[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: What Faces Can't Tell Us
- To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: What Faces Can't Tell Us
- From: mike cole <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 18:00:39 -0800
- In-reply-to: <e411f7967a7944a9b8ee4d2838ca0afc@CO1PR02MB175.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
- List-archive: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l.mailman.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <74bd632fccc548df951359b473c97448@CO1PR02MB175.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <EB558F6D-A0FB-4BA4-91B8-04FA17DB0733@uniandes.edu.co> <e411f7967a7944a9b8ee4d2838ca0afc@CO1PR02MB175.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
- Reply-to: <email@example.com>, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: <email@example.com>
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.
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:03 AM, Peter Smagorinsky <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:
> firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Martin John
> 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.