Which of these squares is a different shade of green? Chances are that didn’t come easy. 90% of native English-speakers will struggle to determine which one stands out. They might squint, furrow their brow…and ultimately, just guess (often incorrectly). What’s fascinating, though, is that the struggle is not universal.
Members of the Himba tribe, an indigenous people from southwestern Africa, find that exercise positively childish. Too easy. Anthropologists say their reaction to the test is similar to that of a child who is asked what color the sky is. Simple and obvious.. We’ll get to the reason why the Himba find that test so simple in a moment, but first, let’s explore that example.
What color is the sky? Blue…right? As it turns out, the answer might not be as simple as we think.
(Not) Seeing Blue
The Odyssey and the Iliad are the oldest works of Western literature still in existence. Both are epic poems by Homer, with innovative stylistic elements that make them some of the most influential creative endeavors ever recorded. They might also provide proof that the Ancient Greeks did not see the color blue. The first person to notice there was something fishy in regards to Homer’s writing was William Gladstone, a British politician and scholar who spent his life dissecting the classic. He wrote more than a thousand pages on the subject.
Mostly he focused on theme and character—how those great works might reflect the society and culture of a civilization long gone. But among all his musings and grand theories, Gladstone’s most interesting observation was a fairly small and simple one: Homer never once described the color blue. Intrigued, Gladstone endeavored to count every one of Homer’s color descriptions in both the Iliad and the Odyssey. His findings were fascinating: while Homer referred to simple shades like black or white thousands of times, he was much more hesitant to describe other colors. For example, the color red was mentioned fewer than two dozen times. ditto yellow and green. And blue, of course, was never mentioned at all.
To explain this strange phenomenon, Gladstone proposed a bold theory: the ancient Greeks saw the world differently than we do. Gladstone was writing in the mid-1800s, a time when Donovan’s theory of evolution was only beginning to take hold in Europe. He used his understanding of this new theory to examine why it was that the human eye could apparently not see a wide variety of color until well into the modern era. In Gladstone’s mind, this was evidence that the human eye had undergone massive changes in the past few thousand years. The lack of color in the Odyssey was not Homer’s fault. It was a product of evolution in progress. However, today we know that evolution doesn’t work that fast. Which leaves us with the question: why did Greeks ignore the color blue?
As it turns out, the Greeks weren’t alone in their disregard for blue. Years after Gladstone’s discovery, another researcher named Lazarus Geiger took up his theory ran with it. Geiger expanded the search to any ancient text who could find. He looked for descriptions of color in millennia-old copies of the Koran, the Bible, and the Torah…finding no word for blue in any of them. Ditto Chinese myths, or the original Icelandic sagas. Reflecting on his search, he concluded:
“These hymns, of more than ten thousand lines, are brimming with descriptions of the heavens. Scarcely any subject is evoked more frequently. The sun and reddening dawn’s play of color, day and night, cloud and lightning, the air and ether, all these are unfolded before us, again and again…but there is one thing no one would ever learn from these ancient songs…and that is that the sky is blue.”
Soon, though, Geiger discovered an even more interesting pattern. Almost every language he studied developed a word for all the major colors the human eye can sense—always in the same order. First are black and white, and (with a small delay) red. Next come green and yellow, as well as some other minor shades. Blue, meanwhile, is last by far. It wasn’t described in any distinct way until a society first invented a method of creating blue artificially–6,000 years ago, when the Ancient Egyptians began to experiment with blue dyes.
A Strange Test
Back to the Himba. As it turns out, their unbelievable sensitivity to color, when regarding shades of green, does not extend to every other color. Here’s another test: which of these squares is blue?
Easy? The Himba would not agree. When researchers asked individual members of the tribe that same question, they were confronted by confusion and, in some cases, annoyance. The Himba, who were so adept at differentiating minuscule differences in green squares, were utterly baffled by blue. So the question has to be: why?
Words don’t just describe the world around us. They change the way we see it. In gendered languages, for example, speakers have are shown to unconsciously assign stereotypically masculine and feminine features to objects they describe. Similarly, speakers of languages which place different emphasis on descriptions of space or time have been seen to process the world differently. In one famous example, a tribe from New Guinea who habitually describe the relationship the world in terms of cardinal directions on a compass (North, Southwest, etc.) were shown to have no problem orienting themselves at any given moment—with no compass to guide them.
The same concept applies to color.
The Himba have dozens of ways to describe green. There’s a word for the green in grass—radically different from the word to describe the green of an insect, or the green of moss. They have absolutely no word for blue.
In Dadoff’s mind, this proved that the words we use to describe our world end up radically altering our mental images. While the Himba found shades of green easy and struggled with blue, the English speakers he studied were just the opposite. They failed the test because in English (as in a majority of modern languages) there’s really not much difference between shades of green. Sure, an experienced artist might have words like “seafoam” and “chartreuse” in their day-to-day dictionary–but most don’t distinguish much.
So why is blue always the last color a human society identifies and acknowledges?
Simple: nature, for the most part, doesn’t come in pure blue.
Red is common. It’s the color of dirt, it’s the color of blood. Green shows up in plants, trees. Even yellow appears in sand, vegetation, fruit, or honey.
But consider where you’d find the color blue in nature—other than the sky. Bluebirds are incredibly uncommon in most of the world. Blue eyes are rare as well. When it comes to flowers and other plants, there’s almost none that occur naturally without human interference. And the sky, as it turns out, is not really as blue as we might think. It’s often grey, or white. Sometimes, for a person without the vocabulary, it might appear as a very pale shade of violet. Water, meanwhile, simply reflects whatever it is you see that sky as.
Linguists have noted for years that as languages evolve, their capacity for describing detail and complexity increases. With that in mind, it should come as no surprise that specific descriptions of blue appeared so late in the history of humanity. Determining the difference between the color of dried blood and dried mud might mean the difference between life and death. Determining the difference between the blue of the sky and the green of seaweed might mean a missed opportunity for an ambitious painter.
It’s all too easy to accept one’s own perspective as infallible. Remember this dress?
It captivated the world (if only for a few weeks) because it reminded us that not everyone sees the world like we do.
That can be an uncomfortable realization–but also a beautiful one. It’s in sharing our different perspectives, bringing them together and holistically understanding the world, that the most important aspects of human nature come out.
Why Do Dogs Howl? Inside Your Dog’s Mind
Why do dogs howl? Many dog behaviors can be stressful, but the howl is unique. There’s a haunting quality to a dog’s howl that makes it impossible to ignore. All dog owners have felt a pang of regret after putting their pooch in their crate, but when they begin to howl that ear-splitting, mournful keen, it almost instantly becomes unbearable. So, why do dogs howl? Aren’t they supposed to be man’s best friend?
A howl might come out as a yip, or a bark-howl, or a prolonged baying. They all mean different things, but they all come from the same place. To answer the question “why do dogs howl?” we have to remember that inside every dog, from the smallest chihuahua on up, is a wolf. They may have changed a lot since their days in the wild, but their genes hold a memory of that time, and sometimes it has to come out.
The Howling Beast Inside
Wolves and dogs may look extremely different today—picture a wolf, now picture a dachshund—but scientifically, they’re still very similar creatures. The genes of dogs and wolves started to diverge between 20,000 and 40,000 years ago—a blink of an eye as far as evolution is concerned.
It’s almost impossible to say when the first dogs appeared; the path from wolf to dog was extremely gradual. First, relatively docile wolves likely began following around nomadic human hunter-gatherers, feasting off the remains of the large carcasses that humans left behind them. After what was likely millennia, this relationship grew even closer.
As the humans moved around, these wolves followed them. Eventually, their gene pool began to split off from the wolves who stayed in their territories. The human-friendly wolves, who already likely had lower stress-thresholds and flight responses, began to change physically. Their snouts got shorter. Their teeth got smaller. The differences between them and their wolf brethren became more and more distinct.
Man’s Best Friend
Looking at wolves today, they may seem like a far cry from man’s best friend, but they were actually the perfect candidates for domestication. Wolves were around the right size that they could still be controlled, but they were big enough that they could aid in the hunt—and perhaps most importantly, they were extremely social animals.
Even today, wolves live in complex social groups, and they communicate with a vast array of sounds. This trait made them particularly well-suited to understanding and following human commands—but it’s also why our beloved Fidos and Rexes howl, no matter how much we wish they’d stop.
What’s in a Howl?
Amongst their various types of yips and barks, wolves also use howls to communicate a wide variety of things. They howl to assemble their pack before or after a hunt; to raise the alarm if the den is threatened; and to locate each other while in strange territory. Each howl is different. Wolves will also sometimes howl together, harmonizing to make it seem like they’re more numerous than they appear.
This level of communication and cooperation is what makes wolves such effective hunters. It’s baked into their DNA, and while it’s been a while since dogs split off from their wolf ancestors, it hasn’t been long enough for these traits to disappear completely.
Wild and Howling at Heart
The first dog appeared about 14,000 years ago—though to be fair, if you saw that pup today, it would still look a lot like a wolf. It wasn’t until the Victorian Era, when selective breeding really took off, that we got the hundreds of distinct breeds we see today. For thousands of years, the line between dog and wolf was blurry. To a certain extent, it remains so today.
As Raymond Pierotti, professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Kansas, put it, ” ‘wild’ and ‘domesticated’ exist as concepts along a continuum, and the boundary between them is often blurred—and, at least in the case of wolves, it was never clear to begin with.”
The Howling Call of the Wild
Just like wolves, modern dogs have many different reasons for howling. If your dog is a howler, they might be trying to call you to come to them. Either that, or they might be signalling toward something they’ve found. They might also be trying to bond with a pack (even if that “pack” is just an ambulance or fire truck siren).
Dogs might howl if they’re hurt or sick, or if they’re feeling separation anxiety. And like so many dog behaviors, they might simply howl to get your attention. But it’s no coincidence that the dogs who share more DNA with wolves also happen to howl more often than other canines.
For all this, modern dogs do not need to howl. For wolves, a successful hunt might be the difference between life and death. For our comfy, cozy dogs…not so much. So while they may have many different reasons and instincts for howling, none of these reasons really answers the question, “Why do dogs howl?”
No, the answer to that quandary lies thousands of years in the past, with their wolf ancestors and the unique process of domestication that led to the creation of man’s best friend. Dogs howl because they’re man-made, and, like so many man-made things, they can’t be divorced from their wilder origins. Selective breeding over thousands of years has made types of dogs that are suited for a wide variety of things—from hunting to herding and more—but they’re still too closely related to their ancestors for the heart of a wolf to have disappeared completely.
In that way, a dog’s howl really is exactly what it sounds like: The call of the wild.
Real Or Fake? Found Footage Horror And The Staging of Controversy
In a time before the internet, when entertainment options were limited to what could be found on the shelves of video rental stores, you might hear whispers among groups of friends about a film that couldn’t be found in your local Blockbuster, and could only be passed around among friends—because it was allegedly real footage of a team of filmmakers being stalked and massacred by a tribe of killers in the Amazon rainforest.
That film was Cannibal Holocaust, and the morbid fascination it sparked has to do not only with the fact that it purports to be made of found footage, but also that it was banned in many countries after its release. The film, released in 1980, is about an anthropologist tasked with finding a missing American documentary film crew who had been working in the Amazon rainforest. The story of the anthropologist’s journey acts as something of a framing device for the “main attraction”—graphic, purported “found” footage that exposes the documentary crew’s practice of staging horrific scenes, and also depicts the crew attacking and murdering a girl from the local tribe, only to be massacred in retaliation. The misdeeds of the documentary crew, along with the commentary by the anthropologist character are used as a way of attempting to make the film a critique of exploitative journalism. The director, Ruggero Deodate, was said to be influenced by the infamous Italian Red Brigades—he believed that the media had staged some of the more dramatic incidents of terrorism that they’d shown.
For obvious reasons, Cannibal Holocaust garnered a lot of attention and controversy when it was released, due to its graphic nature and its purported use of found footage. After its massive success on the first weekend it was released, Italian authorities attempted to confiscate the film, but Deodato had arranged to have it covertly distributed to other countries. Deodato was arrested on obscenity charges, and later even was brought in on murder charges when persistent rumors that the film featured real live murders became too much for police to ignore. Although those charges were dropped, the graphic nature of the film led to it being banned in multiple countries.
Controversy Leads To Dollars
Of course, all of the abovementioned incidents only served to draw more attention to the film, and the filmmakers courted this controversy as a means of marketing the film. In order to make the “found footage” portion seem as real as possible, the actors portraying the documentary crew had a clause in their contracts which stipulated that they not appear in other movies for a year following the film’s release, leading to questions about their whereabouts and lending veracity to claims that they had, in fact, died on camera. In order to prove that he’d not harmed the cast members, Deodato ended up putting investigators in contact with the (very much alive) actors and having to testify as to how certain gruesome special effects were orchestrated. He also went on to challenge bans of the film for years after its release.
Despite the disproval of the film’s claim to having been composed of found footage, in a time before Wikipedia, salacious rumors about the content of the film spread like wildfire, giving it instant cult status and driving people to find and share bootleg copies of it, including alternate or edited versions. The mystique surrounding the film was undeniable—and it was only a matter of time until it was recreated.
Who Decides What’s Real?
Much as it did in Cannibal Holocaust, the idea of presenting “found footage” as real found its niche in the horror genre, where it was able to present the most shocking, salacious, and graphic content of all as real, increasing the effect of the onscreen violence on the credulous viewer. Of course, how well that effect actually worked depended on the film, and for many years, the found
footage trope was primarily used in little-seen B-horror films, including such creatively titled gems like Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County and Guinea Pig 2: Flower of Flesh and Blood. In the early 90s, Charlie Sheen was given a copy of Guinea Pig 2, and reported it to the FBI, as he believed what he was watching on screen was real. Much as Deodato had once been forced to the do the same, producer Hideshi Hino was forced to prove that the killing featured onscreen was an act.
The genre didn’t get much further attention until the dawn of the age of the internet—the era of HTML 2.0, when usage was expanding rapidly among family households, but before the web was dominated by Google, Amazon, and assorted social media networks. It wasn’t uncommon for film distributors to set up websites for upcoming releases—hello, famously still existent Space Jam site—but one film set itself apart from the rest in that period, using the mystique of the found footage genre and the power of the internet to become a marketing juggernaut: 1999’s The Blair Witch Project.
A Global Phenomenon
The conceit of The Blair Witch Project is well-known—a team of documentary filmmakers goes missing while investigating a figure of local renown called the Blair Witch, and the footage they left behind is later found and cobbled together by investigators searching for clues about their fate. The filmmakers emphasized the supposed veracity of the found footage during every party of the filmmaking process, from casting unknown actors to the marketing touch of the official website featuring fake police reports that “documented” the disappearances. When the film screened at Sundance, missing persons posters were produced with the casts’ faces. The Blair Witch filmmakers also produced a short “documentary” about the legend that the crew in the film investigates which aired before The Blair Witch Project was released.
The overall effect was that the film became a huge success—the website and the questions over the reality of it all made it a viral success before the word “viral” was ever used in that context. Its legacy is as impressive as its financial and critical success, as it inspired numerous other films in the horror genre, including Paranormal Activity, REC, and V/H/S. Of course, there’s also the scores of less successful B-level “found footage” horror films that it spawned in its wake, as well as its two underwhelming sequels.
While the “hype” around the idea of these purported found footage films has died down in the 20 years since the release of The Blair Witch Project, the interest in films like this speaks to the audience’s desire for something real and authentic in their scares—something new, that they’ve never seen before, something more life-changing than your regular haunted house, creepy doll, or simply jump scare. These found footage films represented a new possibility—but whether it’s one that ultimately failed or succeeded will be decided by whether the conceit continues to be used or is replaced in the future of horror films.
How To Tell If Someone Is Lying: Tips From The Experts
How To Tell If Someone Is Lying
Catching a liar is an age-old problem. We’re limited by the complex mysteries of the human brain. As a result, our inner thoughts are often inscrutable to others, and vice versa.
So, can we really tell if someone is lying, even if the fibber is someone we love and have known for years? There’s good news and bad news. We can all learn how to read the signs for when even the best liar is telling a huge whopper—but beware; lie detection takes a lot of practice, and it’s not always reliable.
There are, however, things you can learn to improve your lie-detecting abilities. Without further ado (and with no word of a lie) here are the ways some truth experts employ to tell if someone is lying.
No Means Yes When You’re a Liar
How can you catch a liar? Sometimes our body language gives us away when we’re telling a white lie, a small fib, or a big whopper of untruth. One frequent way this happens is when someone accidentally nods their head “Yes” even when they’re saying “No.”
Granted, considering many cultures have opposite head movements for “Yes” and “No,” you’re going to want to make sure you know who you’re talking to with this tip before you accuse them of lying.
Hiding and Lying
Another way to tell if someone is lying is to see if they cover their mouth and their eyes while they’re telling the fib. This may be an unconscious reaction to “cover” the lie up, and to keep any potential listeners from “unearthing” the truth.
Sometimes, liars might even close their eyes while telling a lie, or else look away—after all, the eyes are the windows to the (liar’s) soul.
I’ve Got a Lie in My Throat
Liars get choked up too—and that’s actually another way to tell if someone is lying. We all get a tickle in our throats from time to time, but when a liar is in the middle of telling a fib, they will sometimes loudly clear their throats, or even swallow hard. That’s a sign that a lie is in the making.
This might be yet another subconscious tick, or perhaps lying just gives some guilty parties a dry throat.
The Fibber Caught Red-Handed
A further way to tell if someone is lying is to watch if they consistently put their hand to their face. Just as liars will sometimes cover up their mouth or eyes, they might also use their hands to touch their face excessively, like pulling at their ears or touching their lips. Sometimes, liars might also bite or lick their lips, or otherwise perform anxious lying gestures.
This excessive fidgeting happens because lying creates a spike in our anxiety, even if we happen to be a seasoned liar. This rise in anxiety often drains the blood from our extremities, causing itching or a need to fidget. The liar might even start fidgeting with their hands, which is yet another sign of a lie.
A Well-Groomed Deception
One more for the lie detection bank: This anxiety might also cause the liar to perform grooming gestures on themselves, whether it be to sort out their clothes, wipe the (lying) sweat off of their foreheads, or re-straighten some of their surroundings, like an errant pencil lying on a table.
Lying experts consider all of this a potential indication of a lie, and you should be on the lookout for it when you confront your own liar.
Has This All Been a Lie?
So, now you’ve got a great body language toolkit to expose the liars in your life—but it’s time for a bit of a reality check. Although expert researchers can use these signs to sniff out a liar and their lies, a lot of these body languages are notoriously difficult to notice and then diagnose—and a lot of times, even the experts are wrong.
One alternative—but still unpredictable—way to tell if someone is lying has less to do with the liar’s body language and more to do with the form and content of their lie, since body cues can be weak, or so fleeting as to be unnoticeable.
The Deceiver’s Pause
One other good way to tell if someone is lying, for example, is to wait and see if they pause before answering your question. While you might think that pausing means someone is lying, it’s actually the opposite: a pause might mean they’re telling the truth, and a fluid response indicates they could be lying.
Think about it: how well do you remember every detail of what you did yesterday? If someone asked you to tell the truth about it, you’d probably have to take a moment to collect your thoughts.
Liars, on the other hand, often don’t need pauses in their speech when answering questions because they’ve already got their fib locked and loaded. So if your loved one doesn’t pause when you ask, “Where were you last night?” they might very well be lying.
The Contempt Is a Lie
There are also clues in what the liar is saying. If the person is vague about the details of their story or speaks only in incoherent fragments, you may have a lie on your hands. Other content clues that a lie is afoot: The liar uses “qualifying language” like “I swear to God,” or “in all honesty” to try to get you to believe the lie by overemphasizing “truth.” In the same vein, liars also like to use superlatives such as “totally” and “absolutely” when telling their lies.
The liar might also refuse to give you any material to work with, shutting down the conversation and keeping himself or herself from being caught in a lie. Otherwise, even if they do keep talking, they might do so with disdain, making you feel as if you are the one in the wrong for thinking they are lying.
But don’t lose hope if the liar gets upset, there is also one last, great trick most experts use to tell if someone is lying…
Tell That Lie to Me Again
To tell if someone is lying, many researchers ask them to tell their lie backward. This forces the liar to work harder to remember their narrative. If someone is telling the truth, they will have very little difficulty doing this. After all, it actually happened, so the memory is cemented in our brains.
But if it’s all a lie and it didn’t actually take place, it’s also more difficult to “remember”—and this extra degree of difficulty can open up the liar to making mistakes or even confessing their lies.
So with this last genius trick, now you know what to do the next time you meet a really good liar.
Caught In The Act
In the end, catching a liar red-handed in their lie is difficult to do. Even when examining both body language and content recall, we can still fail to really nail the liar. In fact, sometimes the sign of a skilled liar is their lack of tells. They may act super disinterested and still, offer up no body language cues, or else they may have rehearsed their story so that they know it backwards and forwards, with very little pauses or confused chronology.
In cases like these, you have one final weapon in your arsenal: your gut. In fact, studies have shown that our gut feelings about lying and liars are actually often right. So take a good, long look at that (possibly) lying loved one and ask yourself: do you believe them?
News6 months ago
Who Is The Richest Man In The World?
News6 months ago
How To Tell If Someone Is Lying: Tips From The Experts
News6 months ago
Real Or Fake? Found Footage Horror And The Staging of Controversy
History6 months ago
How Did Bob Marley Die?
News6 months ago
What To Expect When You’re Expecting
News6 months ago
What Happens When You Die? The Secrets Of Life’s Greatest Mystery
History6 months ago
Margaret and Roumania Peters: Forgotten Champions
News6 months ago
Why Do Dogs Howl? Inside Your Dog’s Mind