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

[Peter Smagorinsky]

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
>
>
>
>