over a 10-second assessment run, and show that delta is above 15 µV when your eyes are open (it may fluctuate below 15 µV once in a while, since this is an average value over 10 seconds).

In neurofeedback training, you can set the reward feedback threshold in several different ways, but, basically, if you want to reduce the amplitude of a selected frequency band, say, alpha, at a certain standard scalp location, you set the software so that it rewards the brain when the amplitude goes below a threshold value. Then you choose a tone from a catalog of tones and run a training session. When alpha is above threshold there is silence, and when it is below there is a tone. Other software provides visual rewards, but the principles are the same.

Conversely, if alpha is too low, you set the software so that the tone is heard only when the amplitude is above threshold. In response to the feedback, the brain adjusts the amplitude of the selected frequency band at that location, and the clinical problem is treated, when the procedure works.

I submitted a challenge to the James Randi Educational Foundation. The challenge had to follow the rules on his web page (www.randi.org), which it did and I included quotations from Toulmin and Schrodinger as well as a Gerald Winer paper to establish that the human eyebeam is “paranormal” according to both western science and James Randi’s criteria.

My challenge was that I could send an energy beam out of my eyes, capture it in a set of goggles I had constructed, and use the energy to make a tone come out of a speaker. I said that there are various names for this type of energy and I said that I think it is the energy called chi in Chinese medicine, and called the human aura in the west. James Randi states in his challenge rules that he does not want to hear about the theory or the philosophy behind the challenge, he only wants to see the phenomenon demonstrated. Additionally, his rules state that once a paranormal challenge has been accepted, as mine was, subsequent demonstration of the scientific mechanism behind the phenomenon does not invalidate the challenge. This rule confirms that it is the phenomenon that is classified as paranormal for purposes of the challenge.

That is why my challenge was accepted. The human eyebeam meets all the criteria for “the paranormal” required by modern science, and by the rules of the James Randi challenge. There is in fact nothing “paranormal’ about brain waves emerging through the eye, since they also emerge through the skull. That is the whole point: “paranormal” is a sociological category, not a scientific category. Many things are consigned to the category of “paranormal” by western science, including the human eyebeam. Some things in this category are real, however, and perfectly scientific.

Once a “paranormal” phenomenon is measured and understood, then it is switched from the category of paranormal to the category of scientific. But it never was paranormal in the first place: putting it in that category was based on attitude and bias, not on scientific thinking. This is true of human energy fields in general. The intellectual purpose of my James Randi challenge was to get an independent confirmation from a skeptic of the paranormal that the human eyebeam is a “paranormal phenomenon.” James Randi was accurately representing all of western science in this regard, not merely stating a personal opinion.

Why This Is A Crucial Experiment In The Science Of Human Energy Fields

The experimental proof of the reality of the human eyebeam is a crucial experiment in the science of human energy fields. I chose the detection of the human eyebeam as the initial crucial experiment for a number of reasons. First, a prototype system was within my personal financial resources. In addition, the existence of the human eyebeam was explicitly forbidden by psychologists, physiologists, physicists and virtually all other modern scientists, because of their model of human visual perception – intromission. The history of the model can be traced back to John Locke.

Turning a switch on and off by looking at it conclusively demonstrates that the human energy field interacts with the physics of the outside world in a measurable, replicable fashion. Once eyebeam technology is commercially available, I reasoned, then everyone will know from direct experience that their personal energy field interacts with the outside material world. Once this is proven for the human eyebeam, then it becomes a testable scientific hypothesis that the human energy field in general interacts with the outside world. Further, one would expect there to be a counter-signal from the environment back to the transmitting person. We then would have a digital communication system that could in principle transmit meaningful information.

The interactions of the human energy field must have evolved in the biosphere like all other aspects of the human organism. Sensitivity to incoming and outgoing signals likely must have conferred survival advantage and been selected for, at least up to the dawn of western civilization. I therefore began to think about how all of this might work, and whether other parts of the human body emit signals of importance. From my own experience, and from my reading, I hypothesized that the solar plexus (the celiac ganglion) is a major transmitter-receiver for human, geophysical and other electromagnetic signals.

I thought to myself: if cell phones work, why can’t there be biologically meaningful communication within the biosphere using electromagnetic fields? Specific testable hypotheses from this line of thinking are outlined in later chapters.

The second book I read touching on this is called The Path is Everywhere by Matt Licata, PhD, which is about navigating the subjective experience of developmental trauma and deepening our capacity to connect with both ourselves and others. The last chapter is a poignant and exemplary anecdote about how deeply we are capable of attuning with a beloved, which I've shared below:

On a flight from Denver to Oahu, I sat next to a lovely couple who must have been in their early to mid-70s. I was struck by how attuned they were to one another: the slightest cue from one was received by the other and responded to. I could literally feel in my body each time they experienced this linkage, right-brain to right-brain holding in all its purity. At other times, they would return into their own individuality, weaving together and dancing in the middle, totally connected and totally separate simultaneously. It was like magic.

As soon as I thought they had lost contact, they would meet one another’s glance spontaneously, as if to behold together the unspoken holiness of the relational field itself. No words needed. It was as if I could feel their mirror neurons coming online together, empathically in resonance, attuned to one another’s arising emotional subjectivity. They were alive to what was needed in a given moment, but not more. Intimacy without fusion. Communion without impingement. All in a perfect flow of mutual co-regulation.

For some reason their dance, their play, their love ... it really touched me, so much that I found myself weeping a bit. I didn’t want to cause a scene or make them uncomfortable so kept to myself as much as I could.

After a little more time passed, they pulled out their video player and were going to watch a movie together. I was curious how they would be able to remain connected as there was only one headphone jack on their iPad. Would they alternate? Knowing them (as I had for about an hour now), I was sure one would just sacrifice the sound for the other, and they’d switch periodically, trusting they would be able to dialogue about the film after it was over, catching each other up to what each of them had missed.

Before I realized what was going on, the man pulled out a metallic-looking Y-shaped device that allowed them to both plug their headphones in at once. I lost it. It was so perfect, and so them. Just more attunement and connection, this time taking shape as some weird-looking modern electronic contraption. The tears flowed even more, reveling at their sweet yet powerful connection.

They finally glanced over at me, my intention to not create a scene lost to the crushing power of love that flows between two people. They both smiled and the man patted me on the shoulder, his eyes near bursting into tears himself. He understood. We understood together. No words. We stepped into some sort of crucible outside time and space where the veil parted and only love remained. I was so grateful that they allowed me into the sanctity of their love-world for a moment, and into the mystery of lover and beloved as it unfolds here, into eternity.

Just before landing, I shared this writing with them. The three of us just sort of silently wept together, holding hands as we descended into Waikiki—three new friends, held b

I feel quite confident I could die now. To know even one sliver of this love. I’ve been given so much more than enough.

Licata, Matt. The Path Is Everywhere: Uncovering the Jewels Hidden Within You (pp. 237-238). Kindle Edition.

 

[Aeneas]

There are a few things about these books that I've noticed:

1) The authors talk about scents, smells quite a bit. It's very noticeable. The scent of perfume, hair, soap, bodies, etc.

2) A LOT of attention is given to reactions that are read from eyes.

It's this last thing that has me thinking. How many people can actually read such emotions in the eyes of another? And how many people are actually any good at that when encountering a stranger or someone they do not know really well? ARE they reading emotions from eyes, or is it more likely that the author is trying to find a way to describe the unconscious reading of micro-expressions? You would have to be a highly trained psychological expert to do the kind of reading that many of the characters in these books are said to do.

I have also noticed the attention to many, many details, which I don't think is realistic of real life situations, but by so doing the authors reach so many more of their readers as different people take notice of different things. The characters are aware of all the visual, olfactory, auditory and physical inputs apart from the internal physical sensations, drives and complex thought processes. So it is like a smorgasbord of details out of which in real life, we just taste a few things. Or at least that is my experience.

As for the the reading of eyes, it is something I thought about over the years, working as a train manager and thus seeing hundreds of people every day and making eye contact during the control of tickets. I might delude myself in my perceptions, but I find that one can read quite a bit from the eyes, at least from some people. Even saying that it is quite a bit might be an exaggeration or at least I find it hard to qualify it. Since passengers onboard trains have had to wear masks for over a year now and thus eyes have come more into focus. The 'contact' during control is very short, like a split second but some eyes smile back or open up while others stay 'closed' behind an immobile mask. I try to do the work with a positive and open attitude and those few eyes which laugh back or open up is equal to little gifts. Where for most of the passengers, one is just 'giving energy', those small encounters stand out and carries a little positive feedback with them.

I noticed too that Joe, Niall and Scottie on the Newsreal show often have laughing eyes or smiling eyes. Perhaps humor comes into the equation too. Can a humorless person have laughing eyes? Mary Balogh's protagonists often if not always have a sense of humor and convey this at times through the eyes.

 

[Debra Lynn]

I have enjoyed being an observer all my life and sometimes painfully feel how people are doing. In some situations I speak to people. But often I can't, because the situation doesn't always allow it.

I've also noticed that with the smells in the books and mostly it's the pure things that the protagonists are excited about or feel attracted to. They don't want artificial people covered in perfume but the pure essence of the self. In real life today, too, many people hide behind their masks, and I don't mean the medical ones. Even behind thick layers of make-up and trained facial expressions. This can be seen particularly well in Duck-Face selfies on social media. No one is real and just themselves anymore. Because everyone is far too afraid of criticism or thinks they are not enough. Maybe because of the "role models" in the mainstream media. Everyone is playing a show...
But that doesn't work in real love or even in real interpersonal relationships that have depth. I think it's important that you can just be yourself. That you are pure. Without any masks.

And when that gets lost in humanity, everyone just puts on a show for everyone else and no one can judge how people are really doing. I have the impression that it makes people lonely. Everyone is only looking out for themselves.
I don't think you have to be a psychological expert, but it's in our nature to feel it and see it. But most people don't look.

“If you can’t smell the fragrance don’t come into the garden of Love. If you’re unwilling to undress don’t enter into the stream of Truth. Stay where you are. Don’t come our way.” RUMI​

 

[NewEngland Seeker]

There are a few things about these books that I've noticed:

1) The authors talk about scents, smells quite a bit. It's very noticeable. The scent of perfume, hair, soap, bodies, etc.

2) A LOT of attention is given to reactions that are read from eyes.

It's this last thing that has me thinking. How many people can actually read such emotions in the eyes of another? And how many people are actually any good at that when encountering a stranger or someone they do not know really well? ARE they reading emotions from eyes, or is it more likely that the author is trying to find a way to describe the unconscious reading of micro-expressions? You would have to be a highly trained psychological expert to do the kind of reading that many of the characters in these books are said to do.

Anybody have any ideas on this? Any experiences?

I had to learn to read facial expressions in order to understand subtle emotions. I had to consciously look at people's faces because my usual tendency was to avoid faces. I also think it is a female strength to read emotions since they have stronger relationship skills than males. Males have a natural knack to read the smooth function of machines but no ability to understand when our spouse is upset about something we did/didn't do.

That said I would have to say that the authors portrayal of eye reading is idealized. I noticed that we are more often misreading others and not understanding what they. My observations of social interactions is that we hear what we want to hear and prejudge others based on preconceived expectations of their character. I have to constantly challenge this aspect of in order to understanding of what they are saying and doing.

I vote for, author's tool for adding nuance to the relationship.

 

[trytofly]

To read in the eyes is an enigma for me. I have always had a hard time looking other people in the eye, even those close to me. I've been working on it for a long time, and I force myself to do it. But it is by looking my interlocutor in the eye that I have the most difficulty paying attention to his speech.
Besides, I am not a very physiognomist. I recognize a person mainly by the lower part of their face, and very little by their eyes. The masks complicate things for me on this subject, while forcing me to look into the eyes of my interlocutors.

I wonder if it was not easier, at the time of these novels and before, to interpret the reactions and the emotions of the eyes. Odors may also have become more important in their lives. In fact, although it is not that long ago, all of their senses were perhaps more developed in their time than ours.
They were closer to nature, and did not suffer all the current technological pollution. Just a few thoughts, if that makes sense.

 

[Miracle]

There are a few things about these books that I've noticed:

1) The authors talk about scents, smells quite a bit. It's very noticeable. The scent of perfume, hair, soap, bodies, etc.

2) A LOT of attention is given to reactions that are read from eyes.

It's this last thing that has me thinking. How many people can actually read such emotions in the eyes of another? And how many people are actually any good at that when encountering a stranger or someone they do not know really well? ARE they reading emotions from eyes, or is it more likely that the author is trying to find a way to describe the unconscious reading of micro-expressions? You would have to be a highly trained psychological expert to do the kind of reading that many of the characters in these books are said to do.

Anybody have any ideas on this? Any experiences?

In my 4 years of experience of being a restaurant server I would say it is possible to read the eyes and body language of another depending on your level of skill. There are of course the basics of reading body language that are necessary to become a good server. Simple eye contact with a customer can suggest a lot of different things and it is quite literally one's job to know what it means.

Does the customer need something? Or were they just looking around? Do they need a drink? Is something wrong with their food? ect.

At some point, reading the basics of body language became second nature so I began testing myself to try and read the more 'subconscious' level language. Cultivating this skill was actually a game that I played with myself and with my coworkers! I/we found it fun to 'read' a customer and guess all sorts of things about them before anything happened. Where they would want to sit, what they were going to order, and what sort of 'favor' their social energy would be at a table (energetic laughter, quiet romantic, sugar-crashed anxiousness, ect). Oftentimes, my coworkers and myself would correctly guess a whole slew of details about a table before they sat down.

By the end of my 4 year career as a server I would say that I was absolutely reading the 'unseen' to some degree. Now, what I'm describing isn't necessarily all about reading emotion, but there was certainly some of that going on as well. This was more easily done with our 'regulars' and not always easily done with new customers. Seeing as though the dynamic was server/customer there really was not much room for verification of how people were feeling internally, yet it did happen on occasion. The more potent the emotional state the more easily it could be read. For example, I many times guessed correctly when a couple just got married or were out on their honeymoon. They would always be surprised and ask, "how did you know?" and I would honestly respond, "you are glowing!" On the opposing emotional spectrum I would say it is easy to see when somebody feels 'dead' on the inside. Oftentimes people will try their hardest to cover-up their life-crippling depression/loneliness/whatever and a key indicator is when their emotional state feels overcompensated (think starry-eyed) or completely flat.

So, I would both agree and disagree to the comment that you need to be, "a highly trained psychological expert to do the kind of reading that many of the characters in these books are said to do." I do not have any official training in psychology (other than what I read on this forum!), but I did have lots and lots of practice dealing with people in a busy restaurant. Was I able to read eyes/body language of customers beyond the norm? Absolutely! Was I reading it to the extent that is occur in these books? I definitely wasn't that good!

So in conclusion, I would agree with @primeaddict's comment that the author's portrayal is idealized. Reading eyes/people is a skill that takes knowledge and practice. It is a very difficult thing to do when basically everyone is trying their hardest to hide their conflicting and confused emotion, but it is possible!

 

[Jones]

I guess I pay a lot more attention to micro expressions since learning dog training and behavioral psychology where timing is very important - the best and most efficient learning for the dog happens if training response is delivered between 0.5 to 1.0 seconds of the behaviour. Even better if you can deliver it as early in the behavioural sequence as possible. So that means watching for the micro changes that suggest a particular behaviour is about to happen and also being prepared to deliver an encouragement or discouragement before 1 second is up.

When I learned that I found an online reflex tester so I could improve my response times. To catch micro expressions means learning to pay attention in fraction of a second increments. I've found it can be harder to get right if the individual or the context isn't well known.

Paul Eckman has a micro expression test here.

 

[Alejo]

There are a few things about these books that I've noticed:

1) The authors talk about scents, smells quite a bit. It's very noticeable. The scent of perfume, hair, soap, bodies, etc.

2) A LOT of attention is given to reactions that are read from eyes.

It's this last thing that has me thinking. How many people can actually read such emotions in the eyes of another? And how many people are actually any good at that when encountering a stranger or someone they do not know really well? ARE they reading emotions from eyes, or is it more likely that the author is trying to find a way to describe the unconscious reading of micro-expressions? You would have to be a highly trained psychological expert to do the kind of reading that many of the characters in these books are said to do.

Anybody have any ideas on this? Any experiences?

I think it might be a bit of both, I think we're all much better at reading the eyes of those we have our eyes and hearts set upon. So I think it's a way for the authors to highlight that there's something between them, that they're both picking up on. In the novels I've read this particularly happens between the two protagonists. They read their joy and sadness, their wittiness and mischievousness. They are attuned to do so, because they're anticipating a response and the depth of their relationship allows for the tacit communication.

On the other hand, I do think there's something to the idea that the eyes are the window to the soul, I remember watching a documentary recently about a serial killer and when they finally showed his mugshot, it was his eyes that conveyed terror. And it wasn't so much the color or shape, it was more like, the way he looked at the world that was evident. I think we tend to put special focus on the eyes for this reason, they're deeper than the rest of the face, if that makes sense, and it's the indicator of how someone sees the world, a reflection of their character even.

Or priorities, the way someone hungry looks at a plate of food is different than the way someone who is full does. And I think we can all recognize it, and would be able to tell even if the person didn't say a word. Or if someone ascribes emotional importance to food, the way they would look at food would be different than someone who is merely hungry, to give but one example that just occurred to me.

It reminded me of this article I read recently, where they're discussing the tendency we all have of putting human faces to anything and not only seeing them but identifying their emotional state:

The findings are published today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

The researchers say this expression analysis of inanimate objects is because as deeply social beings, simply detecting a face isn't enough.

"We need to read the identity of the face and discern its expression. Are they a friend or a foe? Are they happy, sad, angry, pained?" Professor Alais said.

What the study examined was whether once a pareidolia face is detected, it is subsequently analysed for facial expression, or discarded from face processing as a false detection.

The research shows that once a false face is retained by the brain it is analysed for its facial expression in the same way that a real face is.

"We showed this by presenting sequences of faces and having participants rate each face's expression on a scale ranging from angry to happy," Professor Alais said.

So, I think we all do it all the time, only some are better than others at identifying the subtle clues someone's eyes can give us. But I think this reading may focus on the eyes (as that's how we connect with others), but it's actually a reading of the whole face and even body language (and even scent).

As far as experience, I've had some, I work in customer service and have met a lot of people over the years, and I've learned to recognize people's expression when their anger is either part of their actual grief in search of a solution, or simply a way to lash out at someone who's job depends on allowing himself to be abused just a little, you'd be surprised (or maybe not) how people behave when they know that they can get away with almost anything.

 

[hlat]

There are a few things about these books that I've noticed:

1) The authors talk about scents, smells quite a bit. It's very noticeable. The scent of perfume, hair, soap, bodies, etc.

2) A LOT of attention is given to reactions that are read from eyes.

It's this last thing that has me thinking. How many people can actually read such emotions in the eyes of another? And how many people are actually any good at that when encountering a stranger or someone they do not know really well? ARE they reading emotions from eyes, or is it more likely that the author is trying to find a way to describe the unconscious reading of micro-expressions? You would have to be a highly trained psychological expert to do the kind of reading that many of the characters in these books are said to do.

Anybody have any ideas on this? Any experiences?

1. I notice my wife's scents often, and like them. I'm not usually trying to smell her, so it's just automatic. It seems normal or natural for people to like their partner's scents.

2. Sometimes my wife and I will communicate non-verbally through just a look to each other. Yesterday my wife and I were outside a locked bakery waiting for the baker to return from lunch break. We were right by the door, and the baker walked right up and opened the door without any acknowledgement of us. I gave my wife a glance to convey what the hell is wrong with the baker. Later at home, I asked my wife if she noticed my glance, and she said yes she caught that.

 

[jhonny]

2) A LOT of attention is given to reactions that are read from eyes.

But I think this reading may focus on the eyes (as that's how we connect with others), but it's actually a reading of the whole face and even body language (and even scent).

I tend to agree with this. I personally think that there are subtle changes in face expressions which a very observant person may notice immediately, for instance, a slight change in eyebrows position, or some people clench their teeth making a change in their jaw, also tiny changes of the lips, or changes in skin color. After all, the field of vision the eyes can cover is not limited to a single object, osit.

 

[Keit]

1) The authors talk about scents, smells quite a bit. It's very noticeable. The scent of perfume, hair, soap, bodies, etc.

Here's something interesting about that. From this article. The mention of the immune system was very surprising for me.

There are a lot of debates about whether humans secrete pheromones the same way animals do. Some fragrance brands attempt to bottle synthesized pheromones with the promise that it'll help you attract a mate. I wanted to learn more about the pheromonal phenomenon—if it was real—so I asked Lindsey Bordone, M.D., assistant professor of dermatology at Columbia University Medical Center. (Dermos are also well versed in hormones and endocrinology.) Here’s what she had to say about pheromones and attraction:

“Humans don't have a functioning ‘vomeronasal organ’,” she says, “which is what other animals use to detect pheromones secreted by another animal of the same species. Instead, we sense smells via the olfactory system. Perceivable smells likely do play a role in attraction, or lack of attraction, in people.”

So, while some in-heat animals lift their tail and toot out some horny pheromonal signals, we evolved slightly differently. (Our evolutionary assets include Tinder, Grindr, and Instagram DMs.) So then it’s gotta be something else, if not pheromones.

Here’s some truth about B.O. and attraction, says Bordone: It’s not the odor you’re actually attracted to. You might just be more forgiving of it because you’re attracted to the other person and the overall, underlying scent that is uniquely theirs. “A recurring hypothesis regarding body odor and sexual attraction is that a person’s immune system influences what he or she perceives as attractive, and also influences what their own unadulterated scent would be minus all of the personal-care products.” Quick side note on those personal-care products: “The favorable smells that make up a person’s scent are more a combination of their body wash, shampoo, deodorant, fragrance, hair product, fabric-softener sheets, and other scented products used throughout everyday life. While there is uniqueness to a person’s scent, there are many other things that influence the final ‘product’.” This is why you might instantly associate someone with the smell of their moisturizer that lingers when you kiss, or the inimitable blend of fresh products that trails him or her.

2) A LOT of attention is given to reactions that are read from eyes.

It's this last thing that has me thinking. How many people can actually read such emotions in the eyes of another? And how many people are actually any good at that when encountering a stranger or someone they do not know really well? ARE they reading emotions from eyes, or is it more likely that the author is trying to find a way to describe the unconscious reading of micro-expressions? You would have to be a highly trained psychological expert to do the kind of reading that many of the characters in these books are said to do.

Anybody have any ideas on this? Any experiences?

And here's another research. Apparently we are gaining most information from the eyes.

The study found that the openness of the eye was most closely related to our ability to read others' mental states based on their eye expressions. Narrow-eyed expressions reflected mental states related to enhanced visual discrimination, such as suspicion and disapproval, while open-eyed expressions related to visual sensitivity, such as curiosity. Other features around the eye also communicated whether a mental state is positive or negative.

Further, he ran more studies comparing how well study participants could read emotions from the eye region to how well they could read emotions in other areas of the face, such as the nose or mouth. Those studies found the eyes offered more robust indications of emotions.

But then there are not only glances and eye expressions. There are also subtle touches. There are many examples of that particularly among the already married couples. So it seems like we may have a general ability to read emotions from eyes, but the accuracy and the depth probably depend on familiarity and the strength of connection.

It also reminded me the quote mentioned here from books by Georgia Le Carre about the dangers of smartphones.

“Because they are in a literal state of hypnosis as they automatically and mindlessly browse and scroll while losing track of time and the world around them. Each additional daily hour of screen time increases the child’s risk of becoming addicted, or even affecting his or her long term mental health.”

It seems like in our day and time we don't spend enough time looking at each others eyes in order hone the skill of reading and identifying emotions.

So in its turn it also reminded me about psychopaths' inability to read fear on their victims faces. Yes, it's true that it is due to malfunction of specific brain areas, but then there is this notion about the brain, that you "either use it or lose it". What if emotional intelligence is a skill that has to be developed and maintained, and nowadays is being hindered by technology.

 

[Deleted member 4320]

There are a few things about these books that I've noticed:

1) The authors talk about scents, smells quite a bit. It's very noticeable. The scent of perfume, hair, soap, bodies, etc.

2) A LOT of attention is given to reactions that are read from eyes.

It's this last thing that has me thinking. How many people can actually read such emotions in the eyes of another? And how many people are actually any good at that when encountering a stranger or someone they do not know really well? ARE they reading emotions from eyes, or is it more likely that the author is trying to find a way to describe the unconscious reading of micro-expressions? You would have to be a highly trained psychological expert to do the kind of reading that many of the characters in these books are said to do.

Anybody have any ideas on this? Any experiences?

To my understanding: Interpretations and (psychophysiological) reactions resulting from contact with various smells are perceived on two levels. One of these levels is the unconscious mind (instinct-motor center). At this level, an automatic interpretation of the smell takes place, thanks the mechanisms of which are completely determined by the genetic body. Our unconscious mind verifies the fragrance in terms of our survival and our basic needs. It is from his work that we can immediately feel the burning smell, which puts us at attention. Or to verify whether a woman/man is a suitable partner for us, due to contact with pheromones, which may result in a feeling of sexual desire or its total decrease.

Smell (actually the memory of smell) is stored at the level of the subconscious mind (emotional center). The physical sense of a smell can recall smell stored in our long-term memory and then trigger other memories (pictures, sounds, emotional state) related to that smell. Such associations, (which are acquired associations in the result of our life expieriences), anchored by a smell, can be stored for a very long time in our lifetime and, by recalling them, can transport us into distant, old memories, for example from childhood. For example, the smell of some specific fruit from our childhood can bring back our memories of idyllic holidays spent with our grandparents in the countryside, when we were still children.

For reading facial expressions, in my opinion, the unconscious mind (instinct-motor center) is primarily responsible, although it is also possible to learn it through conscious effort. The experience I had recently was that I met my friend with his girlfriend, and the first moment I saw her, I had a feeling that I could describe as the following thoughts: "She doesn't look very happy." Interestingly, it happened very, very quickly, which virtually eliminates any input from my conscious mind (intellectual center) to interpret this situation at the level of this center, which is too slow for this.

Also only later, when I started remembering my colleague. It was only then that the memories returned to my consciousness that in fact he was not fair to other people and there were some who disliked him very much. The memories that came back to me were stored at the level of the subconscious mind. And only later did I start to lighten the situation, linking her condition with the bad nature of my colleague. However, the return of these memories took place only when I consciously turned to my subconscious, searching the memories hidden there. First mentioning him himself, then his bad character and finally analyzing it and connecting things on a conscious level.

And, importantly, the first impression I had, that I could describe as "She doesn't look very happy." It occurred at a much lower, unconscious, and lightning-fast level, suggesting that my unconscious mind had done some operations and communicated the result to me, which I interpreted as "She doesn't look very happy." I believe that the correct interpretation of facial expressions lies in the work of the unconscious mind, whose work depends on the genetic body.

Our performance in this respect depends, above all, on our genes. I think there is a way to learn to interpret facial expressions on a conscious level and start seeing things that we have not noticed before. Well, for example, we can observe photos and learn what emotion, inner state, desire, and so on, a given facial expression conveys. After a long training of observing those pictures and remembering what emotion/state/-etc. given facial expression represents, it can take root in our subconsciousness. Ultimately, giving us the opportunity to properly evaluate a given facial expression based on the work of the subconscious mind, which will store for us all these learned connections between images and descriptions. Such proper interpretations of facial expressions can be called intuitions, having their source in the subconscious mind (emotional center).

As for the intentions of the creators who create this type of content that appeals to the work of the unconscious mind, or to the subconscious mind and deeply entrenched things there. Generally speaking, I would divide them into positive and negative intentions. These positive intentions could be to connect ourselves with our nature, with our most beautiful memories, bring back our hidden desires, regain ourselves, gain balance.

However, anything that has good sides also has bad sides. Focusing on these previously mentioned things can also be used to influence the recipient using various imperfections of our unconscious mind, which we are neither able to see nor control. Or to use deeply ingrained programming at the level of subconscious mind that is unworked (by us) and controls our conscious mind. Or, opening the subconscious mind to convey new programming in the form of various suggestions, and so on, it can also be so.