[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Generalization Is Not Abstraction Again
Hi, Martin
I guess that I was trying to underscore Ekman's contribution, which I believe it's a significant one. The issue, probably not explicitly referred by Ekman himself, is that he makes all kinds of "semantic" assumptions at the onset of his analyses (e.g., inconsistency is an indication of lying), and that's where, I believe, the syntactic approach simply fails, however suggesting in and of itself. But still, his contribution to the field is not to be measured by what he lefts unanalyzed, but what he brings to the discussion.
Jorge
Jorge Larreamendy-Joerns, Ph.D.
Profesor Asociado y Director
Departamento de Psicología
Universidad de los Andes
On Jul 7, 2010, at 8:33 PM, Martin Packer wrote:
> Hi Jorge,
>
> I think that's what I was trying to say - that Ekman studies the syntax, but ignores the semantics and pragmatics. Aren't they crucial? The idea that one can identify whether someone is lying on the basis only of their muscle movements troubles me, but perhaps it can be done. Even if it can, understanding to what end they are lying, their motivation, etc requires other evidence. But perhaps that is going beyond emotion into the personality as a whole.
>
> Martin
>
> On Jul 7, 2010, at 6:53 PM, Jorge Fernando Larreamendy Joerns wrote:
>
>> Hi, all,
>> My contribution may not keep with the pace of the thread, but I'd like to react to something that Martin said:
>>
>>> Ekman sees these movements as innate and universal. It's fascinating work, I just don't think it's the whole story, by a long way. It's rather like saying that by examining the movements of lips, tongue and glottis I can identify each of the words of English (or perhaps all languages if you want to be universal). Unfortunately this tells me nothing about the semantics or pragmatics of speech.
>>
>> I agree that Ekman's work is fascinating. And it is, among other things, because it taps, not into the semantics of emotions, but into their syntax, if I may use the expression. That is, into the patterned way in which or through which (I'm not sure) basic emotions are expressed or rather embodied. I don't think Ekman has ever shoot for an explanation of pragmatics, and not certainly for an account of the distinct languages of emotion (and that's one limitation, certainly). But I don't think Martin's analogy to language acknowledges the specificity of Ekman's work or at least pretended research goals. I can't imagine him asserting that from the lips movements you can derive a fully fleshed semantics of language or for that matter of emotions.
>>
>> Jorge
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jorge Larreamendy-Joerns, Ph.D.
>> Profesor Asociado y Director
>> Departamento de Psicología
>> Universidad de los Andes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 7, 2010, at 6:09 PM, Steve Gabosch wrote:
>>
>>>> Ekman sees these movements as innate and universal. It's fascinating work, I just don't think it's the whole story, by a long way. It's rather like saying that by examining the movements of lips, tongue and glottis I can identify each of the words of English (or perhaps all languages if you want to be universal). Unfortunately this tells me nothing about the semantics or pragmatics of speech.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca