Language

Part 1: A 15 minute conversation where only one person speaks while the other is not able to use symbolic language.

As the listener in this assignment, I found it to be a difficult task. I felt overwhelmed. I didn’t have time to gather my thoughts, nor was I able to find a way to get more information or ask for help in understanding what was said. The longer the conversation flowed in one direction, the less relevant the message became. There were many moments I wanted to interrupt or ask a question based on what was being said but was not able to do so. It left me to feel that the conversation was not as beneficial as it could have been should we both been able to speak. It was like being given a series of season finale episodes. My speaker found this project easy overall because she had ample to say. Should this conversation occur with a speaker who had very little to say, it would have been difficult to keep the conversation going.

The speaker felt freedom to speak whatever was on her mind because I was not able to stop or interrupt the discussion. She didn’t pause or wait which made it continuous. Due to my lack of response, she began speaking louder as if it would help me understand more. The other side of this might be frustration from the speaker’s end which might also lead to a more stern and rigid speech.

Facial expressions for happiness, sadness, anger, surprise, fear, and disgust are the same across all cultures. If two cultures met for the first time the culture with the ability to speak would greatly have the upper hand with communicating their ideas, because they had an additional means to doing so. This allows for the back and forth to confirm the understanding of what is implied. Usually when an idea is first announced, it’s verbally, and then followed with a visual to help confirm the idea.

The speaking culture might feel frustration or pity for the non-speaking culture. They may even reframe from speaking because they may not want to offend the other since they could not speak. The speaker might feel bad to vent their concerns while the non-speaker was not able to do the same.

Autistic, deaf and mentally disabled persons all struggle with spoken language. We tend to educate them with sign language, flash card, word substitutions to form a common communication. We know life is a struggle without communication and worry for those who do not possess this ability. Typically when communication with these less fortunate individuals we may speak slowly or loudly thinking this will help their understanding.

Part 2: 15 minutes communicating without any physical embellishments.

Although it was difficult to get through the 15 minutes, the lack of voice tones made this conversation fitting to discuss instructions or sad circumstances. It seemed to lack all emotion, effectiveness, and reality of the conversation. The human face is extremely expressive, able to express countless emotions without saying a word and unlike some forms of nonverbal communication, facial expressions are universal.

Speaking in a monotonous voice makes it difficult to hold a conversation. When your voice pitch doesn’t change, it’s difficult for the other partner to keep interest in what you’re saying. They will tune out quickly. It is not believable or boring. The use of movement and facial expression are extremely important in communicating. When your nonverbal signals match up with the words you’re saying, they increase trust and understanding. When they don’t, they generate tension, mistrust, and confusion.

Facial expression can substitute for a verbal message. For example, a person's eyes can often show a more vivid message than words do.

Body movement may add to or complement a verbal message. For example, a coach who pats a person on the back in addition to giving praise can increase the impact of the message.

Many people have difficulty reading body language. The term, “action speaks louder than words" is true. The benefit of reading body language helps to identify deception. While words can be deceptive, the human body is not a good liar. Another benefit of reading body language will be an awareness to understand social situations and tell how comfortable others around you are.

Circumstances, where it might be beneficial to not reading body language, might be a kidnapping because you wouldn’t want the kidnapper to read your fear, because you don’t want them to know they have the upper hand. This may also not be a benefit in a deal or purchase. Buying a new home, you may reframe from showing excitement. Lastly... when approached by a bear as you need to maintain a calm voice. 

Piltdown Hoax

In 1912 at Piltdown, East Susses, England, Charles Dawson announced that he and colligues, Arthur Smith Woodward, and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, discovered fossilized remains of an early human believed to have lived about 500,000 to a million years ago. The findings consised of skull fragments, a jawbone with 2 teeth, animals fossils and primitive stone tools. It suggested the skull belonged to an early human with large brain, which implied a level of intelligence grater than apes. The ape-like jawbone contained human-like teeth. The jawbone was that of an orangutan and was combined with the skull of a fully developed modern human except for the occiput ( the skull area pn the spinal column) and brian size . Woodward presented that Piltdown man represented the gap between apes and humans. Since the combination of human brain with an ape jaw offers to support the idea at the time that human evolution began with the larger brain before walking upright (now known to have occurred be the opposite).

This finding greatly affected early research on human evolution. Particularly, it led scientists down a dead end believing that the human brain expanded in size before the jaw adapted to omnivorous diet.  This finding justified scientist hypothesis.

Discoveries of other early human fossils around the world during the 1920s such as the skull in South Africa (Australopithecus) all showed jaws and teeth became human like before the large brain evolved. This was different from the large brain and ape-like jaw known from the Piltdown man. This confusion lasted decades. The testing and research over Piltdown man caused a large amount time and effort on the fossil. As the new findings differed and could not be ignored investigations on the Piltdown man began.

late 1940s, Kenneth Oakley,  biological anthropologist Joseph Weiner, and human anatomist Wilfrid Le Gros Clark examined the Piltdown fossil and found that the skull and jaw actually came from two different species, a human and an ape (orangutan).
In November 1953, the Natural History Museum announced the Piltdown man a fraud.

Human faults entangled with the Piltdown man case are scattered beginning with:

·       Dawson himself, for dishonesty seeking fame and glory into the Royal Society as represented in the more 38 fake finding through his career as an amateur scientist.

·       Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, religiously claiming that as a spiritualist he wanted to discredit the scientific establishment as revenge against the different views of science.

·       To the plot of Martin Hinton found case of fossils (bones and teeth) that had been stained similar to the Piltdown remains in the same manner as the Piltdown remains. The trunk was linked to Martin A.C. Hinton, a volunteer at the museum in 1912 who may have been seeking revenge against Woodward for not giving him a raise.

·       National pride and excitement was present and resulted in no further research of Dawson’s findings.

A microscope revealed that the teeth within the jaw had been filed down to make them look more human, and that many of the remains from the Piltdown site appeared to have been stained using iron solution and chromic acid to match each other.

Fluorine testing which is the process of calculating the amount of fluoride absorbed in the fossils, the time the object has been in the soil can be determined, revealed that the remains were only 50,000 instead of 500,000 years old as stated by Dawson. In even later examinations, carbon-dating technology showed that the skull was no more than 600 years old.

Many new techniques are available. Scientists and archaeologists are using the most up-to-date forensic techniques, including isotopic analysis to reveal where the fossils came from since different areas in the world have different isotopic compositions in their rocks. Sophisticated carbon dating and DNA analysis hope to show who the species the bones belonged since scientist now know the genome for orangutans.

It is not possible to remove human factors as scientist are still humans and all have instincts and motive. This is the start of how scientific theories are usually generated. Although dishonestly surfaces, inspiration also provides motivation and ambition to provide something better than what currently exists.

Scientists should continue to question findings. Aside from the faults listed above, it was a reminder that all findings need be evaluated and not assumed legitimate regardless of the source.

After further research I read that recently they have attempted several other testing methods such as DNA and isotopic analysis to reveal where the fossils came from and who the bones belonged to. I also came across a comment stating attempts to extract DNA from the skull fragments and jawbone have so far been frustrating as it seems the way the bones were boiled in chemicals by the hoaxer has destroyed any genetic material.