Language Blog Post

The language assignment experiment ended up being very awkward and unusual. It was also very hard to do at first, but I did end up getting more comfortable as we went along. For part 1, My partner was the only person who was able to speak, while I could only respond with body gestures. This was probably the easier part of the experiment. My partner just talked about their life and what they were up too. For the majority of the time, I was just nodding my head and giving them a thumbs up. The assignment was obviously difficult to accomplish, but part 1 was mainly easier just because it wasn't that hard to not talk. In the beginning, my partner was uncomfortable taking with me, but they found a way to adjust to where it was easier for me to respond in body gestures. An example of this is that they first started of with questions, but later turned the conversation to a more informal type of conversation.

Because I could not respond with speaking or writing in the first part of the experiment, my partner was the one that was in control of the conversation. My partner was the person in the conversation that both initiated and changed the topics of the conversation. I could not have been able to change the topic of the conversation that we had, because it would be hard to do without being able to speak or write. I feel that if we conducted more than one person in the conversation, it would become easy for me to be excluded from that conversation simply because everyone else would be able to interact with each other by using their voices and their writing, while I would only be able to use body gestures. It would become easy for me to be forgotten from the conversation. A balance of power between two or more individuals in a conversation, would mean that everyone involved in the conversation would have an equal amount of time to speak and argue in that conversation. To ask if me or my partner had more power in a balanced conversation, the logical answer would be that no one in the conversation has more power than the other person, because it is balanced. We would both have the same time to speak. 

If you had two types of cultures in a conversation, with one culture that can speak and the other one cannot, the culture with the ability to speak would have the power in the conversation. The culture with the speaking ability would be able to have the advantage of communicating with their cultural group about complex topics. It would be difficult to explain complex ideas with just body gestures. When it comes to the tone and attitude of the conversation, the speaking culture would have an attitude of looking down at the non speaking culture. I feel like the speaking culture would put themselves over the other culture, just because they are able to speak, while the other culture can't. That's where the sense of power would come into the conversation. One modern situation that I could think of that is comparable to this situation, is language difference. If you had two different cultures with two different languages speaking to each other, one group would put themselves over the other group simply because the other group would not be able to understand them.

Part 2 of this assignment was the harder part of the experiment. For 15 minutes, I spoke to my partner without any hand or face gestures, while speaking in the same tone. In my opinion, this was the most difficult part of the experiment. It is very hard to speak without making gestures. Raising your eyebrows and moving you hands are examples of thinks I could not do. I also wasn't aloud to raise my voice, with took away the emphasis of what I had to say. I truly felt as if I were a robot or a programmed A.I. It wasn't difficult for them to understand me, simply because I was still able to speak. It was just very weird and uncomfortable.

I believe that this experiment showed how important non-speech language is when interacting with people and having a conversation. When it comes to receiving information, we as humans can take that information in different ways, depending on the body language that the speakers use. For example, if someone says something to me with an energetic body language, I can then tell that they are compassionate about what they are talking about. 

There are ways to adapt in a conversation with someone, depending on that other person's body language. If the other person is speaking with energy, I would want to reply to them with an energetic response to what they are saying. The ability to read someone's body language can be very important for survival. If you can try to keep a positive tone at all times, it will become easier for you to be liked by others. This could lead to an easier time of obtaining resources and reproducing. 

The only people that wouldn't be able to understand body language would be blind people, because they do not have the ability to see with their eyes. One way to benefit from a conversation without body language is by using the tone of the other person's voice. It is easy to identify if someone is passionate or sluggish in a conversation from their voice.

Piltdown Hoax Blog Post

1. The Piltdown Hoax was a fossil in which the bone fragments were presented as remains of an unknown early human being. It was first discovered in 1912, but then shown to be a hoax in 1953. The Piltdown Hoax was originally founded by amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson as he was digging up at a gravel pit in Sussex, England. The scientific significance of the hoax was that it presumed a hominid's skull and jaw,  which originated from both the human and ape species. The Piltdown Hoax taught us that there was a connection between both apes and human beings.

2. We have to remember that all scientists are human, and that it could be very possible for them to make mistakes and errors. Even though some may be unintentional, mistakes will be made. Us humans are not programmed like machines and robots. We cannot be perfect. Mistakes could also be made by believing in thing that may not always be right. There are moments where we can be so passionate and motivated by a thought or idea, to where it can lead us to making the wrong decision. In this scenario, human faults could have been a huge possibility. There is a reason the Piltdown Hoax was recognized to be a hoax 41 years after it was discovered. Another example of human faults could be that scientists could have been too driven to assume that this hoax was linked to both apes and humans. I am sure that the incentive of money had a huge part of achieving this goal of finding out what the Piltdown Hoax truly was. This could have easily thrown some scientists off, because of how eager they were to research this artifact. Another fault that I want to bring up is that the hoax was found to be a fraud. Again, eagerness and desire could have played a huge part in this. 

3. Around the year of 1949, new technologies came along the way. Dr. Kenneth Oakley discovered that the Piltdown Hoax's remains were only 50,000 years old and not older. This lead to the idea that the hoax was a fraud and that it was fake. Biological anthropologist Dr Joseph Weiner, as well as human anatomist Wilfrid Le Gros Clark, both agreed to help Dr. Oakley with further tests of the hoax. They later discovered that the skull and jaw fragments of the hoax came from both the apes and human species, as mentioned previously above. 

4. I believe that it is possible to remove the human factor of science to reduce the amount of errors made. With all the complex technology that we have today , it is possible for machines to do the research of anything when it comes to science. Do I think that we should remove the human aspect when it comes to science? I would say no, don't remove it. Even though there may be risks of making errors, I still believe that the human factor of science, is what makes findind new discoveries so special and exciting. So I would say no, just because it wouldn't feel special researching the discoveries to come.

5. One lesson that I could take from this historical event, is that no matter how much we humans have and will evolve, there will always be margin for mistake. Historical events like the Piltdown Hoax have taught us to me more careful with our research, but some things will never change. In this case, the thing that will never change is being human, and that is okay.