[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: Martin John Packer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 00:42:17 +0000
- Accept-language: es-CO, en-US
- In-reply-to: <CAHH++P=nziOPS4kUN_dXR6X5jjw97SJn0UiTGenQh2r1yNgRaQ@mail.gmail.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> <CAHCnM0AGbRdajpnRJUaQo1HxWdkcDjRc79rG-0c7fUaPWhYgZQ@mail.gmail.com> <09fe5d89b9264977b99784435c66fd61@CO1PR02MB175.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <CAHH++P=nziOPS4kUN_dXR6X5jjw97SJn0UiTGenQh2r1yNgRaQ@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Thread-index: AQHPONTsWqeilhEF8k6ByopK2sB/dA==
- Thread-topic: [Xmca-l] What Faces Can't Tell Us
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.
On Mar 5, 2014, at 5:11 PM, Greg Thompson <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:50 AM, Peter Smagorinsky <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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: email@example.com [mailto:
>> firstname.lastname@example.org] 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.
>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:03 AM, Peter Smagorinsky <email@example.com> 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: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:
>>> email@example.com] On Behalf Of Martin
>>> 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"
>>> 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.
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602