You’re Probably Being Judged By Your Laugh

Quinn Myers

But can you do anything about it?

Whether we mean to or not, we’re all constantly judging each other, on everything from our handshakes to our gym clothes. Even our laugh — something we think of as involuntary — isn’t safe from this constant unconscious scrutiny, implying a range of potentially negative traits across both class and gender. We’ve all nudged a friend in a restaurant or movie theater on hearing a terrible or inappropriate laugh: Maybe it’s a guy with a shrill, emasculating giggle, or a woman with the husky, booming laugh of a Wild West bordello madame. Perhaps a person’s laugh makes them sound psychotically evil, or like an uncivilized buffoon. Maybe it’s someone whose laugh just flat-out sucks.

The big question, of course, is this: If you have a laugh you hate — and that you feel is causing other people to make unwanted assumptions about you — is there any way for you to change it?

First, the Bad News

Unfortunately, your involuntary laugh — that big belly laugh that erupts all the way from your diaphragm — is there for good. The thing to bear in mind here, though, is that it’s impossible to tailor your laugh to fit whatever specific image you’re trying to project anyway. While it’s generally true that guttural laughs like grunts, pants and snorts are perceived less positively than more musical laughs (literally, a “hahaha” sound), there aren’t any scientific studies that show we universally associate certain laughs with certain personalities.

“There are no specific sounds that would make a laugh objectively ‘too dirty’ or ‘too feminine,’” says Nadine Lavan, a psychologist at the University of London who specializes in laughter and nonverbal communication. “Laughter is totally dependent on the context and the listener — if you’re being judged unfavorably, that’s probably more of a reflection on who’s listening to you than on your laugh.”

In other words, we all interpret laughs differently, so the idea of a one-size-fits-all laugh is, well, laughable. Or to put it another way: If someone truly judges you based on your laugh, that says way more about them as a person than your laugh could ever say about you.

Now, the Good News

The thing few people realize about laughter is that the big belly laugh — the one we’re most wary of — only happens about 20 percent of the time. The rest of our laughs aren’t an involuntary reaction to something we find funny, but a part of our everyday language, injected into conversation as a sort of verbal punctuation. Whether it’s a polite, deferential titter or an encouraging, affectionate chuckle, they work as a way of easily communicating anything from respect to scorn to awkward embarrassment. This doesn’t mean that such a laugh is fake — or even that we do it consciously — they’re just not the same as the laughter that erupts in response to something we find genuinely hilarious.

Most importantly, this kind of laughter can be changed. According to a study by Jo-Anne Bachorowski in Psychological Science, the more “voice” you put into your laugh — i.e., the more it sounds like a classic, songlike “hahaha” — the more positively the laugh is viewed. So if your, “Nice one, boss!” laugh sounds less like a manly guffaw and more like a pig uncovering a truffle, you can try consciously making it sound closer to a more traditional laugh.

It helps, too, to make a mental note of when you’re laughing — whether it’s to soften the awkwardness of a dumb thing you said, or simply just to fill a gap in conversation — and with practice and consistency, there’s a chance your brain will rewire itself to do this kind of laugh automatically.

But Here’s Why You Should Leave Your Laugh Alone

Much in the same way that people have trouble changing their accents when learning foreign languages, Lavan warns that an altered laugh might still come across as forced.

Upon hearing it — regardless of how pleasantly musical it might be — the other brain in the conversation will immediately be skeptical. On the flip side, Lavan explains that no matter how bad your big old goofy belly laugh is, anyone who hears it will at least register it as a genuine, emotional laugh.

In short, our brains naturally favor authentic laughter, even if it’s a squealing cackle that makes you sound like a prepubescent supervillain. “So maybe,” Lavan concludes, “You should just stick with whatever laugh you’ve got.”


DARPA Using Warfare Technology on Civilians for Mass Mind Control

by Paul A. Philips, Guest, Waking Times

Never mind the bombs and bullets or other conventional weaponry, consider the use of hi-tech stealth weapons. Not just for use in warfare, but for other nefarious purposes. A number of whistleblowers have come out of the woodwork to let us know that governmental agencies such as DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) are using some of these hi-tech stealth weapons on unsuspecting civilians for mass mind control.

Through his research, such as that based on the startling revealing information he obtained from whistleblowers, author Dr Nick Begich explains the nature of the operations and hidden ulterior motives behind this rapidly developing mind control technology.

The mind control technology originates from the work of original scientists such as José Delgado and his EEG (electroencephalograph), bio-physics studies on subjects. The technology began with brain implants, which were later removed as it developed.

The current technology works by directing radio signals on targeted individuals to stimulate specific areas of their brain. These low-density subtle energies have the effects of causing disruption to the body’s physiological integrity, resulting in mood changes such as high anxiety. The directed radio signals may also be used to alter decision-making in order to manipulate a desired behavioral outcome.

Not just specific individuals, but according to Dr Begich, the technology has been known to psychoactively manipulate and overwhelm entire enemy armies during combat, causing them to surrender. However, the fact that this technology is used in the military is only because the soldiers are guinea pigs. .There is a bigger picture at work:

The government is also using agencies such as DARPA for applying this psychological warfare technology to covertly control and manipulate entire civilian populations.

It’s all part of the ruling elite’s technocratic agenda; total global domination with the use of technology. For instance, it’s no coincidence that DARPA has a strong allegiance with Google. Both have a number of same objectives involving the mind control and manipulation of society for forming a new hybrid social structure.

Further Developments

As the technology develops with other technologies, there are more options for the ruling elite over what they can do. Consider those technologies perceived by many members of the public as advantageous, but, unknown to them, have other nefarious purposes for controlling and manipulating society into a police state, mass surveillance, New World Order….

For example, a number of us know that there has been a strong push for implanting microchips for I.D and monitoring purposes. Take the case of implanting microchipped pills. There are advantages such as the ability to control doses and monitor patients remotely, but the implants could be used for other nefarious purposes.

Consider other examples having hidden nefarious purposes, such as the health- and mind-threatening ubiquitous Wi-Fi towers with their applications including computers, cell phones and forced ‘smart’ technology. Then there are mind controlling techniques involving the use of modulated signals to electronically manipulate the brain, via the mainstream media and social media for brainwashing and extreme propaganda.

Targeted Individual – also euphemistically known in the military as an ‘anomalous human potential’

Through the governmental agencies’ obsession with mass surveillance and data collecting, wanting to know your every move, using the technologies, you could be regarded as an enemy of the state if:

You have anti-corporatist views, knowing about corporate crimes and cover-ups…

You stand for the 2nd Amendment

You’re pro-Constitution

Actively against your treasonous, corrupt government

In other words if you’re found to be standing in the way of the ruling elite’s New World Order agenda then that could make you a targeted individual (anomalous human potential) for mind control to bring about your subjugation.

(Now wouldn’t that be quite ironic. DARPA using your own tax dollars to technologically manipulate your decision-making and behavior!)

A Turnaround

The ruling elite know that if the people ever made the shift from fear to love then their higher states of consciousness could be accessed to produce a turnaround for worldwide transformation. So in order to maintain the control system, the ruling elite have to keep the people in a constant state of fear by using such resources as their mind control technology.

However, the ruling elite are deeply concerned. As the global mass awakening continues to gather more and more momentum, they know that the future of their control system could be seriously under threat through an overwhelming number of awakened individuals taking back their rightful ownership of the world, where corrupt governments and their power structures would be redundant.

Instead of enslavement, what if the mind control technology could be altered and then used to free us? What about using the technology to make us happy, loving and peaceful?

Here is an eye-opening interview with Dr Begich to summarize:

About the Author

Paul A. Philips is the author of

This article (DARPA Using Warfare Technology on Civilians for Mass Mind Control) was originally created and published by and is re-posted here with permission.


The new authoritarians

Resultado de imagem para A huge image of president Erdogan

image edited by Web Investigator

Last century’s dictators wanted to reinvent their subjects as ‘new men’. This century’s strongmen just don’t care. Why?

Holly Caseis associate professor of history at Cornell University and the author of Between States: The Transylvanian Question and the European Idea during the Second World War(2009).

We might take the demonstrative demise of strongmen such as Nicolae Ceaușescu in Romania, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and – more recently and unobtrusively – Fidel Castro in Cuba to indicate that the day of the dictator has largely passed. Alas, authoritarianism is staging a comeback. Yet it is clear to poets and political scientists alike that the new authoritarians – Vladimir Putin in Russia, Recep Tayyıp Erdoğan in Turkey, Viktor Orbán in Hungary – are not like the old ones. In his recent poem ‘Some Advice for the New Government’, the poet Adam Zagajewski gave Poland’s newly elected cabinet some mock advice on how to be a new authoritarian:

All professors of constitutional law should be interned for life.
Poets can be left alone. No one reads them anyway.
You’ll need isolation camps, but gentle ones that won’t annoy the United Nations.
Most journalists should be sent to Madagascar.

These new strongmen seem milder, less openly brutal than the likes of Stalin or Hitler. In the words of the Austrian publicist and historian Hans Rauscher: ‘Brutal, naked mass violence against subjects is, at least in Europe and around Europe, no longer declared, insofar as Putins, Erdoğans, and Orbáns govern with the consent of a becalmed people, “freed” from all critical voices.’

But the difference goes well beyond their choice of whom to oppress and how. The autocrat of the mid-20th century was a strict and demanding father out to shape you into an ideal. He wanted you to modernise, learn self-discipline and, above all, self-sacrifice. When Mustafa Kemal Atatürk addressed soldiers during the Entente attack on Ottoman-held Gallipoli in 1915, he told them: ‘I am not ordering you to fight. I am ordering you to die.’ ‘In the Soviet army,’ said Stalin, ‘it takes more courage to retreat than to advance.’

Tough love was thus the signature attribute of the 20th-century dictator. Even when he wasn’t demanding the ultimate sacrifice, he wanted you to lose a few pounds, mothball your fez, lay some more bricks, join a state-run youth organisation (or five), learn a new alphabet (or even a new language) and call it your own, memorise some poems, songs or passages penned by the supreme leader and call them ‘history’. Even democratic heads of state once had higher expectations of their citizenry. That line from John F Kennedy’s 1961 inaugural speech – ‘Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country’ – now sounds like an admonition from an earlier, distant century.

And dictators undeniably wielded more power to transform their subjects during that era of greater expectations. The titles applied to them made it clear who was in charge: Mussolini was called Il Duce, Hitler der Führer, and Stalin Vozhd (the leader), Atatürk was called Marshall and Ghazi (victorious), and paintings and statues offered idealised images of them all. Like a stern father, the dictator seemed to be everywhere at once: omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, an Ersatz-god if ever there was one. His image was on the wall of every government office and every schoolroom, statues and busts of him adorned desks, nooks and squares, and everything from streets to towns to schools were named after him.

Today’s authoritarians, by contrast, expect very little of their ‘children’. They do not seek to transform their subjects or mould them into an ideal. They might lightly admonish them to stop smoking and drinking (Erdoğan), or to have more kids (Orbán), but they won’t generally send them to camps or prisons, or even tell them flat-out what to do or what to think. To be sure, some things are forbidden: trying to form an alternative fiefdom, initiating a coup, betraying the inner circle, etc. Try one of these and you will quickly learn that old-school tyranny still has its safe spaces. But if you criticise the government, its policies, or the person of the leader (especially in a place – such as Twitter or the international media – where someone might actually read it), you’re more likely to be trolled and harassed by the new authoritarian’s (often subsidised) supporters than sent to the mines.

For the most part, today’s authoritarians are more like the fathers of our time who, instead of demanding that their children live up to a set of idealistic expectations, are likely to send a message in the vein of: ‘Don’t listen to what those bullies are saying about you! You’ve been misunderstood and pushed around for too long. I know the real you and will see to it that you don’t have to conform to their expectations.’ Daddy understands what Junior thinks and feels: namely slighted…