The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
meta analyses so statistical summaries of many many many studies even in the west show that people scowl about 35% of the time when they're angry which is more than chance so it gets you a good publication in you know the proceedings of the National Academy but that means 65% of the time people are moving their faces in other meaningful ways that's not scowling
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
so there's low reliability for um the correspondent between a scowl and anger it's above chance so scowling is one expression of anger but it's certainly not the dominant one
more importantly half of the scowls that people make are not related to anger that means that the specificity is again higher than chance but not that much higher than chance
meaning sometimes in Anger you scowl meta analyses so statistical summaries of many many many studies even in the West show that people scowl about 35% of the time when they're angry which is more than chance so it gets you a good publication in you know the proceedings of the National Academy but that means 65% of the time people are moving their faces in other meaningful ways that's not scowling