The Face I Was Going For Before

 

If you've ever seen this hit:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xat1GVnl8-k&list=RDxat1GVnl8-k&start_radio=1


It's called "The Bad Touch" by The Bloodhound Gang.  I was actually, believe it nor not, trying to go for the sort of impassive, "eyes glazed over" kind of face that the singer was doing in the time between about 1:05 and 1:10.  As you can see, I was nowhere close to hitting the mark!


For some reason, that face is the most memorable face to me in this song.


Here is another photo where I was trying to do a different face, and I inadvertently got slightly closer to this face that I was trying to do before:




Here is a face I can do more reliably, it is much more in my "range" of facial expressions, and it reminds me of Andy Samberg:




I am thinking of Andy Samberg (and Chris Parnell, also) in Lazy Sunday, the comedic rap skit.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRhTeaa_B98



Re-watching it, I count 2 close facial expressions to this one from Andy Samberg, and 3 close facial expressions to this one from Chris Parnell.  (The last one by Chris Parnell is a little bit debatable, it's the one right before he eats a cupcake.)


I wonder if this could shed any light on my disability?  I am keenly aware that I have trouble doing facial expressions properly--my range is very limited, and I feel like I'm best at "forcing" facial expressions that are sort of funny or goofy, or, very mild emotionally (like a weak smile), and, I don't think I experience emotions the same way that other people do, although I am better with that when I'm stable.  I feel that my emotional experiences are somewhat "muted," and that's why I like to do mood exercises to try to improve and alter my mood.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Math Update: My P != NP Proof Might Be Correct!!!!! -- (update, no it's not, see the note at the beginning and the updates near the bottom)

EDIT:  No, this proof is not correct.  See the updates at the bottom for details on why (based on Dr. Zelinsky's comment).  Fortunately, my GLL proof and MSR proofs still appear to be correct. It could be that Joshua Zelinsky's comment actually helps me to complete the proof. The GLL proof appears to be correct, AFAIK. The thing is, the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent --> P != NP" within PA and the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent" as a theorem of ZFC just shows that P != NP is a theorem of PA.  That isn't a contradiction, it's just another step in the proof. I think the striking idea is, P != NP is a theorem of PA, but not of ZFC.  That is what I worked to prove.  AFAIK it is possible for a proposition to be a theorem of PA but not of ZFC.  In particular, PA can be proved consistent from ZFC, so we would think it s possible and even likely that there are some non-theorems of ZFC that are theorems of PA. So this is great!  It l...
Read more

Hello, Texas - A Quick Monopoly Lesson

  So today, I thought I saw some people running around blurting code gestures at me.  One of the codes seemed to say, "Riot for a[buse] v[ictim] time -M".  Oh, M?  M as in Monolith, or M as in Monopoly fan who doesn't get it? Here, Houstonian code-talkers...let me teach you how to play Monopoly, since you are so hungry for free knowledge:  - Make deals with other players that benefit you.  - Offer deals to difficult players that are somewhat beneficial to them, knowing that they might reject.  - Watch which deals other players reject, and identify what *deal types* they are not likely to accept from you or anyone else.  - Be very very careful about your own deals--and behavior--lest you get figured out by your opponents and backed into a corner, with good, beneficial deals being made without you by cunning adversaries who know your every move. There's a poker lesson in there, too, but I don't want to get too educational right now.
Read more

Flash Non-Fiction: James Bond and Masculinity

  This was going to be a longer essay, but I decided to just blurt out my point rather than trying to write well. Basically, I think James Bond movies are good, and the songs are high-quality too, but it sends semi-dangerous messages to men in particular about what it means to be a man.  The Bond character is intransigent, aggressive, violent, and absolutely sure of himself in all cases.  He is portrayed as a big winner--able to date and have sex with beautiful women, almost impossible to kill, and lethal and elite at both armed and unarmed combat. I'm concerned that some men, including my estranged father ASW, have had their sense of morality warped by Bond movies.  They think that this dramatically presented way to be masculine is the only way.  I think that's unhealthy, and when people get the not-so-original idea to "try to be more Bond-like" in their personal lives, that leads to catastrophic conflicts with and major potential for deep pain for people that ...
Read more