Why does jose canseco eye twitch

The best arm in the game. My twin brother used the same chemicals, same workouts, the same nutrition. Why didn't he make it in the big leagues? If steroids are that great it would have made him a superstar. At 45, Canseco still has the freaky physique of a pro wrestler, pounds packed on a 6-foot-4 frame. It's a body he fervently works to maintain, as he dabbles trying to make a buck in boxing and mixed martial arts.

But even as a baseball athlete, Canseco says he didn't need to resort to performance-enhancing drugs simply to bulk up, rather for the strength and stamina to get through a long season.

During an interview Wednesday, in a reflective moment, Canseco suggests he wouldn't be called Thursday before the grand jury considering a perjury indictment against ex-teammate Roger Clemens if not for his ties to steroids.

Nor would he have penned two tell-all books, "Juiced" and "Vindicated" -- neither of which won him many friends in baseball and may lead to a third possible tome, tentatively titled "The Truth Hurts: It Destroyed My Life. Canseco refers to himself repeatedly as the "modern-day Frankenstein," the ostracized, juiced-up player who blew the whistle on baseball's drug problem. He can't sniff a job in baseball. He mentions a desire to manage in the big leagues, to mentor young players and share his experiences -- but that isn't happening anytime soon.

And he hasn't had much luck outside the game, either, in part, he says, because he's perceived as a snitch. Maybe some martial arts roles. Producers didn't want to touch me. When I wrote the book they categorized me as a snitch right away. So in other industries I cannot be touched. It has been horrible for me. I can't have any relations in Major League Baseball. Canseco mentions that a bat manufacturer inquired about his participating in a celebrity softball home run derby later this month, but says folks backed away because it was to be held at the Tampa Bay Rays facility in St.

Instead, he's taken a gig writing a weekly online sports column for rotoinfo. Whether it be emotionally, financially, it is just terrible. They are still being protected by Major League Baseball. They are still being given a job after the fact, for example Mark McGwire [hitting instructor for the St. Louis Cardinals]. And, of course, there is the health price to be paid for long-term steroid usage -- feeling run down, the loss of a sex drive.

Louis' future. After five years in the same organization as his famous sibling, only briefly getting to the major-league level, Canseco left Oakland in and headed for Japan. For the most part, baseball in the Orient went well for Canseco. In just 32 games, Canseco collected a league-leading eight home runs and 27 RBI, batting. But a longing for baseball as he once knew it drove him homeward in early July.

My heart has always been here," Canseco said. It was the middle of the season. There weren't any job openings. So I just sat out the rest of the season. The Cardinals, bent on increasing their power supply, came calling on the 6-foot-3, pound outfielder this winter. It's always, "How come Ozzie doesn't hit like Jose? How come Ozzie doesn't do this or that like Jose? We're genetically similar, but he's him and I'm me. Folks who have seen them together say you can't tell the Canseco brothers apart.

Not true. Ozzie two minutes older is 1 inch shorter, 20 pounds lighter and several million dollars poorer. Consider for a moment the burden that Osvaldo Capas Canseco carries with him each time he pulls on a baseball uniform.

He has a twin who looks like him, talks like him, walks like him and even twitches his neck at the plate in the same idiosyncratic fashion. One has career home runs in the major leagues, the other none. None of which is discernable when, say, Ozzie gets the urge to take a quiet stroll in a mall.

There's Jose! I'm not Jose. I'm his twin brother Ozzie. I play baseball, too. They say, "Jose, you're lying. I'm his twin brother. And they usually go, "C'mon Jose, you're up to your old tricks again. The second clip there was no doubt in my mind that he is lying.

I could see him make unusual twitches with his eyebrow and his lips. He had to recollect and think back several years. What I mean is they do not have formal training as a trained expert would but they could probably identify the quirks better than any other untrained person.

Thanks for the insight Mike. Chris: Very interesting idea. I have two friends who are professional pokers: Jeff Shulman and Andrei Herasimchuk. Agreed, Blink was a wonderful read. Stunning actually. I just wish more people took the time to read …. They seem tense. Tense to the point it forces him to smile. In the second clip you get the same facial expression, but even at a more extreme level. At first I thought that he was being a bit deceptive in the first clip, until I saw the second, which changed my mind.

In the second, he just look uncomfortable, which I would assume is caused by the line of questioning. It might be a slight truth in many cases, but I think you seriously risk substituting perception for reality. I might just have a facial tick you are misreading. However, although you are obviously correct about pathological liars, pathological liars only account for a tiny percentage of the population.

Is Canseco a pathological liar? Are the odds heavily against it? Well in the first clip seeing it without sound I thought he was being deceptive, but when hearing the context of the conversation I think he was honest.

When watching the 2nd clip without sound he looked to be more honest, although when listening to it, I beleive he was ommiting some of the truth.

With the first one: I initially thought he was being deceitful because of his smirks, but during the last 30 seconds or so of the clip, I changed my mind. Little to no eye contact with the 60 Minutes guy, lots of pained-looking facial expressions. Lots of blinking. After reading your analysis, I see we both viewed it very similarly.

The first clip: I thought he was being truthful. He made constant eye contact, and looked nervous which could be misconstrued as discomfort due to deception. He swallowed a lot, but tied the swallowing into general expressions, I found. The second clip: He was definitely lying, in my opinion.

He also had a lot more animation in his face; brief wrinkles, and he kept sucking his lips in his mouth. He actually seemed totally truthful in the first clip and still seemed like he was lying his ass off in the second. Hmm, people seem to think that not maintaining eye contact while speaking indicates deception. Which is strange to me, since I find it very hard to look at someone and talk at the same time, especially if my answer requires some thought.

However, my interpretations are along the same lines as everyone else: sort of lying in the first one, really lying in the second one. I plan on getting Blink soon. If I were in that sort of relationship, it might be very helpful to know the test results. And conversely, if I were in the other group, I may be encouraged to concentrate on working things out. He has an inventory of about 30 different emotions and he assigns a number of 1 through 30 to every single second of the minute conversation… a separate number for the husband and wife.

Which is pretty much the consensus around here. At first they injected each other all the time, then it was only once or twice.

Fair enough. None of us, as you said, are professionals at this not even poker players. First off, your test was not administered in a scientifically rigorous way. We were baited ever so slightly…. Now what if you had instructed us to jot down whether we thought he was being asked easy questions or hard questions? Or to jot down if we thought he was confessing his own use or ratting someone else out?

Third, sports tend to be pretty emotionally charged for a lot of people. Assumptions about people and teams positive or negative may have influenced the answers you find here. All in all, this test was not administered scientifically enough for me to believe that there was not tremendous bias. Heck, this could just as easily be a test of persuasive writing as it is of microexpressions.

The facts. Determining the meaning behind an eyebrow movement? I actually enjoyed the material so much that I had to sit back and confront my own tendency to consider myself an expert, even though I have laughably little knowledge in this area. I really did love the post — very thought-provoking. Nathan, buddy, I highly recommend reading the book. Blink is precisely about making decisions without having all the available data. Also, read my comment carefully. Make of it what you will. No-limit poker, which is what the big boys play, is not about stats at all.

Blackjack, other casino games, and to a certain extent low-limit poker, are more about stats than professional no-limit poker is. Again, these people are not in the dark. They can analyze facial expressions with a great deal of accuracy. I highly recommend reading the book and finding out more. Aside from that issue, however, one of my points was that attempting to draw us to the same conclusion at which you arrived via the means you did was by no means scientific objective.

They were looking for lying. Perhaps they should have been looking for something else, or to be completely objective, looking for nothing at all, and then responding based on that. Instinct is sometimes to be trusted and sometimes to be utterly ignored or at least treated in the proper light. Nowhere in this blog entry do I claim any of this test is scientific, so please stop treating it as if it should be.

The post is meant to provoke interest and awareness of the subject… nothing more. I play no-limit poker almost every week and have for many years. End of tournament… game over. The only way to win at no-limit poker is to know why people bet certain ways at certain times and act accordingly. A good portion of this is face-reading, body-reading, and having a general feel for the table.

In other words, too much information can sometimes be just as bad as not enough. Beyond that, in most cases, there is collaborating evidence to indicate one way or the other as to the truth.

You have these tournaments with lots of people all trying to read other people. And in the end, there is only one winner. The rest are losers — they screwed up on reading people.

The point? But I think you were saying the same thing in the last paragraph of your comment preceding this one. Sorry for making this a bigger deal than it probably was. And cheers for all you do for the Web standards community. I should have never opened my mouth based on that fact alone.

It hit me within 2 secs of the vid and once I heard it I definately knew I was right. Note that making stuff up is subset of lying that differs from normal lying. Secondly, the first vid led me to believe he was lying. Only a bit, but I was still trying to figure out if this was if this was his normal way of communicating.

Later on after about 55 secs he does lie. I kept thinking that he was tired too though, because his eyes were all red. No ears, just eyes. Nathan: Ok, I think we understand each other. No worries. With regards to the poker question though, there is one very important key difference in poker:. Your opponent is generally sitting stone-faced, sometimes even with sunglasses on to hide his eyes, as you try to read him. In a videotaped interview, or testimony, the subject does not have this luxury.

He is forced to give himself away with every word he speaks and every muscle he moves… and that is why reading someone under these circumstances can be a lot more accurate. I work in the entertainment industry and spend a lot of my time observing actors on and off camera and stage. You can always spot the good actors because they are believable, and they are believable because they have tremendous control over their body especially their face. Of course, a big part of it goes into the fact that they spend a lot of time rehearsing their movements and expressions, and so become good at controlling them.

Clip 1 was early in the interview, and clip 2 was later. Microexpressions can be subconscious expressions of stress, and we know, stress is something that often accumulates over time. Simply put, the experiment lacks control. The amount of exposure to questioning, and the styles of questioning are totally different in each clip. Still, a very interesting method. It was 3am though, that might be it.

Even before any challenging took place in clip 2, you could see Canseco struggling to make stuff up as Akaxaka and 10man pointed out. So in the middle of listing 6 or 7 true feats, he says one false one, and it shows on his face. Pretty interesting stuff. Also, these are just two clips from the interview. Clip 2, to me, is just extremely suspicious. Mike: Could you post a calm section from the interview? The other issue I feel about it is that like all sciences, it has to be applied very carefully and in moderation.

This actually happened to me…. The book mentions that almost any time we meet someone new, we are unconsciously scanning their face for clues about their feelings and motives. This happens when you approach a girl in a bar, when you speak to a salesperson in a car dealership, and almost any other situation you can think of. It even happens with babies. If you do something puzzling in front of a baby, they instinctively look at your face for guidance. Might as well learn how to do it properly though so you get better at reading the world around you.

But I was wondering if you could do a huge favor for me. I enjoyed your Canseco micro expression test so much, I was wondering if you actually had those clips on your computer that you could email to me.

I have a presentation for a class coming up, and I thought I might try my hand at talking about micro expressions the presentation relates to the book by George Orwell, in which people are observed through telescreens, and, if even the slightest expression displays contempt, a person is arrested. If you could email the clips or direct me to a site where I could download the clips, that would great.

I do think Nathan is correct in that the blog entry coerced people to look for lying and I understand that was your intention. The evidence of this are the people who suspected he was lying initially in the first post when there was nothing to be questioned in the first place. This is what I think Nathan was getting at when he said this was a better study on persuasive writing.

As for poker, I understand your point about stats being irrelevant at high stakes NL games since most pros know the odds like the back of their hand. Even low-limit players do. A furrowed brow might indicate a strong hand but there are a wide range of strong hands in any given situation. Not being able to make these type of analyses in game is limiting your results. This is an extreme example but good players not only have the ability to access player hands but can also apply conditional probability based off of reads and limiting an opponents possible holdings in addition to the strict pot odds and implied odds that anyone can bring with them to the table.

My last exception is the tournament example. I think this is a poor one for one a number of reasons. One of them is that you can make a correct read and still lose. That is, losing a tournament does not imply a bad read was made. Good idea for discussion none the less.