I see that this site gets posted quite a bit, but isn't this particular post just blog spam? 70% of the post is a quote from the linked Smithsonian article.
> All tears contain a variety of biological substances (including oils, antibodies and enzymes) suspended in salt water, but as Fisher saw, tears from each of the different categories include distinct molecules as well. Emotional tears, for instance, have been found to contain protein-based hormones including the neurotransmitter leucine enkephalin, a natural painkiller that is released when the body is under stress.
Can this be used to detect 'fake tears' or 'fake remorse'? Or, the opposite, to prove 'real tears' or 'real remorse'? Could it be applied with regards to law, such as a lawyer proving their client has regret over their actions, or a prosecutor arguing the perpetrator does not really feel the way the defense argues they feel?
This seems "easy" to manipulate. Crying on demand is (in my experience) quite close to feeling those emotions by remembering certain situations in your life that will produce the emotions your looking to act out. So I doubt it would work for your use case very effectively.
this is mostly from a very old smithsonian article. i have that one handy in my bookmarks. that and the one that explains why 'men can't cry' as much women(due to differences in prolactin and men having larger tear glands that prevents tears from 'spilling out'). recently, there has been a rash of mad moms encouraging their sons to cry like in some kind of bizarre social experiment when the poor dears are not biologically built to turn on the waterworks like we can.
