Lying Eyes: A smile is a thin disguise.

O most pernicious woman!
O villain, villain, smiling, damned villain! ...
That one may smile and smile, and be a villain.
~ Hamlet

I can trace my enthusiasm for psychology back to reading Hamlet in high school. There's nothing like a great piece of literature to excite one's passions and Hamlet certainly is rife with gems of the mind.

This one from Act 1, Scene 5 goes straight to the core of dual nature of the human smile. We humans have complicated emotions and they are intimately tied to the intricate sets of muscles that lie just under the surface of our skin. Lie - yes - those muscles also help us lie. But to keen observers, they also give away the lie.

So just how do you catch one of those damned villain liars smiling through his or her teeth?

You can see how good you are at it by taking a fun, quick test by clicking the picture below, or clicking here.
I bet you found it was pretty easy as long as you paid attention to the right muscles. It's all in the muscles.

Genuine smiles are expressed with the eyes and the mouth. Emotions researchers call them the 'Duchenne smile' as opposed to the 'polite' or fake smile. The Duchenne smile is named after a French neurologist, Guillaume Duchenne, who back when America was fighting a Civil War, was busy mapping the muscles of the face. He discovered the muscles around the eyes - the ones that when they contract give you crow's feet - could not be moved voluntarily. He couldn't force himself to smile with his eyes, only with his mouth.

This was serious business for him too. He used a precursor of today's electrodes to force individual muscles to move, and in classic psychological form — he experimented on himself.

Although the archived images are grotesque, his experimentation mapped 100 unique facial muscles. His crowning achievement was the differentiation of fake from genuine smiles. False or even half-hearted smiles used only the muscles of the mouth. But, "the sweet emotions of the soul," he wrote, "activate the pars lateralis muscle around the eyes."

Tried as he could, he could not get those eye muscles to contract by willing them to, and that is the key. For those muscles to contract, the emotion of happiness must be felt. Researchers in the 2oth century later figured out that those muscles aren't even connected to the same portion of the brain that control other facial muscles. It's as though they have their own circuitry.

It's no surprise that politicians and celebrities are some of the best subjects to turn to for the observation of these so-called polite smiles. It's no accident that politician and polite share the same word origin.

Primatologists, this one especially, like to point out that we can see the evolutionary roots of the human smile, both kinds, in the facial expressions of chimpanzees.

Chimps have a polite smile and genuine smile too. The polite smile acts as an appeasement, given when there's a need to pacify a disgruntled rival before things escalate. This smile is given with a wide closed-mouth grin with both sets of teeth showing. These faces are easy to find in online photos of chimps trained to be actors. It's a face often directed at the trainer and sometimes deliberately elicited for TV and film because it makes people think they're smiling and happy. They aren't. These are false smiles just as much as are the false smiles of a disingenuous politician or crappy TV actor.

The other chimp smile — the genuine one — can best be spotted during play and in laughter. It is often but not always an open-gaped grin, with only the lower set of teeth showing. The chimp genuine smile always covers the upper teeth.

The photo at the right shows a chimp playing blind man's bluff. A certain group of chimps in captivity started playing the game. They plug their fingers over the eyes while 'blind.' It causes much hilarity for the young and old alike.

From an evolutionary standpoint, this makes good sense because an appeasing smile, meant to prevent a potential attack, shouldn't advertise that you're about to bite. Thus — the closed mouth. To further convey no harm is intended in a genuine state of happiness, chimps will go a step further — they'll close their upper lip over their large and potentially deadly canines.

Humans have long since lost whatever sizable canines we used to have eons ago, giving way to a far more subtle signal involving the eyes rather than the mouth.

Nonverbal Behavior during the VP Debate

I watched all of the debate on C-Span to avoid the commercials and running commentary across the bottom of the screen. I also chatted online with friends who were also watching the debate. I had a great time chatting it up with them.

For me, the defining moment came somewhere in the second half of the debate when Biden spoke about the accident that killed his wife and infant daughter, leaving him a single father of two children. The way he spoke about that said volumes and I could see that he was getting choked up. He wiped a tear from his eye while Palin robotically repeated her memorized sound bytes.

Her non-response was scary. She showed no compassion. Zero empathy. She could have shown sensitivity. That might have won over a skeptical audience. It would have been disarming. But no - she ignored him.

And why? I think it was because she didn't hear a single word he said all debate long. She spent virtually all of the debate, at least while he was speaking, looking down at what were presumably her notes and crib sheet.

Unlike Biden, who looked at her while she spoke, Palin rarely if ever, looked at him while he spoke.

I think that's because unlike Biden who is capable of listening and formulating his next thoughts simultaneously, Palin could not do both at the same time. She could not both listen and think of what she was going to say next.

That's what I think was going on. But, the nonverbal behavior expert in me says we can look at it another way — through the lens of the visual dominance ratio.

What's the visual dominance ratio? In short, it's something we psychologists, well, really only those who are exceptionally well-versed in research on nonverbal behavior (NVB), know is an important aspect of eye contact.

See, people are primates - indeed - animals. And animals communicate dominance with eye contact. Staring is a threat. Well, it's a little different with people. When we stare, or look intensely, it can be both domineering and also intimate. If someone holds a gaze unbroken for longer than 2 seconds - they're either going to fight or make love.

The significance of eye contact is a tricky one then. Sometime during the late 60s and early 70s when NVB research was in its prime, a couple of ingenious social psychologists unlocked some of its mystery.

Through careful experimentation, they found out that eye contact means different things - sends a different message to others - based on how much a person looks while speaking compared to looks while listening. For each person engaged in a conversation, such as the debate tonight, a visual dominance ratio can be calculated.

The higher the ratio - the more dominant, high status and powerful they are perceived to be. People who are dominant, high status, and powerful have higher ratios. It's probably also true for people who just think they are - i.e. the confident.


Typically the ratio ends up being around 1.0 for dominant, powerful, high status people. The subordinate person in the conversation tends to show a ratio of around .80. What this means is that the more dominant person tends to spend just about the same amount of eye contact with the other person regardless of whether they are speaking or listening.

Palin, by spending so much time looking down rather than at Biden when he spoke, signaled dominance, power and status. All things she needed to convey. But, her visual dominance ratio was skewed so high that it actually made her come off as arrogant. And you don't need me to tell you that's bad. Her condescending tone at various points, her smug winks, her eye rolls over her shoulder in Biden's direction — those rather further reinforce that.

The visual dominance ratio is at the heart of why you need to make eye contact during interviews. It suggests confidence. But you also need to make eye contact while listening to the person who is speaking to you — it conveys that you respect them, that you think what they have to say is important. Just don't do it more than you do while you're the one speaking. If you look more while you listen than you do while you speak, you'll come off as servile. If you don't do it enough, you'll come off as arrogant.

A little hug goes a long way.

After a fight or conflict, a hug can mean all the difference.

Research observing chimps in captivity found that victims of aggression were significantly calmer if a third-party approached and offered an embrace or kiss afterward.

After they're attacked chimps get fidgety. They scratch themselves, stroke their hair, and groom themselves. It's the psychological equivalent of biting your nails, playing with a ring and touching your hair, mustache or beard. In animal behavior, these actions are known as displacement behaviors. They increase during stress, anxiety and right after fights. But n the case of these fighting apes, the ones who got a hug or kiss showed fewer of them.

"Consolation usually took the form of a kiss or embrace," says Dr. Orlaith Fraser of the Research Center in Evolutionary Anthropology and Paleoecology at Liverpool John Moores University.

Primatologists have seen post-conflict affiliation before. In fact, it's been observed in a number of species not limited to monkeys and apes, and is well-known to lower stress. What's neat about this particular observation is the form it takes. Hugs and kisses rarely occur at any other time.

The study was published this summer in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

I think we could all learn a thing or two from the chimps!

Observations on Barack Obama & Hillary Clinton's PDA

The recent PDA displayed between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton hasn't escaped anyone's attention in the national media, and being an enthusiastic observer of primates and their patterns of touch – it struck me too.


I think it's natural to make assumptions about the status of the relationship between two people seen touching. It's what we do as human beings, as primates. We observe others for signs of who is related, allied. The most obvious give away is touch. Primates don't touch just anyone, and neither do people. So when CNN started musing about whether they were going to be running mates, it didn't surprise me.

BUT – What you may not have picked up on is the dominance aspect of their touch.

Touch for humans as well as other primates, is as much a display of affection as it is a display of dominance. Here, it is significant that he initiated the touch and also stood over her while he pulled out her chair. While it was a nice gesture, to touch her shoulder and pull out her chair, by doing so he signaled that he is in control. The more powerful person in a dyad is the one who has the license to touch. That's why observational studies have found over and over again that men initiate touch far more often than women do. Like it or not, we still live in a male-dominated society.

It's important to not read into that one interaction too much; I am sure she has touched him first plenty of times. I just think it's interesting that the same interaction that has sparked so much talk about their running "mateship" is also one that contains unambiguous cues to dominance.

You Scratch Your Nose, I Scratch Mine - What body language really means.

As many of my regular readers know, I love observing people. I suppose that is why I was drawn to primatology. You can't just walk up to nonverbal animals and ask them - "What is your motivation for doing _____?" You have to observe them.

My habit of observing people combined with my intense study a particular area of psychology - nonverbal communication - comes in very handy when I meet new people. It is especially useful for gauging dominance relationships. We humans are primates. Despite being generally friendly with one another, we still form dominance hierarchies in all sorts of relationships at home, with friends, at work, in school, etc. that have repercussions for those relationships.

I'd like to share with you one key behavior that I pay attention to, and that you should too if you're interested in your social position, and let's face it, who as a person is not at least a little bit concerned about how they rate next to others?

Mirroring.

What is it? It's the label for what happens when you do something, like scratch your nose, at the same time or shortly thereafter, that the person you're talking to does. People mirror, or copy, all sorts of random behaviors. Many of them fall into the category called "displacement behaviors" coined by ethologists (people who study animal behavior in their natural habitat). Displacement behaviors are basically little nervous ticks - like touching your nose or pant cuff, or stroking your beard or ring, twirling your finger around a strand of hair - that you do when nervous. Animal equivalents include paw licking. Doing these things calms us.

And - when we do it in synchrony - it builds a feeling of rapport. Chalk it up to liking and feeling safer around those who are like us.

Numerous psychological studies have been conducted on the causes, correlates, and consequences of the "chameleon effect." It is one of the most robust areas of nonverbal communication study.

The findings repeatedly show that people who mirror others engender greater feelings of rapport during conversation. They are liked more, even trusted more. It's even an effective form of flirting - and according to some - is a critical stage of romantic relationship formation. But, you can't manufacture rapport out of nowhere. Attempts to deliberately copy someone will be spotted, and you'll achieve the opposite effect - the person will think you are, at best, trying too hard or are simply 'awkward,' and at worst, mocking them. It has to happen naturally.

Who copies whom is important too. In a conversation, there is usually one person whose behavior 'rubs off on the other.' They are known as the zeitgeber, a German word meaning time keeper. Other people copy them. By paying attention to who changes their posture or gestures in a particular way first - and then watching who mirrors it, you can determine who acts as the zeitgeber. The zeitgebers are the influential ones. They are the ones that others want to impress.

Occupying the zeitgeber position is not so much a personality trait as it is highly situationally dependent. Amongst some people, you may be the zeitgeber. Yet with others, you may be the follower.

An observant person can gather useful information, especially when first getting to know a group of people, simply by paying attention to who acts as the zeitgeber during conversations.

I think all students of psychology should fully develop the habit of carefully observing others by the time they graduate.

Why? It's far too easy to trust and to fall back on what we humans have been doing successfully for millions of years - talking - and too easy to forget to pay attention to what we have been doing successfully for many millions more years - communicating nonverbally.

Although language is usually intentional, nonverbal behavior is usually not.

Because language is newer to us than nonverbal forms of communication (facial expression, gestures, body posture), it takes more effort. People have to concentrate to form words and have to choose them actively. Nonverbal behaviors are largely passive and unintentional. They can be excellent cues to how a person really feels and what they really think. We usually take the time to censor our language, but the body language messages leak right on by.

That's why I think psychology students and everyone else who wants to understand 'what makes people tick' ought to pay more attention to what people do and less to what they say.

Harry Harlow & the Science of Anxious Attachment

One of my very favorite days in introductory psychology is the day we talk about developmental psychology and attachment. Why? I get to talk about monkeys and Harry Harlow.

As a scientist and a person, he is as interesting as his famous research on cloth vs wire surrogate mothers. The book Love at Goon Park: Harry Harlow and the Science of Affection provides a good summary of attachment research at a level that is easy to understand. It also presents numerous stories about Harry the person. Did you know he wrote poetry? Yep - that's how he took notes for his exams as an undergraduate student! One of his famous papers, The Nature of Love, published in 1958, includes one of his poems. The man may have done some arguably cruel things to the cute little monkeys in the name of science, but he was not a heartless bastard, as some people would have you believe. Both the book and the Nature of Love article are well worth reading. If you click on the Nature of Love link, you get taken to the entire article, poetry included.

His research sparked the science of affection, and if someone had asked me at any point during my graduate career to name the progenitor of my field, I would have been hard pressed to come up with a more appropriate person.

It's crazy how fascinated research academics are with genealogy, but they all want to know who your advisor is, and who they studied under and who they studied under so on all the way back presumably to Wilhelm Wundt. Some university psychologists take great pride in being able to trace their lineage back to the big wigs. I wonder if it's just a psychology thing or endemic to academia.

Academic heritage aside, back in the "good old days," when people thought mothers caused their children to be autistic through improper mothering, Harlow set out to study affection - specifically LOVE. Apparently what sparked his big idea was an observation that monkeys screamed and threw tantrums when the cheesecloths lining their cages were removed for cage cleanings.

Ever try to take a child's favorite teddy away to give it a little cleaning? You'd start to wonder what it is about the teddy that is so appealing. Children, like monkeys, become attached to whatever provides them affection. If a warm, responsive caregiver proves absent, any soft cloth will do. It just won't result in a secure attachment.

For a secure attachment, infants - human and nonhuman primate alike - need a caregiver who takes care of their needs promptly, appropriately, and reliably. Mess up on any one of those things, and you may get an infant who is insecure, anxious, and primed for screwed up romantic relationships in adulthood.

It's not exactly that cut and dried - for more depth on the subject of attachment, this is a decent primer.

Harlow's experiments showed that infant monkeys bond to whatever is soft and cuddly - even if it is nothing more than some fake fur wrapped around some wire and made to vaguely resemble a primate. At the time, people really thought it was nursing that forged the mother-infant bond. They were partially correct, in that oxytocin "the bonding hormone" is released during breast feeding, but they were also really wrong to discount the importance of touch. One thing I really wish someone (maybe me!) would study is whether oxytocin and massage as well as other forms of touch like grooming are associated.

The classic image from Harlow's research is the one of the poor baby monkey clinging to the cloth surrogate mother and leaning way over to nurse from the wire surrogate that provided nourishment. The sad thing is that although the monkeys in his experiments bonded to the surrogates and were able to be bold and explore on their own in the presence of their "mother," what psychologists call using the caregiver as a "secure base," the monkeys could not form normal socio-sexual relationships in adulthood. They had no clue how to interact with other monkeys and could not dance the delicate dance of nonverbal cues used during mating.

One of the benefits of having a secure attachment style is the ability to read and respond appropriately to others' nonverbal signals - the subtle facial expressions and body postures that play a critical role in courtship and mating. The "good read" link I supplied above points to some really interesting research on this particular subject - and the research uses humans - adult ones in real relationships.

When I show snippets of the old black and white CBS aired footage of Harry Harlow's research in my class, it always stimulates discussion. The biggest battle I ever face is how to keep the conversation on the subject of attachment behaviors rather than the ethics of primate research. If my students only knew about Harlow's "rape rack" I'd have more than a few them going berserk!

Here's some YouTube footage of Harry Harlow and his monkeys
(See if you can spot the monkey sucking its thumb):

How the Nonverbal Behavior Cues of Presidential Hopefuls Sway Voters

Humans are social creatures who make snap judgments of others based on appearance and behavior. We take short cuts in decision making that lead us to make irrational decisions, and we are more likely to do so when under duress. Judging which Presidential candidate is the best choice during a debate of many candidates who have few well-defined differences in position, represents ones of those situations. Unfortunately, the consequences of faulty decision making about Presidential candidates reverberate for years.

If it is possible to educate people about the biases in judgment they make while deciding who to vote for, the hope is that by doing so people will make more rational choices. In other words, in order to not be bamboozled into liking (or disliking) a candidate for superficial reasons, people need to know what influences our judgments of candidates. They also have to care that they make rational decisions, but that's a topic for another day.

I am afraid the average American chooses political candidates by deciding who they "like" most. Those who care to think a little more may decide who is the most "credible" or "capable." Too many people are too busy to really consider the issues so they end up voting for a candidate for stupid reasons.

What are some of these superficial reasons?
In no particular order:

Physical attractiveness.
Numerous studies have shown that people who are more physically attractive are perceived to be more capable, successful, happy, intelligent and just about any other desirable trait you can think of. The trouble is that beautiful people aren't necessarily more capable. We only think they are. Dennis Kucinich is cursed while Mitt Romney comes out a winner on this one. All other things being equal, the more attractive candidate will come out on top.

Height.
Size impresses animals, and humans like other animals, are impressed by tall people. Taller people tend to make more money, get raises more often, and as Presidential candidates, the taller candidate has won more of the popular vote in every election since the arrival of the television. We assume tall people, like attractive people, are more competent. In the animal kingdom, size corresponds to dominance.

Voice.
The pitch of one's voice indicates dominance as well. Lower pitches are perceived to come from more dominant individuals. Vocal cords tighten under duress, so a nervous person or candidate tends to have a slightly higher pitch when talking. Size also influences pitch. Bigger bodies tend to be able to produce deeper notes throughout the animal kingdom. One very interesting study measured the pitch of Presidential candidates' voices during nationally televised debates and found that since 1960, pitch predicted the popular vote outcome in every election (Social Psychology Quarterly, 2002). Women are at a disadvantage here, just as with size, because they tend to be shorter and have higher pitched voices than men.

Name recognition.
We like names we've heard of before. In fact, we like just about everything more the more familiarity we have with it. The mere exposure effect is well documented in psychological studies. Although there are a few exceptions to the rule that merely being exposed to a name, face, or object creates more positive feelings, in general the more times a person is exposed, the greater the chance that the person says they like it. That's one reason why raising money is so important. It gives candidates the ability to spread their name through TV ads, billboards, bumper stickers, signs and more.

Facial features.
Several studies of person perception, notably those of social psychologist Leslie Zebrowitz, have shown that people make attributions of a person's competence and credibility based on the size and shape of eyes, cheeks, forehead, lips, and chin. Not surprisingly given what is known about cues to dominance in other animal species, any feature that tends to be associated with testosterone and maleness in humans is a trait people associate with competence. This means that people with relatively small eyes, small cheeks, prominent chin and eyebrows, and thin lips tend to be perceived as more competent and credible.

Gestures and stance.
People who take up more space are believed to be more confident, competent, credible, and in control. That's no surprise either given the connection between size and dominance. An upright posture with shoulders extended uses more space, as does gesturing that is more expansive. More quality research needs to be done on this topic. The bulk of what is known is decades old.

In all, nonverbal cues such as appearance, voice, and name affect attributions people make about a candidate. Because so many cues to competence and credibility are associated with masculine traits, female candidates will be at a disadvantage whenever visual and vocal stimuli predominate. I think people would make more rational electoral choices in the absence of these cues.

Uakari Monkey & The Origin of Blushing

It is said that humans are the only animal that blushes.

Uakari monkeys have bright red faces and are unusual among primates for it. But they don't blush. I don't know how anyone would be able to tell even if they did!

The evolutionary origin of their bright red faces is as about as big of a mystery as why humans blush.

One theory about uakari monkey facial redness is that it's a sexually selected trait associated with testosterone. A related theory says it advertizes health.

These neat-o small (9 pound) monkeys live in South America, really are that white (at least this subspecies), and are reputed to be monogamous.

Uakaris, along with bearded saki monkeys, might be the only primates other than humans that form large groups made up of monogamous pairs. These monkeys are NOT well studied so they may not actually be monogamous. The ARKive site has some really great footage of uakaris.

Blushing, like any other nonverbal behavior with communicative value, fascinates me both academically and personally. You see, seldom am I embarrased to speak in public; it's an occupational hazard after all, but, every once in a while a totally uncontrollable and horrible blush sweeps across my face, neck, and upper chest. I can feel my skin heat up, sometimes I sweat. What is weird is that rarely in such instances do I actually feel embarrassed, yet there it is blazing, bright freaking red, red, red. I even blush alone. I think it must be related to hot flashes, but I am way too young for that. To add insult to injury, I am incredibly pale-skinned, so even the slightest blush can be seen from afar, like the fire truck roaring down the street yelling at everyone to get the hell out of its way.

Bright red faces are not unknown in the animal kindom. Primates, and famously humans, become red with anger. Here the red signals, indeed, SHOUTS: Get away!!!

I would argue that reddened faces during anger make it possible for socially grouping animals to maintain those groups in spite of frequent conflicts which inevitably emerge whenever individuals must live together and use the same resource pool. Having a signal that indicates to everyone else that you are pissed off and which prompts others to get away from you protects everyone from fighting, injury and group disintegration.

Why we would show rage on our faces rather than some other part of the body intrigued Darwin, who wrote about that and the subject of emotion and facial expression in The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. I love picking up the book and reading it but I find it incredibly frustrating because it is mostly (80% I'd say) descriptive with little evolutionary theorizing about why animals and humans have the facial expressions they do, including that of shame. Needless to say, in the last few days of pondering my impending unemployment, I thought about writing a textbook about nonverbal communication across animal species! I found out when prepping my nonverbal behavior seminar that there isn't anything on the market that does even a decent job of reviewing the relevant research. Much of what exists is pop-psychology rubbish.

But, back to the point. Rage and shame are not the same, but maybe both work to hold groups together. Darwin didn't offer up a compelling theory of why people, alone in the animal kingdom, blush. Perhaps, as he hints, it has something to do with us being one of the few species that has a self-concept. In order to blush, you have to know you exist independently from others. This is why humans don't tend to blush until about age two, right around the same time they "individuate" and realize they are not the same person as mom and dad. Congenitally deaf and blind people blush.

The one theory that Darwin presents and subsequently rejects in The Expression argues that the Creator (today we'd call it an Intelligent Designer) made us blush when we do something that violates the rules of our social group so that others will know we regret it. I like the theory a bit. Yet like Darwin, I think evolutionary forces made it so. If a signal makes others want to keep us on the island when we screw up, such a signal could evolve through natural selection. It could also have arisen through group selection, sexual selection, or random genetic drift.

You know what's interesting? The face becomes red and then we feel the heat from the flush. Thus, others see the signal before we even know we're blushing.

Psychology News Roundup

We all have ideosyncratic facial expressions. My guess is that more than once you've realized that you exhibit some of the same facial mannerisms your parents do. I noticed a while ago that I purse my lips the same way my mom does. Not so long ago my husband commented during a conversation that I had just made a facial expression that is typical of my youngest sister. I really didn't believe him. How could I have picked that up from her, or her from me? We have never lived together and haven't spent a ton of time together. Do families share similar facial expressions? If so, why?

A recently released study in the PNAS suggests there is a genetic basis for shared family facial expressions.
Read more.

*****
In other news, Giant Pandas appear to have some capacity to see in color! Read more here.

*****
Charles Dickens had a keen eye for the observation of neurological disorders, so perfectly describing the symptoms of Tourette's, Parkinson's and "restless legs syndrome" that medical reference texts at the time used his character desciptions. Although he had no formal knowledge of psychological conditions, he had tremendous skills of observation. Read more here.

First Day of Class - What to wear?

Recently I've read some posts about what to wear the first day of class, what to wear if you're a young-looking studentesque female professor, and what to wear in general if you don't fit the stodgy white male professor image. Most people say jeans are a big no-no because students won't take you seriously, will walk all over you, etc.

The first day I taught at Bowdoin College I wore jeans. I didn't care if students cared what I wore. I knew no matter what clothing I taught in, I would still have to earn their respect because: I am female, I am young, and I am also very likely to be mistaken as a student. Plus, even though it was the East, formality wasn't part of the atmosphere. How many benefit-of-the-doubt points could I expect to earn from donning a suit? Not many.

I am a firm believer that nonverbal communication (including clothing) is incredibly important in all sorts of situations. I ought to know: I teach an upper-level seminar in the subject. The sage advice of Polonius: The clothing oft proclaims the man, rings true to some extent. However, any initial bonus points you earn from dressing up will evaporate when you're subsequent behavior doesn't match. If you let your students walk all over you, regardless of whether you're wearing a suit or not, they will.

At W College, I rarely wore jeans. I rarely wore my beautifully tailored Ann Taylor suits either. I strove for somewhere in between. WC is a seriously informal place. Students and faculty usually address each other with first names, faculty rarely wear suits (ditto for the administration), and the whole place runs like butter this way.

Today I sat in on the first day of an Intro Psych class a former colleague teaches. Given that I won't be teaching this year and have few responsibilities others than finishing my dissertation, I look at this time as an unpaid pre-doctoral sabbatical. My own intro class has been the same for three years; I need some fresh ideas. My colleague was more than welcoming of my presence in class (I okay-ed it with him first). It is always neat to see how someone else does it. I very much recommend watching others teach. It doesn't matter if they are horrible or so outstanding you think you should switch careers because you'll never be that good; you will learn and gain inspiration for improving your own teaching. If you can watch master teachers, they are certainly going to provide the best fodder.

By the end of the semester I will be well-prepared to revamp and revitalize my class.

By the way, this prof wore jeans, a T-shirt, and sneakers. He hardly looked like a professor at all.

Perhaps it's just small liberal arts colleges that make it possible for us to get away with this informality, but I wouldn't want to work anywhere that had a dress code that made me feel uncomfortable or reinforces the notion that clothing makes up for lack of behavioral authority.