What these pundits are nudging us to do, ever so politely, is accept that women, in the main, are accustomed to being a little degraded, a little underpaid and ignored and dampened in their ambitions, in ways that men are not and never will be.

But the artifacts of the New Literalism seem to embrace mediation, even to double down on it with their supplementary signposts, historical snapshots, and expository tics. Many works insist precisely on the value of ambiguity—that liberal shibboleth “It’s complicated”—just in a ham-fisted, didactic way. And while Kornbluh finds immediacy narcissistic, I’m inclined to diagnose us instead with what Freud called repetition compulsion, a phenomenon that he linked to the death drive.

It’s hard to say which came first: our so-called media illiteracy or the dumbing down of the media. Complaints about our inability to read, interpret, or discern irony, subtlety, and nuance are as old as art. What feels new is the expectation, on the part of both makers and audiences, that there is such a thing as knowing definitively what a work of art means or stands for, aesthetically and politically. This strikes me as a blatant redefinition of art itself.

foreign policy, or allegations related to terrorism

A brand marketing consultant, Terakeet, produced a report in August for Ms. Lively that concluded she had likely been the object of a “targeted, multichannel online attack” similar to one against Ms. Heard, and that it was damaging her reputation.

“It’s become an aesthetic, and then it’s become politicized,” she said, of the movement in its new era.

Here at the fountain’s sliding foot, Or at some fruit tree’s mossy root, Casting the body’s vest aside, My soul into the boughs does glide; There like a bird it sits and sings, Then whets, and combs its silver wings; And, till prepar’d for longer flight, Waves in its plumes the various light.

Little, alas, they know or heed How far these beauties hers exceed!

hough it again issued reasonable-sounding caveats, it dutifully complied with a table of results:

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of ma

“They’ll say stuff because it’s popular, because they believe that people want that answer,”

Portenier argues that a better understanding of body language has many uses: It has helped him in past sales jobs and also helped him give the impression of confidence when nervous. He also believes body language training can help people understand each other’s emotional states.

Denault believes YouTube videos contribute to “an ecosystem of misinformation about nonverbal behavior”

, training programs claim they work without providing empirical evidence.

In August 2020, The Intercept published an investigation into “the junk science cops use to decide you’re lying”; that same year, Denault and 50 other researchers signed an article on the dangers of using body language pseudoscience within the justice system.

, he comes across as more cautious than many body language analysts on YouTube.

It is at best 70 percent accurate

Both Portenier and Durham stress that they’re not leading experts in their field, and both say they try to communicate the limitations of what they do to the audience.

. Portenier’s knowledge of body language is largely self-taught, though he also took some psychology classes at university. He says he has been studying the topic for a decade, consuming the work of former FBI agent Joe Navarro (who has also made multiple videos with WIRED). Portenier also studies psychologist Paul Ekman’s work on microexpressions, which are facial expressions that last for a fraction of a second and are difficult to conceal. (By Ekman’s own admission, microexpressions that reveal concealed emotions aren’t all that common, and academics note he has not published data empirically proving that microexpressions can be used to detect lies.)Bruce Durham, a 41-year-old from Newcastle, England, who made a video showing the “Exact Moment” Meghan Markle “Lies” to Oprah, is also self-taught. Durham says he has been working in performance coaching for more than 20 years. “I’ve had thousands of hours just sitting in front of people and letting them speak,” Durham says. “When you’ve spent that much time looking at people and you practice your observation skills, you can quickly develop trends and analysis, you sort of join the dots.” His channel, Believing Bruce, has just under 200,000 subscribers.

In his September 2020 video about Amber Heard, Portenier films himself reacting to the actress’ testimony, and he laughs, smirks, and rubs his face in disbelief before claiming that her snacking on food and seeming unenthused is “not a good indicator for Amber being the victim. It’s a very good indicator for her being an abuser.” In hindsight, Portenier stands by the statements made in the video but says he “probably spoke a little strongly” and would be “a little bit more mellow” if he was to make such a video now. Perhaps surprisingly, he agrees with Denault about the dangers of pseudoscientific analysis.

Viewers who seek out this content rarely seem to question it