Hacker News Reader

Comment by keville | Hacker News Reader

There's plenty of science behind micro-expressions and detection of deception.

Paul Ekman [0] is "ranked 59th out of the 100 most cited psychologists of the twentieth century" and I thought the TV show based on his research [1] was very entertaining. (I am surprised that the article used the phrase "micro-expression" without any reference to Ekman's work.)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ekman [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_to_Me

View on HN

Do you know what science actually is?

Your question seems to be inconsistent with HN guidelines: comments should be constructive.

Specifically, comments should encourage discussion and allow for multiple perspectives on topic. It appears to me that your comment is borderline name calling and is anything but constructive.

Thanks for your concern, but I disagree. Science means something, and really don’t confuse word count with value.

I fail to see how asking someone if they know what science is would help with a constructive discussion. Did you mean to imply that the micro-expression related work the the GP cited is not scientific in your opinion? Or are you questioning the GPs knowledge about science?

It seemed like a legitimate question to ask someone referring to the content of those links as “plenty of science...”

Do you know what "constructive" actually means?

See? Brevity can work.

I think you missed the point - it wasn’t about brevity but about being constructive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com