[Xmca-l] Re: What Faces Can't Tell Us

[Martin John Packer]

Greg,

Yes, this parallel came to my mind too, and I think this is the core of Barrett's critique of Ekman:

> In recent years, however, at my laboratory we began to worry that this research method was flawed. In particular, we suspected that by providing subjects with a preselected set of emotion words, these experiments had inadvertently “primed” the subjects — in effect, hinting at the answers — and thus skewed the results.

Martin

On Mar 5, 2014, at 5:11 PM, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Peter,
> 
> Your concern here reminds me of the issue that John Lucy raises with the
> use of Munsell color chips to determine whether one's language affects
> one's perception of color. In his essay "The Linguistics of 'color'", John
> argues that using Munsell chips is problematic because it inscribes "color"
> as THE domain to be perceived when, in fact, many of the languages of the
> world include other qualia in their color terms. Thus, by limiting the
> respondents' options to just the Munsell array, one is categorically ruling
> out possible relativity effects of languages that are different from our
> own in the way that they slice up the world.
> 
> Here are John's words (better than mine but also a bit longer):
> "This array consisted of a selection from a set of Munsell color samples
> which varied on hue, saturation, and brightness. As a representative of
> everyday contexts, the array was very restricted, both in its exclusive
> focus on color and in the kinds of colors presented (e.g., including no
> variation in luster, luminosity, or reflectance). In a sense, the stimulus
> array dictated in advance the possible meanings the terms could have since
> no other meanings were embodied in the samples. Although restricted in this
> way, the stimulus array was also very complex, and the labeling task
> performed with it forced informants to make referential microcomparisons
> and judgments of a sort rarely encountered in daily life. The task assumed
> that speech is about labeling accuracy rather than situational
> intelligibility..." (p. 323)
> 
> It is possible that these lab studies of emotion are onto something, but it
> seems that one would want to see ethnographic work that explores what terms
> people in these cultures use and, more importantly, how they actually USE
> these terms as they go about their daily lives. But that is a much bigger
> project...
> 
> -greg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:50 AM, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu> wrote:
> 
>> Briefly, my beef comes from the interpretation of a response to a facial
>> expression outside the context of how such an expression might
>> authentically be generated in response to something real. Maybe it's just
>> my own difficulty in reading social cues as a high-functioning Asperger's
>> case, and the problems that are exacerbated by the decontextualization of
>> the expressions in a lab setting.
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 9:01 PM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: What Faces Can't Tell Us
>> 
>> Peter. "The lab" ? Ruled out?
>> 
>> I read Martin as saying that context and interpretation would be central.
>> Is it this particular study you are apparently disagreeing about?  He says
>> its better than universalism (a la Ekman, I assume). No 'round here more
>> sensitive to issues of experimental (laboratory?) studies and cross
>> cultural research so I am a little lost.
>> I have not had a chance to read John Shotter's piece that Larry sent and
>> wants to discuss. I am assuming they are part of the same discussion.Is
>> that supposition correct?
>> 
>> I am a little confused. What is at issue here?
>> 
>> Help gratefully accepted.
>> mike
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:03 AM, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> I don't think the only alternative to universals is a different form
>>> of individualized, acontextual inferencing. There's no effort to
>>> understand how the "subjects" from tribal societies came to form their
>>> responses. I don't see the lab as having any potential for a
>>> cultural-historical approach.
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
>>> xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Martin
>>> xmca-l-bounces+John
>>> Packer
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 7:17 PM
>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: What Faces Can't Tell Us
>>> 
>>> On Mar 2, 2014, at 1:55 PM, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@UGA.EDU> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> If faces do not "speak for themselves," how do we manage to "read"
>>>> other
>>> people? The answer is that we don't passively recognize emotions but
>>> actively perceive them, drawing heavily (if unwittingly) on a wide
>>> variety of contextual clues -- a body position, a hand gesture, a
>>> vocalization, the social setting and so on.
>>> 
>>> Peter, can you say more about why this bothered you? Yes, it's
>>> laboratory research, but personally I find these conclusions more
>>> convincing than the notion that there is a universal code of facial
>> muscle movements.
>>> 
>>> Martin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson