Ifat Glassman

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ifat Glassman

  • Rank
  • Birthday 06/04/1981

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://www.ifatart.com
  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Gender Female
  • Interests Art (particularly painting and drawing), Objectivism, psychology, dancing.
  1. Happy Birthday to Ifat Glassman

  2. ARTIST discovered on THE FORUM

    I decided to drop engineering as a career after my 2nd year, when I realized it cannot be combined with art. I finished the degree though for several reasons (it's Biomedical Engineering though, not Electric Engineering). I am an artist, it's what fits me and who I am.
  3. ARTIST discovered on THE FORUM

    Hi, I noticed this page occasionally shows up as a referral to my website, I figure I'd correct the address to the current one. It's just www.ifatart.com I'm flattered and treasure the compliment. I have new work now, mostly my student work. The work Inventor was referring to is no longer available online. I do have it on display to my friends on Facebook, if anyone is interested in adding me, just send a request. Now I mostly display what I do at my school - a lot less imagination and a lot more working from life.
  4. Happy Birthday to Ifat Glassman

    Thanks. I enjoyed posting here in the past and might come back to it occasionally in the future. Your forum is much appreciated.
  5. Is body language objective?

    I listen to his explanations combined with the visual evidence. I can't possibly describe in text what the TV show shows. But honestly, I'm going to bail out of this discussion. What will I be spending my time on here? arguing with you guys whether or not we should look at the evidence presented by an expert? No thanks.
  6. Is body language objective?

    I understand you better now, but I did mean that they sense what a person feels inside. A person may smile and fool people but a smile will not fool a dog if the human has bad intentions. His show showed that so long as a dog has sufficient social experience the dog will recognize what a person feels. There are exceptions for that, but I think they are better put aside. A dog may learn to associate red bike with someone about to hit them thereby considering anyone on a bike as a threat, but that still doesn't change their other ability. The ability is still there. The point I was making is that they can sense a person's feelings, not just interpret them based on their random associations ("what it means to them"). A pack of dogs which Cesar would call "balanced" will react with the same emotion to a new dog showing a certain attitude. They all sense the attitude and read it the same. So it's not accurate to say that each dog there happens to respond to "what the behavior means to them", rather that they are able to correctly interpret what they see and hear. That is a very different meaning.
  7. Is body language objective?

    Oh, I actually meant something else. I was talking about less literal body language, such as the way a man walks, moves, breathes, the way they hold their facial muscles at any point in time, the way they sound and so on. It's what we use to get a sense of someone's intentions (are they friendly, mad at you, romantically interested in you, about to rob you and so on).
  8. I've been thinking of this one quite a bit in the past couple of years. Facial expressions and body language are something all animals use to communicate, humans included. We absorb the knowledge, part automatically and part intentionally as we grow up, learn to sense how other are feeling and thinking, what their intentions and character are through the way they move, look and sound. It is essential to our survival to be able to do so and a person who cannot read those would not be able to successfully live in a social environment. Yet I wonder if this form of communication is objective. With words, there can only be one meaning, but body language, facial expressions and intonations are a different thing. I imagine people would justly be afraid to use it as evidence in court, for example. It's easy to imagine it going out of hand, when one person claims that they can just "sense" that the defendant sounds as if he's guilty or sounds as if he's lying when he says he didn't kill that person and so on. How would he go about proving that he is right? I know that being objective and the required standards for proof in court are not the same, but court is a place that requires such a high degree of accuracy and objectivity that I found it to be a good setting to use for thinking on this subject. An interesting and relevant thing to note is that animals are capable of reading body language flawlessly. If anyone here seriously watched the dog whisperer show then one thing they could learn is that dogs readily sense what the human feels inside. Other people may not sense that someone is nervous, but the dog always will, without mistake. They are not born with this ability, but they develop it and it is their main form of communication with other animals (projection of emotions and intent through body language, facial expressions and sounds they make). This shows that the information provided by body language is indeed something that can be identified truthfully or falsely - there are no "2 right answers". So long as it is the case no one can claim that this sort of information is too obscure to rely on or that it can never be "real knowledge". It might be said that we need to develop certain specific measurements to be able to say that the information we acquire through body language is objective and can be relied on. Ayn Rand spoke of a sense of life and getting to know somebody's sense of life in The Romantic Manifesto. I remember she said that we get a strong impression of it the first time we meet someone but that she also thought that that first impression can be wrong and that in order to evaluate someone SOL correctly more time investment is required. I hope I will be forgiven for paraphrasing without a quote - it's a big book and it would take me hours to look. I think it's ok since I am saying that I am paraphrasing so it can be taken as such. Another thought is - if body language/ facial expressions are not objective, how can we possibly evaluate works of art, like paintings or dancing? It will be impossible and it would mean that those are not currently objective either since we lack the means to identify them with certainty.
  9. Happy Birthday to ifatart

    Boy, alann, you cracked me up with that farming comment. It was a good one indeed... Thank you all for the greetings, and thanks for the poem, I'm sure it made me blush pretty good. Also thanks Betsy for the thread and the Forum which is a wonderful environment. If I ever get the time (like maybe over the summer), I'll go back to participate and read here and there.
  10. Happy Birthday to ifatart

    Thanks. What a sweet picture, very much my style. Thanks for hosting a great forum and putting so much attention into every individual member.
  11. Positive vs. Negative motivation

    That's an option. Thanks for the suggestion.
  12. Positive vs. Negative motivation

    Does anyone have the course ""The Philosophy of Motivation" by Darryl Wright that Betsy mentioned? It seems to be no longer available at the Ayn Rand bookstore. I would be glad to buy it if anyone has it and want to sell. Or even borrow if that is possible, whatever is preferred. It seems to be an antique. Thanks.
  13. Happy Birthday to ifatart

    Thanks, everyone. ( nice song, Brian).
  14. A problem dealing with people who act nice

    Why do you care where I saw it? Why does it matter? And I am certain all people have a problem with "nice stuff" - at leats as something they need to make a choice about at some point in their life. It's just that some people have more courage than others to admit their state of mind.
  15. A problem dealing with people who act nice

    Here is that skepticism I was talking about. "We can never know". We can know. This is the same to how the term "psychologizing" is used to essentially cut out ANY attempt of psychological analysis. "Who are we to know? we can never know, so better not judge, but just answer the arguments". I judge, I don't just answer the arguments, and I am certain I can reach correct conclusions about people's psychologies from reading their writing. It has become almost a taboo to discuss any negative evaluation of someone's psychology, under the name of psychologizing. And I think this approach to so called "psychologizing" is at the core of skepticism in regard to human intentions, expressions and motivation. I am completely against it. Knowledge in that field IS attainable, and you don't have to be a "professional" for that.