Malcolm Gladwell's piece in the August 5 New Yorker examines the science (and hermeneutics) of reading faces; the scholars and intuitive geniuses who are able to tell a liar from a truth-teller, a threat from a harmless goof. The face has been mapped - each muscle and gesture sorted into a subtle dichotomy, a lexicon for cop, scientist, judge, lover.
"The two men, protégé and mentor, sat at the back of the room, as faces flickered across the screen. Ekman had told Tomkins nothing about the tribes involved; all identifying context had been edited out. Tomkins looked on intently, peering through his glasses. At the end, he went up to the screen and pointed to the faces of the South Fore. "These are a sweet, gentle people, very indulgent, very peaceful," he said. Then he pointed to the faces of the Kukukuku. "This other group is violent, and there is lots of evidence to suggest homosexuality." Even today, a third of a century later, Ekman cannot get over what Tomkins did. "My God! I vividly remember saying, "Silvan, how on earth are you doing that?"""
This is a fascinating article - reminiscent of some of Oliver Sacks' anthropological psychology. The technique apparently works on monkeys, too.
(Call this an experiment in the "it's okay to be unfunny" 9622. (Via the always-inspiring Morning News.)
Posted by Marquis at August 13, 2002 11:17 AMI'm gonna read that whole article.
(Can you tell that I'm lying?)
Posted by: ColdChef on August 13, 2002 11:56 AMWell, consider the experiment "failed".
Thanks for playing, folks!
Posted by: Marquis on August 13, 2002 11:59 AMI'm lying about lying. I'm about halfway trough. Good read. Gimme a bit to process all of this.
Posted by: ColdChef on August 13, 2002 12:04 PMThat was absolutely fascinating to me, as it confirms a lot of what my father showed me as a teenager when he taught me how not to play poker. He sat me down at the kitchen table, gave me a hundred dollars' worth of chips to his ten, and then proceeded to wipe me out in about a half-hour. While I could never figure out when he was bluffing, he always knew when I was. It was a powerful lesson in paying attention to other peoples' expressions, and it also put me off ever playing cards for money, which I think was his point.
Posted by: Crash on August 13, 2002 12:09 PMActually, Marquis, I read the whole article in print. I have a son with severe autism, and he's rarely interactive with people. He doesn't communicate verbally, yet I've always had a pretty good idea of what's "on his mind." I had always called it instinct, but this article gives a lot better theory for it. And his facial cues are the same as someone who would have "learned" them from watching others - which I know he didn't.
Posted by: tizzie on August 13, 2002 12:10 PMI really like the idea that these two guys got paid to sit across from each other and make faces.
"So, what did you do at work today, honey?"
*Smiles, frowns, makes "oooh, what stinks" face*
I take it back:
On the few occasions when they couldn't make a particular movement, they went next door to the U.C.S.F. anatomy department, where a surgeon they knew would stick them with a needle and electrically stimulate the recalcitrant muscle.
*hands coldchef a trough to drink from*
I really don't want to pull the self-promotion thing, but it's in the interest of lending some encouragement to Ryan (dogmatic).
Posted by: adampsyche on August 13, 2002 12:17 PM"I knew someone who was on his communications staff. So I contacted him. I said, 'Look, Clinton's got this way of rolling his eyes along with a certain expression, and what it conveys is "I'm a bad boy." I don't think it's a good thing. I could teach him how not to do that in two to three hours.' And he said, 'Well, we can't take the risk that he's known to be seeing an expert on lying.' I think it's a great tragedy, because . . ." Ekman's voice trailed off. It was clear that he rather liked Clinton, and that he wanted Clinton's trademark expression to have been no more than a meaningless facial tic. Ekman shrugged. "Unfortunately, I guess, he needed to get caught—and he got caught."
OMG! I now know what I want to do for a living.
Silvan Tomkins once began a lecture by bellowing, "The face is like the penis!" and this is what he meant—that the face has, to a large extent, a mind of its own.
This just gets better and better.
marquis, this is awesome! i was just thinking of this on saturday. i caught a bit of the winslow boy on tv (it's a great movie, especially when you think of david mamet writing a g-rated movie) and there's this part where jeremy northam's character is grilling ronald winslow and it made me think of this. people who are gifted in the art of reading people's expressions.
also, i went to a workshop on elba emoting last year that deals with a lot of the research in this article. it's a type of acting technique where you work outside in. you move different muscles to bring on different emotions. we just did a little bit (you have to do an extensive amount to really get into it) and it was pretty amazing. they also teach you physical things to do to get out of it. because of course by making yourself cry, you can get into an emotional state that may be hard to come out of.
anyway, it's all really fascinating. but just as there are people who are gifted at reading, there are also people who are gifted at giving you the wrong information. i mean someone who has studied this is probably a pretty convincing liar.
Posted by: witchstone on August 13, 2002 12:32 PM*Phew!* For a second there, I was worried that the crowd was going to be chortling at me behind their hands, deriding me for this post in a way that I would not be able to identify, barring a systematized apprenticeship as Face Investigator. In short, I take back the "RESULTS: FAILURE!" from earlier, and instead give a giddy, knee-bending "yeah yeah yeah, it's cool, innit!?"
In high-school, I did a science fair project on facial recognition. I prepared twenty clippings from National Geographic photos - the area of peoples' faces, just around the eyes.
[ . . ]
Then I asked people to try to identify the gender of the person photographed, even though there are very few sexual markers in that part of the body, biologically speaking. Although the sample size was woefully small, with the exception of photos of elderly people, my results showed that people could differentiate gender with more-than-random accuracy. Eureka! Call the judges! Give this man some awards!
I won a Nobel prize.
Posted by: Marquis on August 13, 2002 12:47 PMHey, good link, Mark - ee. Me like.
I remember being in college (really!) and looking at pictures of these babies showing distinct facial expressions at like 6 months old or something. The one for surprise looked really funny.
Posted by: adampsyche on August 13, 2002 12:56 PM*claps hands wildly*
Brrrilliant!
*Contracts muscles that raise the cheek (orbicularis oculi, pars orbitalis) in combination with the zygomatic major, which pulls up the corners of the lips.*
Posted by: readymade
on
August 13, 2002 02:39 PM
Wow. I just finished the first article. (I took an hour off for lunch. I'm not a remedial reader.)
Now I really, really want to learn FACS.
Posted by: ColdChef on August 13, 2002 02:55 PMOkay, now to add a bit of silly to this thread:
What's it like when all these FACS people get together and play poker? "You're bluffing Bill." "Well no shit, Tom."
I don't know if you could see by the expression on my face, but I really wasn't being sarcastic up there. I found the article fascinating, especially since I studied anthropology in college.
ColdChef, you're all wound up! You've made 11 of the last 20 comments....I think if I could read the expression on your face, it might be, "hmmm.. .too late to go back to school?" Or possibly, "how can I use this to my own nefarious ends? Mwahahahaha"
Posted by: readymade on
August 13, 2002 03:31 PM
Also, I'm fighting the urge to post this verbatim at MetaFilter. (except for the last part)
Marquis, I give you one hour, then I claim it for the blue.
Posted by: ColdChef on August 13, 2002 03:36 PMOkay, I wouldn't do that. But you should Marquis. 's good stuff.
Posted by: ColdChef on August 13, 2002 03:37 PMI agree that it's blue material. It's nice that 9622 trumped Big Blue in a challenging, thought-provoking piece. I have to admit, I've been overwhelmed with the number of posts there lately, and underwhelmed with the content.
sigh.
Posted by: readymade on
August 13, 2002 03:45 PM
I agree, this should be posted. Excellent article. Worth it for the Clinton hand-in-the-cookie-jar anecdote alone. If you could see my face, I'm smiling that smile that can't be faked.
Posted by: pardonyou? Jeff on August 13, 2002 03:47 PMit's rosecranz's find
that quick, adept mind
he of morning and the
and, um, news.
but if you do feel the need to take
it out to the blue
, my friends,
feel free
...
but
'twas a gift
from 'quis to poo
from lil' me to big ole' you,
and i'll not sully my low low ratioo.
If you wanna learn how to do FACS... which i agree is really cool... here's a site with the first 5 chapters from the FACS guidebook that i found while browsing... unfortunately it doesn't have the whle thing but hey they gotta have somthing to sell after 7 years of making faces so i can see that... link there
Posted by: mohawk on August 17, 2002 11:42 PMA note about posting images:
We encourage users to post images, especially those hilarous pics of monkeys
wearing dresses or programming for Linux. But posting images that reside on someone
else's server is considered by many to be bandwidth theft. Our thoughts
on the matter, along with some solutions to the problem, can be found
here. Thanks.
In an effort to help eliminate spam (and to preserve the sanity of the 9622 Volunteer Simian Spam-Cop Brigade) all threads older than 30 days will now be closed to comments.